Alternative designs lead to similar performance when traits and performance vary on different axes
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (PREreview)
Abstract
Plants differ from one another in size, architecture, water relations, and resource uptake, and these differences often lead to differences in performance. Yet within a community species that differ markedly in these traits often have similar performance. Here we use a simple model to show that when the major axes of trait covariation do not align with the axis of performance variation, large differences among species in structural traits may have similar performance, i.e., ‘alternative designs.’ We further illustrate this phenomenon using trait and performance data from co-occurring Protea species in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Long-term coexistence of species within a community requires both similar levels of performance, so that some species are not excluded by competition, and niche differentiation, so that multiple species can coexist. Thus, misalignment between the axis of performance variation and the major axes of trait variation may be common, just as genetic variation may be maintained within a population when the selection gradient does not align with the major axes of the genetic variance-covariance matrix.
Article activity feed
-
-
This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/7274747.
This review was performed by a pre-review journal club of ecologists including grad students, post docs, and faculty. We were excited to review this paper because we are interested in functional traits and ecological theory.
Review authors: Fiona Boardman, Robin Fales, Monica Sheffer, Olivia Cattau, Zachary Bengtsson, Annie Colgan, Sanford Leake, Grace Leuchtenberger, Rachel Potter, Julia Smith, Lauren Buckley, Emily Carrington, Chuck Flaherty, Jim Kenagy
Summary
Nolting & Holsinger use data from Nolting et al. 2021 to compare variability among Protea species in terms of multivariate structure traits and performance indicators. They find that while species can differ greatly in their …
This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/7274747.
This review was performed by a pre-review journal club of ecologists including grad students, post docs, and faculty. We were excited to review this paper because we are interested in functional traits and ecological theory.
Review authors: Fiona Boardman, Robin Fales, Monica Sheffer, Olivia Cattau, Zachary Bengtsson, Annie Colgan, Sanford Leake, Grace Leuchtenberger, Rachel Potter, Julia Smith, Lauren Buckley, Emily Carrington, Chuck Flaherty, Jim Kenagy
Summary
Nolting & Holsinger use data from Nolting et al. 2021 to compare variability among Protea species in terms of multivariate structure traits and performance indicators. They find that while species can differ greatly in their suite of multivariate structural traits, measures of performance primarily vary within species, as opposed to among species. They develop a model to demonstrate this paradox, suggesting alternative design as a solution, and apply their findings to Protea species. We do have some concerns outlined below.
Major Concerns
This paper is very reliant on the Nolting et al. 2021 paper and would therefore benefit from a concise description of how this paper builds on and differs from the 2021 paper, and offers additional novelty, early in the paper.
Although we recognize this may not be feasible, additional datasets from other taxa would be helpful in making this paradox generalizable beyond Protea especially since there are many plant trait databases available. If it is not feasible to add more data, please discuss the limitations of only using one genus.
We are confused about the general structure of the manuscript. Overall, the organization is not intuitive as a reader. We suggest separating the modeling in its own section and introducing it earlier. Figure 5 should be introduced earlier than the discussion. It is confusing to have so much packed into the "materials and methods" section, including what reads like discussion/explanation around the model. Generally, flow could be improved between sections and tying them together.
Minor Concerns
- If the target journal includes an audience beyond plant physiologists, consider adding a schematic to describe the traits visually.
- Please justify the decision not to include what is empirically known about how structural traits impact physiological performance in model development.
- We encourage the authors to consider archiving the data and code or adding to a trait database.
- Line edits:
- 85-87: statements read as a bit contradictory - maybe work to clarify these?
- 116-147: These methods could be simplified more.
- 118-119: What defines a population here, and how many species per site?
- 145-147: This information should come earlier.
- 150: Could be formatting, but is this within the methods or a new section entirely?
- 168-173: These read more like results than methods.
- 266-267 Do you mean panels B and D not C and D?
- 386-399: This part of the discussion feels more like a figure legend than the discussion, please focus more on the implication rather than figure its-self (ie: terms like coloring)
- 408: Which colors are what performance level?
- Figure 5: It would be very helpful to have a color legend in the figure instead of only in the caption.
-