Intercomparison of global foliar trait maps reveals fundamental differences and limitations of upscaling approaches

  • Benjamin Dechant*
  • , Jens Kattge
  • , Ryan Pavlick
  • , Fabian D. Schneider
  • , Francesco M. Sabatini
  • , Álvaro Moreno-Martínez
  • , Ethan E. Butler
  • , Peter M. van Bodegom
  • , Helena Vallicrosa
  • , Teja Kattenborn
  • , Coline C.F. Boonman
  • , Nima Madani
  • , Ian J. Wright
  • , Ning Dong
  • , Hannes Feilhauer
  • , Josep Peñuelas
  • , Jordi Sardans
  • , Jesús Aguirre-Gutiérrez
  • , Peter B. Reich
  • , Pedro J. Leitão
  • Jeannine Cavender-Bares, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Sandra M. Durán, Holly Croft, I. Colin Prentice, Andreas Huth, Karin Rebel, Sönke Zaehle, Irena Šímová, Sandra Díaz, Markus Reichstein, Christopher Schiller, Helge Bruelheide, Miguel Mahecha, Christian Wirth, Yadvinder Malhi, Philip A. Townsend
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Foliar traits such as specific leaf area (SLA), leaf nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) concentrations play important roles in plant economic strategies and ecosystem functioning. Various global maps of these foliar traits have been generated using statistical upscaling approaches based on in-situ trait observations. Here, we intercompare such global upscaled foliar trait maps at 0.5° spatial resolution (six maps for SLA, five for N, three for P), categorize the upscaling approaches used to generate them, and evaluate the maps with trait estimates from a global database of vegetation plots (sPlotOpen). We disentangled the contributions from different plant functional types (PFTs) to the upscaled maps and quantified the impacts of using different plot-level trait metrics on the evaluation with sPlotOpen: community weighted mean (CWM) and top-of-canopy weighted mean (TWM). We found that the global foliar trait maps of SLA and N differ drastically and fall into two groups that are almost uncorrelated (for P only maps from one group were available). The primary factor explaining the differences between these groups is the use of PFT information combined with remote sensing-derived land cover products in one group while the other group mostly relied on environmental predictors alone. The maps that used PFT and corresponding land cover information exhibit considerable similarities in spatial patterns that are strongly driven by land cover. The maps not using PFTs show a lower level of similarity and tend to be strongly driven by individual environmental variables. Upscaled maps of both groups were moderately correlated to sPlotOpen data aggregated to the grid-cell level (R = 0.2–0.6) when processing sPlotOpen in a way that is consistent with the respective trait upscaling approaches, including the plot-level trait metric (CWM or TWM) and the scaling to the grid cells with or without accounting for fractional land cover. The impact of using TWM or CWM was relevant, but considerably smaller than that of the PFT and land cover information. The maps using PFT and land cover information better reproduce the between-PFT trait differences of sPlotOpen data, while the two groups performed similarly in capturing within-PFT trait variation. Our findings highlight the importance of explicitly accounting for within-grid-cell trait variation, which has important implications for applications using existing maps and future upscaling efforts. Remote sensing information has great potential to reduce uncertainties related to scaling from in-situ observations to grid cells and the regression-based mapping steps involved in the upscaling.

Original languageEnglish
Article number114276
Number of pages19
JournalRemote Sensing of Environment
Volume311
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors

Funding

This paper is a joint effort of the working group sTRAITS kindly supported by sDiv, the Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (FZT 118, 02548816) . Support for P.T., J.C.-B. and E.B. was provided by the NSF Biology Integration Institute ASCEND (DBI 2021898) , with additional support for P.T. provided by NSF Macrosystems Biology and NEON-Enabled Science (MSB-NES) award DEB 1638720. A portion of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) . This research was also supported by the European Research Council under the ERC-SyG-2019 USMILE project (grant agreement 855187) . T.K. acknowledges funding from DFG for the project PANOPS (grant-no: 504978936) . J.A.-G. was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; NE/T011084/1) and the Oxford University John Fell Fund (10667) . I.H.M.-S. was funded by the NERC grants ShrubTundra (NE/M016323/1) and Tundra Time (NE/W006448/1) .

FundersFunder number
Deutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-Leipzig
Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research
National Science FoundationDBI 2021898
European Research Council504978936, ERC-SyG-2019, 855187
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft02548816, 504978936, FZT 118
National Aeronautics and Space Administration80NM0018D0004
MSB-NESDEB 1638720
John Fell Fund, University of Oxford10667, NE/W006448/1, NE/M016323/1
Natural Environment Research CouncilNE/T011084/1

    Keywords

    • Foliar trait
    • Global map
    • Leaf nitrogen
    • Leaf phosphorus
    • Specific leaf area
    • Upscaling

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Intercomparison of global foliar trait maps reveals fundamental differences and limitations of upscaling approaches'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this