I read this term in papers discussing functional diversity and phylogenetic diversity; they always mention "ecologically relevant traits". If there are ecologically relevant traits, then there should be ecologically irrelevant traits, which I could not imagine any as I always think that species traits are there as the result of their ecology. Or do I understand this term incorrectly?
Hi Sabrhina,
It is possible the papers you refer to may have been talking about ecologically relevant traits in the sense of ones that can clearly be related to aspects of ecology and life history (also called 'functional traits'). Examples would include (for plants) traits such as leaf mass per unit area or seed size (cf. the paper by Diaz et al. for how only six such traits were used to explain a 'global spectrum of plant form and function'). 'Ecologically irrelevant traits', as you put it, could be thought of as traits for which either an ecological function cannot easily or clearly be ascribed, or where the relevance of the trait to ecology and life history is indirect (i.e. manifest via one or more other traits) or is simply unknown - there are an enormous number of these (cf. for example the trait table on the TRY Plant Trait Database https://www.try-db.org/de/TabDetails.php; cf. also http://traitnet.ecoinformatics.org/traits-and-protocols). An alternative way of thinking about 'ecologically irrelevant traits' (or 'non-functional traits') is that they are neutral in an evolutionary sense, i.e. have no adaptive value. Hope this helps. Cheers, Matt
Yes, species are perfect for their natural environment :-)
Besides '"ecologically relevant traits" there is a also a term " ecologically important traits". Both are valid.
Hi Sabrhina,
It is possible the papers you refer to may have been talking about ecologically relevant traits in the sense of ones that can clearly be related to aspects of ecology and life history (also called 'functional traits'). Examples would include (for plants) traits such as leaf mass per unit area or seed size (cf. the paper by Diaz et al. for how only six such traits were used to explain a 'global spectrum of plant form and function'). 'Ecologically irrelevant traits', as you put it, could be thought of as traits for which either an ecological function cannot easily or clearly be ascribed, or where the relevance of the trait to ecology and life history is indirect (i.e. manifest via one or more other traits) or is simply unknown - there are an enormous number of these (cf. for example the trait table on the TRY Plant Trait Database https://www.try-db.org/de/TabDetails.php; cf. also http://traitnet.ecoinformatics.org/traits-and-protocols). An alternative way of thinking about 'ecologically irrelevant traits' (or 'non-functional traits') is that they are neutral in an evolutionary sense, i.e. have no adaptive value. Hope this helps. Cheers, Matt
Dear Sabhrina,
There are a lot of terms in Ecology that have only limited spectrum of using. The term discussing (ecologically relevant traits) is of this type and is using in modern genetics and evolutionary theory. So, it means traits that in total are forming the “relevant phenotypes". It can have happened under the influence of geographical factor, climatic factor, depth factor, desert, wind etc. So, these activated specific loci of chromosome with responsible genes. Phenotype can change much faster.
Andrey
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology