Assessing functional diversity in the field – methodology matters!

Authors

  • Sandra Lavorel,

    Corresponding author
    1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    2. Station Alpine Joseph Fourier, CNRS UMS 2975, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Karl Grigulis,

    1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    2. Station Alpine Joseph Fourier, CNRS UMS 2975, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Sue McIntyre,

    1. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, PO Box 284, Canberra, ACT 2604, Australia;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Nick S. G. Williams,

    1. Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, Australia;
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Present address. School of Resource Management, The University of Melbourne, Burnley Campus, 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond, Vic. 3121, Australia.

  • Denys Garden,

    Search for more papers by this author
    • Present address. 11 Allport Street, Downer, ACT 2602, Australia.

  • Josh Dorrough,

    1. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, PO Box 284, Canberra, ACT 2604, Australia;
    2. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Victoria 3084, Australia; and
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Sandra Berman,

    1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    2. Station Alpine Joseph Fourier, CNRS UMS 2975, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Fabien Quétier,

    1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    2. Station Alpine Joseph Fourier, CNRS UMS 2975, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    Search for more papers by this author
    • §

      Present address. IMBIV, Casilla de correo 495, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina.

  • Aurélie Thébault,

    1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    2. Station Alpine Joseph Fourier, CNRS UMS 2975, Université Joseph Fourier, BP53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France;
    Search for more papers by this author
    • Present address. EPFL ENAC ISTE ECOS, Laboratoire des systèmes écologiques, GR B2 376, Station 2, CH – 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.

  • Anne Bonis

    1. UMR-CNRS 6553 ‘ECOBIO’ Université Rennes I, Campus de Beaulieu, 35042 Rennes Cedex, France
    Search for more papers by this author

*Correspondence author. E-mail: sandra.lavorel@ujf-grenoble.fr

Summary

  • 1Interpreting the functional diversity of vegetation is important in unravelling the relationship between environmental change, community composition and ecosystem processes. Functional diversity is the range and distribution of functional trait values in a community. It can be described, among other indicators, by community-level weighted means of trait values (CWM) and functional divergence. Standard methods exist for trait measurements but not for assessments of CWM and functional divergence in the field. No research has addressed the effects of different methods of estimating relative abundances, nor the need to estimate traits at individual, population or species level, or whether methods could be used that bypass taxonomy all together.
  • 2This study reviews and evaluates plot-level assessment methods of functional diversity in herbaceous vegetation. We asked: (i) Should the objective of the study influence the method for estimating relative abundance? (ii) What are the strengths and limitations of intensive vs. ‘rapid’ approaches, and when should either be applied? (iii) Are taxon-free methods robust in comparison to taxon-explicit methods of trait measurement? Under what circumstances might they be applied?
  • 3Our review of published studies that have measured functional diversity in the field showed that the choice of metric has not generally taken into account the link between the metric and the functions of interest, and that vegetation cover has been most widely used, regardless of study purpose.
  • 4We compared quantitatively in subalpine grasslands three methods for quantification of species abundances plus one taxon-free method. We found that: (i) data base trait values were robust across years for a diverse set of dominant species; (ii) CWM have little sensitivity to method for estimating relative abundances; this sensitivity also depends on traits, for example, seed mass results were less stable than leaf traits and heights; (iii) robust estimates of CWM were obtained from visual estimates of species ranks and biomass using a dry-weight ranking method (BOTANAL), whereas functional divergence was more sensitive to method; and (iv) the taxon-free method should be treated with more caution and performed particularly poorly for estimates of functional divergence.
  • 5We conclude that methodology can affect estimates of functional diversity. Although care should be taken in the choice of method and interpretation of results, rapid methods often offer promising avenues for sampling larger areas and/or repeated measures.

Ancillary