Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 418

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Does functional trait diversity predict above‐ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses

Open access
Finegan, Bryan, Peña‐Claros, Marielos, de Oliveira, Alexandre, Ascarrunz, Nataly, Bret‐Harte, M. Syndonia, Carreño‐Rocabado, Geovana, Casanoves, Fernando, Díaz, Sandra, Eguiguren Velepucha, Paul, Fernandez, Fernando, Licona, Juan Carlos, Lorenzo, Leda, Salgado Negret, Beatriz, Vaz, Marcel, Poorter, Lourens·2015·Journal of Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Tropical forests are globally important, but it is not clear whether biodiversity enhances carbon storage and sequestration in them. We tested this relationship focusing on components of functional trait biodiversity as predictors. Data are presented for three rain forests in Bolivia, Brazil and Costa Rica. Initial above‐ground biomass and biomass increments of survivors, recruits and survivors + recruits (total) were estimated for trees ≥10 cm d.b.h. in 62 and 21 1.0‐ha plots, respectively. We determined relationships of biomass increments to initial standing biomass (AGBi), biomass‐weighted community mean values (CWM) of eight functional traits and four functional trait variety indices (functional richness, functional evenness, functional diversity and functional dispersion). The forest continuum sampled ranged from ‘slow’ stands dominated by trees with tough tissues and high AGBi, to ‘fast’ stands dominated by trees with soft, nutrient‐rich leaves, lighter woods and lower AGBi. We tested whether AGBi and biomass increments were related to the CWM trait values of the dominant species in the system (the biomass ratio hypothesis), to the variety of functional trait values (the niche complementarity hypothesis), or in the case of biomass increments, simply to initial standing biomass (the green soup hypothesis). CWM s were reasonable bivariate predictors of AGBi and biomass increments, with CWM specific leaf area SLA,CWM leaf nitrogen content,CWM force to tear the leaf,CWM maximum adult height Hmax and CWM wood specific gravity the most important.AGBi was also a reasonable predictor of the three measures of biomass increment. In best‐fit multiple regression models,CWMHmax was the most important predictor of initial standing biomass AGBi. Only leaf traits were selected in the best models for biomass increment;CWM SLA was the most important predictor, with the expected positive relationship. There were no relationships of functional variety indices to biomass increments, and AGBi was the only predictor for biomass increments from recruits. Synthesis. We found no support for the niche complementarity hypothesis and support for the green soup hypothesis only for biomass increments of recruits. We have strong support for the biomass ratio hypothesis.CWMHmax is a strong driver of ecosystem biomass and carbon storage and CWM SLA, and other CWM leaf traits are especially important for biomass increments and carbon sequestration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2745.12346

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 418

Metadata

Authors
Finegan, B., Peña‐Claros, M., de Oliveira, A., Ascarrunz, N., Bret‐Harte, M. S., Carreño‐Rocabado, G., Casanoves, F., Díaz, S., Eguiguren Velepucha, P., Fernandez, F., Licona, J. C., Lorenzo, L., Salgado Negret, B., Vaz, M., & Poorter, L.
Venue
Journal of Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-02
Volume
103
Issue
1
Pages
191-201
ISSN
  • 0022-0477 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2745
OpenAlex
W2289032953
Cited by
418
References
11
FWCI
16.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does functional trait diversity predict above‐ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2745.12346
The paper
Finegan, B., Peña‐Claros, M., de Oliveira, A., Ascarrunz, N., Bret‐Harte, M. S., Carreño‐Rocabado, G., Casanoves, F., Díaz, S., Eguiguren Velepucha, P., Fernandez, F., Licona, J. C., Lorenzo, L., Salgado Negret, B., Vaz, M., & Poorter, L. (2015). Does functional trait diversity predict above‐ground biomass and productivity of tropical forests? Testing three alternative hypotheses. Journal of Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12346

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.