Functional trait‐based approaches as a common framework for aquatic ecologists

Séverine Martini,Lee Karp‐Boss,Lucie Bittner,Frédéric Maps,Philippe Archambault,Lise Bacouillard,Aurélien Boyé,Nicole Aberle,Meike Vogt,Martin Laviale,Floriane Larras,Emmanuel Castella,Emile Faure,Olivier Gauthier,Philippe Usseglio‐Polatera,Fabien Lombard,Sakina‐Dorothée Ayata,Lars Stemmann,Beatrix E Beisner ,Éric Thiébaut ,Michaël Danger

doi:10.1002/lno.11655

Abstract

AbstractAquatic ecologists face challenges in identifying the general rules of the functioning of ecosystems. A common framework, including freshwater, marine, benthic, and pelagic ecologists, is needed to bridge communication gaps and foster knowledge sharing. This framework should transcend local specificities and taxonomy in order to provide a common ground and shareable tools to address common scientific challenges. Here, we advocate the use of functional trait‐based approaches (FTBAs) for aquatic ecologists and propose concrete paths to go forward. Firstly, we propose to unify existing definitions in FTBAs to adopt a common language. Secondly, we list the numerous databases referencing functional traits for aquatic organisms. Thirdly, we present a synthesis on traditional as well as recent promising methods for the study of aquatic functional traits, including imaging and genomics. Finally, we conclude with a highlight on scientific challenges and promising venues for which FTBAs should foster opportunities for future research. By offering practical tools, our framework provides a clear path forward to the adoption of trait‐based approaches in aquatic ecology.

Highlights

functional trait-based approaches (FTBAs) should foster opportunities for future research
In both freshwater and marine environments, and for both pelagic and benthic habitats, the crucial questions remain the same (Heino et al 2015): (1) What are the processes that control the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems? (2) What ecological patterns emerge at various spatio-temporal scales, and what are their key drivers? (3) How will aquatic organisms respond to increasing anthropogenic pressures? Some efforts have been made to integrate aquatic ecology for planktonic (Margalef 1978; Hecky and Kilham 1988; Leibold and Norberg 2004; Litchman and Klausmeier 2008) and benthic (Mermillod-Blondin and Rosenberg 2006) studies
The main goal of FTBAs is to improve our understanding of the links between community structure, ecosystem function and ecosystem service provision

Summary

Introduction

FTBAs should foster opportunities for future research. By offering practical tools, our framework provides a clear path forward to the adoption of trait-based approaches in aquatic ecology. Ecology seeks to understand interactions between organisms and the environment, as well as to identify general rules that elucidate the functioning of ecosystems, to improve our ability to predict ecosystem changes (Loreau 2010) In both freshwater and marine environments, and for both pelagic and benthic habitats, the crucial questions remain the same (Heino et al 2015): (1) What are the processes that control the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems? Trait-based approaches, defined in ecological research as any method that focuses on individual properties of organisms (so-called traits) rather than species, could provide this common framework (McGill et al 2006; Kremer et al 2017) These approaches emerged from terrestrial ecology when attributes at the individual level, initially used to describe ecosystem function based on elements common to multiple species, were considered to gather individuals into functional groups (i.e., “plant functional types”) based on their physical, phylogenetic, and phenological characteristics, rather than on their taxonomy (e.g., species). Through the study of functional diversity and functional traits, these approaches allow for the quantitative assessment of community or ecosystem resistance or resilience to changes through functional redundancy (Lavorel and Garnier 2002; McGill et al 2006) which could potentially enhance generality and predictability in future projections of ecosystem function and service provision than the species-centered or taxonomic approaches (Levine 2016)

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion