Complexity vs linearity: relations between functional traits in a heterotrophic protist.
Functional traits
Linearity assumption
Soft/hard traits framework
Tetrahymena thermophila
Trait relations
Journal
BMC ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2730-7182
Titre abrégé: BMC Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101775613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 01 2023
11 01 2023
Historique:
received:
09
06
2022
accepted:
26
12
2022
entrez:
11
1
2023
pubmed:
12
1
2023
medline:
14
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Functional traits are phenotypic traits that affect an organism's performance and shape ecosystem-level processes. The main challenge when using functional traits to quantify biodiversity is to choose which ones to measure since effort and money are limited. As one way of dealing with this, Hodgson et al. (Oikos 85:282, 1999) introduced the idea of two types of traits, with soft traits that are easy and quick to quantify, and hard traits that are directly linked to ecosystem functioning but difficult to measure. If a link exists between the two types of traits, then one could use soft traits as a proxy for hard traits for a quick but meaningful assessment of biodiversity. However, this framework is based on two assumptions: (1) hard and soft traits must be tightly connected to allow reliable prediction of one using the other; (2) the relationship between traits must be monotonic and linear to be detected by the most common statistical techniques (e.g. linear model, PCA). Here we addressed those two assumptions by focusing on six functional traits of the protist species Tetrahymena thermophila, which vary both in their measurement difficulty and functional meaningfulness. They were classified as: easy traits (morphological traits), intermediate traits (movement traits) and hard traits (oxygen consumption and population growth rate). We detected a high number (> 60%) of non-linear relations between the traits, which can explain the low number of significant relations found using linear models and PCA analysis. Overall, these analyses did not detect any relationship strong enough to predict one trait using another, but that does not imply there are none. Our results highlighted the need to critically assess the relations among the functional traits used as proxies and those functional traits which they aim to reflect. A thorough assessment of whether such relations exist across species and communities is a necessary next step to evaluate whether it is possible to take a shortcut in quantifying functional diversity by collecting the data on easily measurable traits.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Functional traits are phenotypic traits that affect an organism's performance and shape ecosystem-level processes. The main challenge when using functional traits to quantify biodiversity is to choose which ones to measure since effort and money are limited. As one way of dealing with this, Hodgson et al. (Oikos 85:282, 1999) introduced the idea of two types of traits, with soft traits that are easy and quick to quantify, and hard traits that are directly linked to ecosystem functioning but difficult to measure. If a link exists between the two types of traits, then one could use soft traits as a proxy for hard traits for a quick but meaningful assessment of biodiversity. However, this framework is based on two assumptions: (1) hard and soft traits must be tightly connected to allow reliable prediction of one using the other; (2) the relationship between traits must be monotonic and linear to be detected by the most common statistical techniques (e.g. linear model, PCA).
RESULTS
Here we addressed those two assumptions by focusing on six functional traits of the protist species Tetrahymena thermophila, which vary both in their measurement difficulty and functional meaningfulness. They were classified as: easy traits (morphological traits), intermediate traits (movement traits) and hard traits (oxygen consumption and population growth rate). We detected a high number (> 60%) of non-linear relations between the traits, which can explain the low number of significant relations found using linear models and PCA analysis. Overall, these analyses did not detect any relationship strong enough to predict one trait using another, but that does not imply there are none.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results highlighted the need to critically assess the relations among the functional traits used as proxies and those functional traits which they aim to reflect. A thorough assessment of whether such relations exist across species and communities is a necessary next step to evaluate whether it is possible to take a shortcut in quantifying functional diversity by collecting the data on easily measurable traits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36631737
doi: 10.1186/s12862-022-02102-w
pii: 10.1186/s12862-022-02102-w
pmc: PMC9832698
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : EvoComBac: 949208
Pays : International
Organisme : Université Catholique de Louvain
ID : ARC 10-15/31
Organisme : Université Catholique de Louvain
ID : ARC 18-23/095: DIVERCE
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15;104 Suppl 1:8649-54
pubmed: 17494741
Ecol Lett. 2012 Dec;15(12):1397-405
pubmed: 22943183
Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Apr;26(4):183-92
pubmed: 21367482
PLoS Biol. 2013;11(3):e1001518
pubmed: 23555191
Nature. 2012 Jun 06;486(7401):59-67
pubmed: 22678280
J Evol Biol. 2017 Dec;30(12):2165-2176
pubmed: 28977712
Biochem J. 1952 Nov;52(3):480-2
pubmed: 13018262
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 19;118(42):
pubmed: 34642248
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 10;8(10):e75238
pubmed: 24130692
Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Sep;24(9):505-14
pubmed: 19595476
Ecol Lett. 2006 Oct;9(10):1146-56
pubmed: 16972878
Nat Commun. 2019 Jun 11;10(1):2555
pubmed: 31186418
Curr Biol. 2014 Jan 20;24(2):R60-R61
pubmed: 24456973
J Cell Physiol. 1972 Dec;80(3):443-52
pubmed: 4630641
Oecologia. 2005 Jan;142(3):353-9
pubmed: 15655690
Curr Biol. 2005 May 10;15(9):R317-8
pubmed: 15886083
J Biol Chem. 1975 Jan 25;250(2):445-60
pubmed: 803492
Evolution. 2012 Nov;66(11):3404-16
pubmed: 23106706
BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Aug 06;7:133
pubmed: 17683620
Ecol Lett. 2022 Dec;25(12):2739-2752
pubmed: 36269686
Oecologia. 2009 Jul;160(4):807-16
pubmed: 19377897
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 May 19;371(1694):
pubmed: 27114578
Evolution. 2014 Aug;68(8):2319-30
pubmed: 24749831
Ecol Lett. 2006 Jun;9(6):741-58
pubmed: 16706917
Nature. 2006 Oct 26;443(7114):989-92
pubmed: 17066035
Ecology. 2010 Apr;91(4):1192-204
pubmed: 20462133
Glob Chang Biol. 2012 Sep;18(9):2756-70
pubmed: 24501054
J Evol Biol. 2018 Sep;31(9):1405-1412
pubmed: 29908091
Ecol Evol. 2013 Sep;3(9):2958-75
pubmed: 24101986
Science. 2006 Nov 3;314(5800):812-4
pubmed: 17023613
Exp Cell Res. 1979 Mar 1;119(1):175-80
pubmed: 761602
Ecol Evol. 2015 Jul;5(13):2584-95
pubmed: 26257872
New Phytol. 2012 Oct;196(2):606-616
pubmed: 22897332
Ecol Lett. 2012 Jul;15(7):714-22
pubmed: 22587750
J Gen Microbiol. 1965 Feb;38:221-30
pubmed: 14287200
J Anim Ecol. 2010 Jan;79(1):109-16
pubmed: 19674179
BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Oct 14;9:251
pubmed: 19828046
Trends Ecol Evol. 2018 May;33(5):326-336
pubmed: 29605086
BMC Evol Biol. 2014 May 28;14:112
pubmed: 24885485
Nat Commun. 2015 Apr 22;6:6844
pubmed: 25902302
Sci Total Environ. 2013 Apr 1;449:71-80
pubmed: 23416202
Trends Ecol Evol. 2015 Aug;30(8):487-96
pubmed: 26122484
Trends Ecol Evol. 2020 Nov;35(11):1037-1047
pubmed: 32807503
Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Apr;21(4):178-85
pubmed: 16701083
J Exp Zool. 1974 Jun;188(3):337-44
pubmed: 4209195
J Biol Chem. 1972 Aug 25;247(16):5199-209
pubmed: 4626917
Evolution. 2010 May;64(5):1290-300
pubmed: 19930455
New Phytol. 2019 May;222(3):1235-1241
pubmed: 30632169
J Anim Ecol. 2012 Sep;81(5):1065-76
pubmed: 22435774