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

This article has 730 authors, of which I have only listed the lead author and myself as a representative of University of HelsinkiPlant 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.Peer reviewe

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

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

A review of silvopastoral systems in native forests of Nothofagus antarctica in southern Patagonia, Argentina

Silvopastoral systems in Nothofagus antarctica (ñire) forest have become an economical, ecological and productive alternative in Patagonia. Southern Patagonia’s experience over the past 12 years with silvopastoral systems is reviewed. The productivity and nutritive value (crude protein content and dry matter digestibility) of the understorey grassland were dependent on the interaction of environmental (mainly soil water availability and light intensity) and management factors under the trees and in turn determined animal performance. A method developed for carrying capacity estimation at the paddock level was based on the potential aboveground net primary production, and values ranged from 85 to 2200 kg DM ha−1 year−1. Planned thinning in secondary forest stands provides wood production and also improves the undestorey DM production by increasing incoming radiation. Within a management plan, a stand’s water stress conditions as well as the use of Reineke’s stand density index are proposed to assist in determining thinning intensities. Livestock production is the main annual income of silvopastoral systems where cattle and mixed livestock production (cattle + sheep) is the main activity. Animal performance at the whole farm scale is presented by comparing traditional extensive grazing management with an adaptive silvopastoral management that included strategic separation in homogeneous areas (grass steppe, forest and riparian meadows), stocking rate adjustment to grassland net primary production and the protection of regeneration from herbivores browsing. Data from litter decomposition, nutrient cycling and carbon storage studies also are presented. Finally, aspects related to the criteria and indicators to assess ñire forest’s sustainability under silvopastoral use along with biodiversity conservation issues are presented.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; ArgentinaFil: Bahamonde, Héctor Alejandro. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Lencinas, María Vanessa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; ArgentinaFil: Gargaglione, Veronica Beatriz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Unidad Académica Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Soler Esteban, Rosina Matilde. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; ArgentinaFil: Ormaechea, Sebastián Gabriel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur; ArgentinaFil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentin

Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur

El cambio del uso del suelo y la expansión de la agricultura ha llevado a un incremento récord de los rendimientos nacionales, sin embargo, debe hacernos reflexionar acerca de cómo planificar para el futuro la actividad, pues compromete la estructura y funcionalidad de ecosistemas frágiles y pueden afectar servicios ecológicos. La degradación ambiental por sobrepastoreo constituye uno de los grandes temas a resolver a partir de un ordenamiento del uso del suelo en nuestro territorio. El Capítulo presenta las buenas prácticas de Conservación del Suelo y del Agua en Áreas de Secano de la provincia de Tierra del Fuego, describiendo las principales prácticas de manejo del suelo y del agua probadas exitosamente en los sistemas de producción agrícola y ganadera.Fil: Oliva, Gabriel Esteban. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Livraghi, Enrique. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Frers, Enrique. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Ferrante, Daniela. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Utrilla, Victor. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Rivera, Emilio H.. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Sturzenbaum, María V.. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Diaz, Boris Gastón. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Humano, Gervasio. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Ormaechea, Sebastián Gabriel. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Monelos, Lucas Humberto. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Soler Esteban, Rosina Matilde. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Gargaglione, Veronica Beatriz. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Bahamonde, Héctor Alejandro. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Lencinas, María Vanessa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; ArgentinaFil: Mattenet, Francisco Javier. Fundacion Para la Educacion la Ciencia y la Cultura.; Argentin