Trait-performance relationships of grassland plant species differ between common garden and field conditions.

Abstract

The way functional traits affect growth of plant species may be highly context‐specific. We asked which combinations of trait values are advantageous under field conditions in managed grasslands as compared to conditions without competition and land‐use. In a two‐year field experiment, we recorded the performance of 93 species transplanted into German grassland communities differing in land‐use intensity and into a common garden, where species grew unaffected by land‐use under favorable conditions regarding soil, water, and space. The plants’ performance was characterized by two independent dimensions (relative growth rates (RGR) of height and leaf length vs. aboveground biomass and survival) that were differently related to the eight focal key traits in our study (leaf dry matter content (LDMC), specific leaf area (SLA), height, leaf anatomy, leaf persistence, leaf distribution, vegetative reproduction, and physical defense). We applied multivariate procrustes analyses to test for the correspondence of the optimal trait–performance relationships between field and common garden conditions. RGRs were species‐specific and species ranks of RGRs in the field, and the common garden were significantly correlated. Different traits explained the performance in the field and the common garden; for example, leaf anatomy traits explained species performance only in the field, whereas plant height was found to be only important in the common garden. The ability to reproduce vegetatively, having leaves that are summer‐persistent and with high leaf dry matter content (LDMC) were traits of major importance under both settings, albeit the magnitude of their influence differed slightly between the field and the common garden experiment. All optimal models included interactions between traits, pointing out the necessity to analyze traits in combination. The differences between field and common garden clearly demonstrate context dependency of trait‐based growth models, which results in limited transferability of favorable trait combinations between different environmental settings.