Is analysing the nitrogen use at the plant canopy level a matter of choosing the right optimization criterion?

Optimization theory in combination with canopy modeling is potentially a powerful tool for evaluating the adaptive significance of photosynthesis-related plant traits. Yet its successful application has been hampered by a lack of agreement on the appropriate optimization criterion. Here we review how models based on different types of optimization criteria have been used to analyze traits—particularly N reallocation and leaf area indices—that determine photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency at the canopy level. By far the most commonly used approach is static-plant simple optimization (SSO). Static-plant simple optimization makes two assumptions: (1) plant traits are considered to be optimal when they maximize whole-stand daily photosynthesis, ignoring competitive interactions between individuals; (2) it assumes static plants, ignoring canopy dynamics (production and loss of leaves, and the reallocation and uptake of nitrogen) and the respiration of nonphotosynthetic tissue. Recent studies have addressed either the former problem through the application of evolutionary game theory (EGT) or the latter by applying dynamic-plant simple optimization (DSO), and have made considerable progress in our understanding of plant photosynthetic traits. However, we argue that future model studies should focus on combining these two approaches. We also point out that field observations can fit predictions from two models based on very different optimization criteria. In order to enhance our understanding of the adaptive significance of photosynthesis-related plant traits, there is thus an urgent need for experiments that test underlying optimization criteria and competing hypotheses about underlying mechanisms of optimization

How to quantify the impacts of diversification on sustainability? A review of indicators in coffee systems

Despite the potential of diversification strategies to achieve sustainability, diversified systems such as agroforestry are still not widely implemented by farmers, which indicates the need to further understand and adequately assess the impacts of diversification to inform the design of complex systems. In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review focused on agroforestry coffee systems, to assess (i) how current methods and indicators are used to quantify the impact of diversification on multiple dimensions of system sustainability, and (ii) to assess the impact of diversification through coffee agroforestry on multiple dimensions of sustainability. Our analysis was based on 215 selected papers and all the indicators identified could be classified in one of the sustainability dimensions proposed in our framework: ecosystem services (57.2%), biodiversity (35.6%), input use (4%), socio-economic sustainability (2.7%) and resilience capacity (0.5%). Despite the broad scope of the indicators, individual studies were found to often lack interdisciplinarity and a systemic view on agroecosystems. Besides, not only were there few studies that included the impacts of diversification on input use, socio-economic sustainability and resilience capacity, but specific biodiversity attributes (e.g. functional diversity, landscape diversity) and ecosystem services (e.g. soil biological quality, water regulation, pollination) were generally underreported. The impact of diversification was more positive than negative in all dimensions of sustainability, with the exception of crop productivity. Yet, diversified systems are associated with reduced costs and high yields can still be achieved in diversified systems with appropriate agricultural management (e.g. adequate number and type of shade trees). Key to reaping the benefits of diversified systems is that the diversity of elements is carefully integrated considering the impact on multiple dimensions of system sustainability. A better understanding of synergies and trade-offs remains crucial for the customized design of diverse and sustainable systems for a variety of geo-climatic conditions

Unravelling drivers of high variability of on-farm cocoa yields across environmental gradients in Ghana

CONTEXT: Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) is one of the world’s most important agricultural commodity crops with the largest share of global production concentrated in West Africa. Current on-farm yields in this region are low and are expected to decrease in response to climate change, through warming and shifts in rainfall. Interventions intended to improve yields and climate adaptation require an understanding of the main drivers of yields across farms. OBJECTIVE: In this regard, we quantified the extent to which environmental (i.e., climate and soil) conditions drive cocoa yields and how this differs for farms achieving on average low- and high mean production levels based on an unprecedented dataset of 3827 cocoa farms spanning the environmental gradients of Ghana. We further quantified the relative importance of management practices based on a subset of 134 farms for which management information was available. METHODS: We modelled on-farm annual cocoa yield as a function of environmental variables for the large dataset and cocoa yield per tree as a function of environmental and management variables for the subset farms using mixed-effects models. Differences in effects on yield between farms with low and high mean production levels were evaluated using quantile mixed-effects models. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variability in yields across farms, ranging from ~100 to >1000 kg ha−1 (mean = 554 kg ha−1). Mixed-effects models showed that the fixed effects (i.e., environmental variables) only explained 7% of the variability in yields whilst fixed and random effects together explained 80%, suggesting that farm-to-farm variation played a large role. Explained variation in cocoa yields per tree of 134 farms in the subset increased from 10% to 25% when including management variables in addition to environmental variables. In both models, climate-related factors had a larger effect on yields than edaphic factors, with radiation of the main dry season and that of the previous year having the strongest effects on on-farm- and tree yields, respectively. The quantile regression analyses showed that productivity in high-yielding farms (90th percentile) was more strongly driven by environmental factors than in low-yielding farms (10th percentile). In conclusion, agronomic management is the dominant determinant of on-farm cocoa yields in Ghana, more so than environmental conditions. Furthermore, high-yielding cocoa farms are more sensitive to environmental conditions than low-yielding ones

