Plant sizes and shapes above and belowground and their interactions with climate

Although the above and belowground sizes and shapes of plants strongly influence plant competition, community structure, and plant-environment interactions, plant sizes and shapes remain poorly characterized across climate regimes. We investigated relationships among shoot and root system size and climate. We assembled and analyzed, to our knowledge, the largest global database describing the maximum rooting depth, lateral spread, and shoot size of terrestrial plants - more than doubling the Root Systems of Individual Plants database to 5647 observations. Water availability and growth form greatly influence shoot size, and rooting depth is primarily influenced by temperature seasonality. Shoot size is the strongest predictor of lateral spread, with root system diameter being two times wider than shoot width on average for woody plants. Shoot size covaries strongly with rooting system size; however, the geometries of plants differ considerably across climates, with woody plants in more arid climates having shorter shoots, but deeper, narrower root systems. Additionally, estimates of the depth and lateral spread of plant root systems are likely underestimated at the global scale.

A starting guide to root ecology: strengthening ecological concepts and standardising root classification, sampling, processing and trait measurements

In the context of a recent massive increase in research on plant root functions and their impact on the environment, root ecologists currently face many important challenges to keep on generating cutting-edge, meaningful and integrated knowledge. Consideration of the below-ground components in plant and ecosystem studies has been consistently called for in recent decades, but methodology is disparate and sometimes inappropriate. This handbook, based on the collective effort of a large team of experts, will improve trait comparisons across studies and integration of information across databases by providing standardised methods and controlled vocabularies. It is meant to be used not only as starting point by students and scientists who desire working on below-ground ecosystems, but also by experts for consolidating and broadening their views on multiple aspects of root ecology. Beyond the classical compilation of measurement protocols, we have synthesised recommendations from the literature to provide key background knowledge useful for: (1) defining below-ground plant entities and giving keys for their meaningful dissection, classification and naming beyond the classical fine-root vs coarse-root approach; (2) considering the specificity of root research to produce sound laboratory and field data; (3) describing typical, but overlooked steps for studying roots (e.g. root handling, cleaning and storage); and (4) gathering metadata necessary for the interpretation of results and their reuse. Most importantly, all root traits have been introduced with some degree of ecological context that will be a foundation for understanding their ecological meaning, their typical use and uncertainties, and some methodological and conceptual perspectives for future research. Considering all of this, we urge readers not to solely extract protocol recommendations for trait measurements from this work, but to take a moment to read and reflect on the extensive information contained in this broader guide to root ecology, including sections I-VII and the many introductions to each section and root trait description. Finally, it is critical to understand that a major aim of this guide is to help break down barriers between the many subdisciplines of root ecology and ecophysiology, broaden researchers' views on the multiple aspects of root study and create favourable conditions for the inception of comprehensive experiments on the role of roots in plant and ecosystem functioning.

Drivers of radial growth and carbon isotope discrimination of bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) across continental gradients in precipitation, vapour pressure deficit and irradiance

Tree-ring characteristics are commonly used to reconstruct climate variables, but divergence from the assumption of a single biophysical control may reduce the accuracy of these reconstructions. Here, we present data from bur oaks (Quercus macrocarpa Michx.) sampled within and beyond the current species bioclimatic envelope to identify the primary environmental controls on ring-width indices (RWIs) and carbon stable isotope discrimination (Δ(13) C) in tree-ring cellulose. Variation in Δ(13) C and RWI was more strongly related to leaf-to-air vapour pressure deficit (VPD) at the centre and western edge of the range compared with the northern and wettest regions. Among regions, Δ(13) C of tree-ring cellulose was closely predicted by VPD and light responses of canopy-level Δ(13) C estimated using a model driven by eddy flux and meteorological measurements (R(2)  = 0.96, P = 0.003). RWI and Δ(13) C were positively correlated in the drier regions, while they were negatively correlated in the wettest region. The strength and direction of the correlations scaled with regional VPD or the ratio of precipitation to evapotranspiration. Therefore, the correlation strength between RWI and Δ(13) C may be used to infer past wetness or aridity from paleo wood by determining the degree to which carbon gain and growth have been more limited by moisture or light.

Spatially disjunct effects of co-occurring competition and facilitation

Little is known of the co-occurrence and implications of competitive and facilitative interactions within sites. Here we show spatially disjunct competition and facilitation at forest edges, with beneficial influences of trees on seedling growth via increased ectomycorrhizal infection apparent from 12 to 20 m while closer to trees seedling growth is negatively correlated with canopy closure. As a result, seedling growth is maximized at intermediate distances. Facilitative interactions were nonlinear: being within 15.7 m of a tree maximized seedling mycorrhizal infection; while competitive effects were correlated with canopy closure, which was related to distance and generally scales with density. These patterns result in a positive correlation of tree density and seedling growth at low densities of trees, and negative correlation at higher densities because of competition. A spatial model suggests that plant communities are a mosaic of positive and negative interactions, which may contribute to population homeostasis and plant diversity.

Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale

The depth at which plants are able to grow roots has important implications for the whole ecosystem hydrological balance, as well as for carbon and nutrient cycling. Here we summarize what we know about the maximum rooting depth of species belonging to the major terrestrial biomes. We found 290 observations of maximum rooting depth in the literature which covered 253 woody and herbaceous species. Maximum rooting depth ranged from 0.3 m for some tundra species to 68 m for Boscia albitrunca in the central Kalahari; 194 species had roots at least 2 m deep, 50 species had roots at a depth of 5 m or more, and 22 species had roots as deep as 10 m or more. The average for the globe was 4.6±0.5 m. Maximum rooting depth by biome was 2.0±0.3 m for boreal forest. 2.1±0.2 m for cropland, 9.5±2.4 m for desert, 5.2±0.8 m for sclerophyllous shrubland and forest, 3.9±0.4 m for temperate coniferous forest, 2.9±0.2 m for temperate deciduous forest, 2.6±0.2 m for temperate grassland, 3.7±0.5 m for tropical deciduous forest, 7.3±2.8 m for tropical evergreen forest, 15.0±5.4 m for tropical grassland/savanna, and 0.5±0.1 m for tundra. Grouping all the species across biomes (except croplands) by three basic functional groups: trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, the maximum rooting depth was 7.0±1.2 m for trees, 5.1±0.8 m for shrubs, and 2.6±0.1 m for herbaceous plants. These data show that deep root habits are quite common in woody and herbaceous species across most of the terrestrial biomes, far deeper than the traditional view has held up to now. This finding has important implications for a better understanding of ecosystem function and its application in developing ecosystem models.