Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Leaf nutrients, not specific leaf area, are consistent indicators of elevated nutrient inputs

An Author Correction to this article was published on 15 May 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Leaf traits are frequently measured in ecology to provide a ‘common currency’ for predicting how anthropogenic pressures impact ecosystem function. Here, we test whether leaf traits consistently respond to experimental treatments across 27 globally distributed grassland sites across 4 continents. We find that specific leaf area (leaf area per unit mass)—a commonly measured morphological trait inferring shifts between plant growth strategies—did not respond to up to four years of soil nutrient additions. Leaf nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentrations increased in response to the addition of each respective soil nutrient. We found few significant changes in leaf traits when vertebrate herbivores were excluded in the short-term. SLA, and leaf nitrogen and potassium concentrations were positively correlated with species turnover, suggesting interspecific trait variation was a significant predictor of these traits, but not of leaf phosphorus concentration. Climatic conditions and pretreatment soil nutrient levels also accounted for significant amounts of variation in the leaf traits measured. Overall, we find that leaf morphological traits, such as specific leaf area, are not appropriate indicators of plant response to anthropogenic perturbations in grasslands.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Map showing the locations of the 27 NutNet experimental sites where leaf trait information was collected using a standardized protocol.
Fig. 2: Comparison of effect estimates.
Fig. 3: Percentage of variation explained by the random effects of block nested in site nested in species plus residual variation from the Bayesian hierarchical models fit with INLA for SLA, leaf nitrogen concentration, leaf phosphorus concentration and leaf potassium concentration.
Fig. 4: Structural equation model diagram representing connections between leaf traits, experimental nutrient addition treatments, and site-level average climatic and pretreatment edaphic conditions, as well as species turnover.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available in the Dryad Digital Repository with the identifier https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qp25093.

Change history

  • 15 May 2020

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

References

  1. Rockstrom, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ripple, W. J. et al. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400103 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of plant earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Borer, E. T. et al. Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 508, 517–520 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McIntyre, S. The role of plant leaf attributes in linking land use to ecosystem function in temperate grassy vegetation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 128, 251–258 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Funk, J. L. et al. Revisiting the Holy Grail: using plant functional traits to understand ecological processes. Biol. Rev. 1153–1176, 1–18 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shipley, B., Vile, D. & Garnier, E. From plant traits to plant communities: a statistical mechanistic approach to biodiversity. Science 314, 812–814 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Messier, J., McGill, B. J. & Lechowicz, M. J. How do traits vary across ecological scales? A case for trait-based ecology. Ecol. Lett. 13, 838–848 (2010).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lavorel, S. & Garnier, E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol. 16, 545–556 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Firn, J., Schuetz, M., Nguyen, H. & Risch, A. C. Herbivores sculpt leaf traits differently in grasslands depending on life form and land-use histories. Ecology 98, 239–252 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Suding, K. N. et al. Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 1125–1140 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wright, I. J. et al. Assessing the generality of global leaf trait relationships. New Phytol. 166, 485–496 (2005).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Westoby, M. & Wright, I. J. Land-plant ecology on the basis of functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 261–268 (2006).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Diaz, S. et al. The plant traits that drive ecosystems: evidence from three continents. J. Veg. Sci. 15, 295–304 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garnier, E. et al. Assessing the effects of land-use change on plant traits, communities and ecosystem functioning in grasslands: a standardized methodology and lessons from an application to 11 European sites. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 99, 967–985 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jarrell, W. M. & Beverly, R. B. The dilution effect in plant nutrition studies. Adv. Agron. 34, 197–224 (1981).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dwyer, J. M., Hobbs, R. J. & Mayfield, M. M. Specific leaf area response to environmental gradients through space and time. Ecology 95, 399–410 (2014).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leishman, M. R., Haslehurst, T., Ares, A. & Baruch, Z. Leaf trait relationships of native and invasive plants: community- and global-scale comparisons. New Phytol. 176, 635–643 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grace, J. B. et al. Guidelines for a graph-theoretic implementation of structural equation modeling. Ecosphere 3, 1–44 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grace, J. B. et al. Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature 529, 390–393 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Borer, E. T. et al. Finding generality in ecology: a model for globally distributed experiments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 65–73 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cornelissen, J. H. C. et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 51, 335–380 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 71, 319–392 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Peeter, P. J. Correlations between leaf structural traits and the densities of herbivorous insect guilds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 77, 43–65 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Borer, E. T., Grace, J. B., Harpole, W. S., MacDougall, A. S. & Seabloom, E. W. A decade of insights into grassland ecosystem responses to global environmental change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0118 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fay, P. A. et al. Grassland productivity limited by multiple nutrients. Nat. Plants 1, 15080 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Galloway, J. N. et al. The nitrogen cascade. Bioscience 53, 341–356 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lynch, J. P. & Brown, K. M. Topsoil foraging—an architectural adaptation of plants to low phosphorus availability. Plant Soil 237, 225–237 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Siefert, A. et al. A global meta-analysis of the relative extent of intraspecific trait variation in plant communities. Ecol. Lett. 18, 1406–1419 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Albert, C. H. et al. Intraspecific functional variability: extent, structure and sources of variation. J. Ecol. 98, 604–613 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cingolani, A. M., Posse, G. & Collantes, M. B. Plant functional traits, herbivore selectivity and response to sheep grazing in Patagonian steppe grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 50–59 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Firn, J., Prober, S. M. & Buckley, Y. M. Plastic traits of an exotic grass contribute to its abundance but are not always favourable. PLoS ONE 7, e35870 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dorrough, J., Ash, J. & McIntyre, S. Plant responses to livestock grazing frequency in an Australian temperate grassland. Ecography 27, 798–810 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Whalley, R. D. B. Grassland regeneration and reconstruction: the role of grazing animals. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 6, 3–4 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lind, E. M., Myron, E. P., Giaccai, J. & Parker, J. D. White-tailed deer alters specialist and generalist insect herbivory through plant traits. Environ. Entomol. 41, 1409–1416 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Daubenmire, R. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Sci. 33, 43–64 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Abramoff, M. D., Magalhaes, P. J. & Ram, S. J. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int. 11, 36–42 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Duodu, G. O., Goonetilleke, A., Allen, C. & Ayoko, G. Determination of refractive and volatile elements in sediment using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 898, 19–27 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. USA National Institute of Standards and Technology (Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 2017). Standard reference material 1547 peach leaves, https://www.nist.gov/?srm=1547