Inferring plant–plant interactions using remote sensing

Rapid technological advancements and increasing data availability have improved the capacity to monitor and evaluate Earth's ecology via remote sensing. However, remote sensing is notoriously ‘blind’ to fine-scale ecological processes such as interactions among plants, which encompass a central topic in ecology. Here, we discuss how remote sensing technologies can help infer plant–plant interactions and their roles in shaping plant-based systems at individual, community and landscape levels. At each of these levels, we outline the key attributes of ecosystems that emerge as a product of plant–plant interactions and could possibly be detected by remote sensing data. We review the theoretical bases, approaches and prospects of how inference of plant–plant interactions can be assessed remotely. At the individual level, we illustrate how close-range remote sensing tools can help to infer plant–plant interactions, especially in experimental settings. At the community level, we use forests to illustrate how remotely sensed community structure can be used to infer dominant interactions as a fundamental force in shaping plant communities. At the landscape level, we highlight how remotely sensed attributes of vegetation states and spatial vegetation patterns can be used to assess the role of local plant–plant interactions in shaping landscape ecological systems. Synthesis. Remote sensing extends the domain of plant ecology to broader and finer spatial scales, assisting to scale ecological patterns and search for generic rules. Robust remote sensing approaches are likely to extend our understanding of how plant–plant interactions shape ecological processes across scales—from individuals to landscapes. Combining these approaches with theories, models, experiments, data-driven approaches and data analysis algorithms will firmly embed remote sensing techniques into ecological context and open new pathways to better understand biotic interactions

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.Rest of authors: Decky Junaedi, Robert R. Junker, Eric Justes, Richard Kabzems, Jeffrey Kane, Zdenek Kaplan, Teja Kattenborn, Lyudmila Kavelenova, Elizabeth Kearsley, Anne Kempel, Tanaka Kenzo, Andrew Kerkhoff, Mohammed I. Khalil, Nicole L. Kinlock, Wilm Daniel Kissling, Kaoru Kitajima, Thomas Kitzberger, Rasmus Kjøller, Tamir Klein, Michael Kleyer, Jitka Klimešová, Joice Klipel, Brian Kloeppel, Stefan Klotz, Johannes M. H. Knops, Takashi Kohyama, Fumito Koike, Johannes Kollmann, Benjamin Komac, Kimberly Komatsu, Christian König, Nathan J. B. Kraft, Koen Kramer, Holger Kreft, Ingolf Kühn, Dushan Kumarathunge, Jonas Kuppler, Hiroko Kurokawa, Yoko Kurosawa, Shem Kuyah, Jean-Paul Laclau, Benoit Lafleur, Erik Lallai, Eric Lamb, Andrea Lamprecht, Daniel J. Larkin, Daniel Laughlin, Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Guerric le Maire, Peter C. le Roux, Elizabeth le Roux, Tali Lee, Frederic Lens, Simon L. Lewis, Barbara Lhotsky, Yuanzhi Li, Xine Li, Jeremy W. Lichstein, Mario Liebergesell, Jun Ying Lim, Yan-Shih Lin, Juan Carlos Linares, Chunjiang Liu, Daijun Liu, Udayangani Liu, Stuart Livingstone, Joan Llusià, Madelon Lohbeck, Álvaro López-García, Gabriela Lopez-Gonzalez, Zdeňka Lososová, Frédérique Louault, Balázs A. Lukács, Petr Lukeš, Yunjian Luo, Michele Lussu, Siyan Ma, Camilla Maciel Rabelo Pereira, Michelle Mack, Vincent Maire, Annikki Mäkelä, Harri Mäkinen, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado, Azim Mallik, Peter Manning, Stefano Manzoni, Zuleica Marchetti, Luca Marchino, Vinicius Marcilio-Silva, Eric Marcon, Michela Marignani, Lars Markesteijn, Adam Martin, Cristina Martínez-Garza, Jordi Martínez-Vilalta, Tereza Mašková, Kelly Mason, Norman Mason, Tara Joy Massad, Jacynthe Masse, Itay Mayrose, James McCarthy, M. Luke McCormack, Katherine McCulloh, Ian R. McFadden, Brian J. McGill, Mara Y. McPartland, Juliana S. Medeiros, Belinda Medlyn, Pierre Meerts, Zia Mehrabi, Patrick Meir, Felipe P. L. Melo, Maurizio Mencuccini, Céline Meredieu, Julie Messier, Ilona Mészáros, Juha Metsaranta, Sean T. Michaletz, Chrysanthi Michelaki, Svetlana Migalina, Ruben Milla, Jesse E. D. Miller, Vanessa Minden, Ray Ming, Karel Mokany, Angela T. Moles, Attila Molnár V, Jane Molofsky, Martin Molz, Rebecca A. Montgomery, Arnaud Monty, Lenka Moravcová, Alvaro Moreno-Martínez, Marco Moretti, Akira S. Mori, Shigeta Mori, Dave Morris, Jane Morrison, Ladislav Mucina, Sandra Mueller, Christopher D. Muir, Sandra Cristina Müller, François Munoz, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Randall W. Myster, Masahiro Nagano, Shawna Naidu, Ayyappan Narayanan, Balachandran Natesan, Luka Negoita, Andrew S. Nelson, Eike Lena Neuschulz, Jian Ni, Georg Niedrist, Jhon Nieto, Ülo Niinemets, Rachael Nolan, Henning Nottebrock, Yann Nouvellon, Alexander Novakovskiy, The Nutrient Network, Kristin Odden Nystuen, Anthony O'Grady, Kevin O'Hara, Andrew O'Reilly-Nugent, Simon Oakley, Walter Oberhuber, Toshiyuki Ohtsuka, Ricardo Oliveira, Kinga Öllerer, Mark E. Olson, Vladimir Onipchenko, Yusuke Onoda, Renske E. Onstein, Jenny C. Ordonez, Noriyuki Osada, Ivika Ostonen, Gianluigi Ottaviani, Sarah Otto, Gerhard E. Overbeck, Wim A. Ozinga, Anna T. Pahl, C. E. Timothy Paine, Robin J. Pakeman, Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou, Evgeniya Parfionova, Meelis Pärtel, Marco Patacca, Susana Paula, Juraj Paule, Harald Pauli, Juli G. Pausas, Begoña Peco, Josep Penuelas, Antonio Perea, Pablo Luis Peri, Ana Carolina Petisco-Souza, Alessandro Petraglia, Any Mary Petritan, Oliver L. Phillips, Simon Pierce, Valério D. Pillar, Jan Pisek, Alexandr Pomogaybin, Hendrik Poorter, Angelika Portsmuth, Peter Poschlod, Catherine Potvin, Devon Pounds, A. Shafer Powell, Sally A. Power, Andreas Prinzing, Giacomo Puglielli, Petr Pyšek, Valerie Raevel, Anja Rammig, Johannes Ransijn, Courtenay A. Ray, Peter B. Reich, Markus Reichstein, Douglas E. B. Reid, Maxime Réjou-Méchain, Victor Resco de Dios, Sabina Ribeiro, Sarah Richardson, Kersti Riibak, Matthias C. Rillig, Fiamma Riviera, Elisabeth M. R. Robert, Scott Roberts, Bjorn Robroek, Adam Roddy, Arthur Vinicius Rodrigues, Alistair Rogers, Emily Rollinson, Victor Rolo, Christine Römermann, Dina Ronzhina, Christiane Roscher, Julieta A. Rosell, Milena Fermina Rosenfield, Christian Rossi, David B. Roy, Samuel Royer-Tardif, Nadja Rüger, Ricardo Ruiz-Peinado, Sabine B. Rumpf, Graciela M. Rusch, Masahiro Ryo, Lawren Sack, Angela Saldaña, Beatriz Salgado-Negret, Roberto Salguero-Gomez, Ignacio Santa-Regina, Ana Carolina Santacruz-García, Joaquim Santos, Jordi Sardans, Brandon Schamp, Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Matthias Schleuning, Bernhard Schmid, Marco Schmidt, Sylvain Schmitt, Julio V. Schneider, Simon D. Schowanek, Julian Schrader, Franziska Schrodt, Bernhard Schuldt, Frank Schurr, Galia Selaya Garvizu, Marina Semchenko, Colleen Seymour, Julia C. Sfair, Joanne M. Sharpe, Christine S. Sheppard, Serge Sheremetiev, Satomi Shiodera, Bill Shipley, Tanvir Ahmed Shovon, Alrun Siebenkäs, Carlos Sierra, Vasco Silva, Mateus Silva, Tommaso Sitzia, Henrik Sjöman, Martijn Slot, Nicholas G. Smith, Darwin Sodhi, Pamela Soltis, Douglas Soltis, Ben Somers, Grégory Sonnier, Mia Vedel Sørensen, Enio Egon Sosinski Jr, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia, Alexandre F. Souza, Marko Spasojevic, Marta Gaia Sperandii, Amanda B. Stan, James Stegen, Klaus Steinbauer, Jörg G. Stephan, Frank Sterck, Dejan B. Stojanovic, Tanya Strydom, Maria Laura Suarez, Jens-Christian Svenning, Ivana Svitková, Marek Svitok, Miroslav Svoboda, Emily Swaine, Nathan Swenson, Marcelo Tabarelli, Kentaro Takagi, Ulrike Tappeiner, Rubén Tarifa, Simon Tauugourdeau, Cagatay Tavsanoglu, Mariska te Beest, Leho Tedersoo, Nelson Thiffault, Dominik Thom, Evert Thomas, Ken Thompson, Peter E. Thornton, Wilfried Thuiller, Lubomír Tichý, David Tissue, Mark G. Tjoelker, David Yue Phin Tng, Joseph Tobias, Péter Török, Tonantzin Tarin, José M. Torres-Ruiz, Béla Tóthmérész, Martina Treurnicht, Valeria Trivellone, Franck Trolliet, Volodymyr Trotsiuk, James L. Tsakalos, Ioannis Tsiripidis, Niklas Tysklind, Toru Umehara, Vladimir Usoltsev, Matthew Vadeboncoeur, Jamil Vaezi, Fernando Valladares, Jana Vamosi, Peter M. van Bodegom, Michiel van Breugel, Elisa Van Cleemput, Martine van de Weg, Stephni van der Merwe, Fons van der Plas, Masha T. van der Sande, Mark van Kleunen, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Mark Vanderwel, Kim André Vanselow, Angelica Vårhammar, Laura Varone, Maribel Yesenia Vasquez Valderrama, Kiril Vassilev, Mark Vellend, Erik J. Veneklaas, Hans Verbeeck, Kris Verheyen, Alexander Vibrans, Ima Vieira, Jaime Villacís, Cyrille Violle, Pandi Vivek, Katrin Wagner, Matthew Waldram, Anthony Waldron, Anthony P. Walker, Martyn Waller, Gabriel Walther, Han Wang, Feng Wang, Weiqi Wang, Harry Watkins, James Watkins, Ulrich Weber, James T. Weedon, Liping Wei, Patrick Weigelt, Evan Weiher, Aidan W. Wells, Camilla Wellstein, Elizabeth Wenk, Mark Westoby, Alana Westwood, Philip John White, Mark Whitten, Mathew Williams, Daniel E. Winkler, Klaus Winter, Chevonne Womack, Ian J. Wright, S. Joseph Wright, Justin Wright, Bruno X. Pinho, Fabiano Ximenes, Toshihiro Yamada, Keiko Yamaji, Ruth Yanai, Nikolay Yankov, Benjamin Yguel, Kátia Janaina Zanini, Amy E. Zanne, David Zelený, Yun-Peng Zhao, Jingming Zheng, Ji Zheng, Kasia Ziemińska, Chad R. Zirbel, Georg Zizka, Irié Casimir Zo-Bi, Gerhard Zotz, Christian Wirth.Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry; Max Planck Society; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig; International Programme of Biodiversity Science (DIVERSITAS); International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP); Future Earth; French Foundation for Biodiversity Research (FRB); GIS ‘Climat, Environnement et Société'.http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gcbhj2021Plant Production and Soil Scienc