Plant functional types: are we getting any closer to the Holy Grail?

LAVOREL, SANDRA; DÍAZ, SANDRA; CORNELISSEN, JOHANNES H C; GARNIER, ERIC; HARRISON, S P; MCINTYRE, S; PAUSAS, J G; PÉREZ HARGUINDEGUY, NATALIA; URCELAY, CARLOS

Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World

Springer Verlag

Año: 2006;

Functional classifications have been seen as a necessary tool for the simplification of floristic complexity in global vegetation models (Neilson et al. 1992; Prentice et al. 1992; Foley et al. 1996; Woodward and Cramer 1996), for mapping vegetation patterns at key times in the past (Prentice and Webb 1998; Prentice et al. 2000), and for monitoring effects of global change or management on vegetation distribution and ecosystem processes (Díaz et al. 2002a; Cruz et al. 2002). Plant functional classifications were first designed by grouping plants a priori based on knowledge of their function, or based on observed correlations among their morphological, physiological, biochemical, reproductive or demographic characteristics (Woodward and Cramer 1996; Smith et al. 1997). It was assumed that these classifications would allow to predict changes in ecosystem processes directly from projected changes in plant species composition in response to global change. This idea was challenged by the recognition that functional effect groups (species with a similar effect on one or several ecosystem functions; e.g., primary productivity, nutrient cycling, Gitay and Noble 1997; Walker et al. 1999) and functional response groups (groups of species with a similar response to a particular environmental factor; e.g., resource availability, disturbance or CO2; Gitay and Noble 1997; Lavorel et al. 1997) do not necessarily coincide. Although there have been sustained efforts to refine plant functional type (PFT) concepts and terminology (Gitay and Noble 1997; Lavorel et al. 1997; Lavorel and Garnier 2002), the search for a single, functionally comprehensive yet relatively parsimonious, plant functional classification has remained an elusive Holy Grail.2; Gitay and Noble 1997; Lavorel et al. 1997) do not necessarily coincide. Although there have been sustained efforts to refine plant functional type (PFT) concepts and terminology (Gitay and Noble 1997; Lavorel et al. 1997; Lavorel and Garnier 2002), the search for a single, functionally comprehensive yet relatively parsimonious, plant functional classification has remained an elusive Holy Grail.