  43. USA National Institute of Standards and Technology (Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 2014). Standard reference material 1570a trace elements in spinach leaves, https://www.nist.gov/?srm=1547

  44. Longerich, H. P., Jackson, S. E. & Gunther, D. Laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometric transient signal data acquisition and analyte concentration calculation. J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 11, 899–904 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Paton, C. et al. Improved laser ablation U-Pb zircon geochronology through robust downhole fractionation correction. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 11, Q0AA06 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. R Development Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).

  47. Dawid, A. P. Statistical theory: the prequential approach. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 147, 278–292 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Czado, C., Gneiting, T. & Held, L. Predictive model assessment for count data. Biometrics 65, 1254–1261 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosseel, Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modelling. J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1–36 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic 2nd edn (Springer, New York, 2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted using data from the NutNet collaborative experiment, funded at the site scale by individual researchers, and coordinated through Research Coordination Network funding from NSF to E.B. and E.S. (NSF-DEB-1042132). We thank the Minnesota Supercomputer Institute for hosting project data and the Institute on the Environment for hosting the network meetings. This manuscript is an outcome of a workshop kindly supported by sDiv, the Synthesis Centre of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research Halle-Jena-Leipzig (DFG FZT 118). M.N.B. and C.N. acknowledge funding from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through principal investigator contract IF/01171/2014 and PhD fellowship SFRH/BD/88650/2012, respectively. Figures 14 and Supplementary Fig. 5 were created by Evidently So (http://evidentlyso.com.au/). The authors thank QUT’s Central Analytical Facilities (CARF), part of the Institute of Future Environment (IFE), for use of their facilities to analyse leaf nutrient concentrations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.C.R., E.H., J.F., M.Sc., S.M.P. and Y.M.B. developed and framed the research question(s). E.H., H.F., J.F. and J.M. analysed the data. A.C.R., A.M.M., C.A., E.L., E.P. K.H.M. and M.Sc. contributed to the data analysis. J.F. wrote the manuscript with contributions from all other authors. A.C.R., A.E., A.M.M., A.R.K., C.A.A., C.J.S., C.N., C.R., C.S.B., E.B., E.C., E.S., J.D.B., J.F., J.L.M., J.W., J.W.M., K.J.L.P., L.B., L.S., M.C.C., M.N.B., M.Sc., M.Sm., N.E., N.H., P.A.F., P.B.A., P.D.W., P.L.P., R.M., S.M.P., W.S.H., Y.H. and Y.M.B. are site coordinators. E.S., E.B., M.Sm. and W.S.H. are Nutrient Network coordinators.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Firn.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–5, Supplementary Tables 1–3, Supplementary Methods and Supplementary References

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Firn, J., McGree, J.M., Harvey, E. et al. Leaf nutrients, not specific leaf area, are consistent indicators of elevated nutrient inputs. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 400–406 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0790-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0790-1

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing