Multiple Dimensions of Functional Traits in Subtropical Montane Mosses
Arturo Sánchez-González
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on manuscript: Multiple dimensions of function traits in subtropical montane bryophytes (forests-2859146)
The manuscript entitled Multiple dimensions of function traits in subtropical montane bryophytes examined the functional traits of montane bryophytes related to photosynthesis, nutrients, water retention, and architecture, and their environmental drivers. This manuscript would be of some interest to the audience of Forests. However, some drawbacks make the article cannot be published in this case. However, there are some defects that make the article cannot be published in this case.
The major important issue is that, the sampling method was not very clear in the present manuscript. I cannot figure out whether the habitats' environment varied much in the study region. In addition, the authors used the distance from water resources to indicate the strength of water availability, I don’t agree with this, instead, the rainfall and evapotranspiration are more related to water availability in the montane area. The other comments are as follows:
Introduction:
Line 38: “plants” should be “bryophytes”?
Line 50: revise “decoupled”.
Methods:
Line 80-82: the unit should be hm2. About the longitude range of Chebaling National Nature Reserve, is it necessary to show the 46″? since the other ranges are only to minute.
Line 86-89: What are the patches, how were they sampled, how many patches sampled, and were the habitats’ environment recorded based on the patches? Please clarify clearly in the Methods.
Line 92: What are the underlying substrates? Please provide the information.
Line 116: The full name of SMA should be given at the first occurrence.
Line 133-134: the citation format (Song et al. 2015) should be corrected according to the journal request, and listed in the References.
Results
Figure 2：The abbreviations in the Figure should be explained the caption. How did you calculate the average total cover of lichen and bryophytes, since the data were derived from two heights and orientations, it should be better presented in a figure, e.g. In the column of Models in Table 2, it should be “Mixed (Species)”. Also, the meaning of * should be given.
Line 232: I don’t think the traits including LL, CW, CL, and L/W are all belonging to leaf length, please check and revise.
Author Response
Comment 1 :The major important issue is that, the sampling method was not very clear in the present manuscript. I cannot figure out whether the habitats' environment varied much in the study region. In addition, the authors used the distance from water resources to indicate the strength of water availability, I don’t agree with this, instead, the rainfall and evapotranspiration are more related to water availability in the montane area.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Now, we have corrected the manuscript to clarify our methods clearly as follows: “We selected 11 prominent species as objective species in the two regions, though only 7 of these species were present in both regions (refer to Table 1). Moss patches that form monospecific layers of our objective species were selected to collect samples for trait analysis. A total of 53 distinct moss patches in the two regions that were selected (with 3-5 replicates for each studied species), ensuring a minimum distance of 20 meters between each. To provide comprehensive documentation, we carefully recorded the environmental conditions of each patch, including its latitude, longitude, elevation, substrate, slope, and canopy density. To determine canopy density, we captured an image of all vascular plant cover above the moss surface using a smartphone camera and a wide-angle lens. The canopy density was then calculated from the captured image using ImageJ, an image analysis software. Furthermore, we developed a scoring system to assess the water availability in microhabitats based on the distance between the patch's shade and its water source. The scoring system assigns a score of 1 if there is no significant water source within 2 meters of the patch and a canopy shade of less than or equal to 0.3. A score of 2 indicates no significant water source within 2 m but with a canopy shade greater than 0.3. A score of 3 indicates a significant water source within 2 meters of the patch, directly influenced by water. The higher the score, the stronger the water availability”.
Additionally, in the evaluation of water availability in mountainous regions, rainfall, and evapotranspiration are commonly used techniques, but they are better suited for larger-scale habitats. In the present study, we are interested in both the difference in traits between regions due to climate variation and between habitats due to the effects of microclimate. Mosses, with their small stature and simple structure, rely much on water sources within their microhabitat, such as streams and running water on rock faces. To determine water availability for mosses, we measured the patch's shade and the distance between the patch and the water source in our study. We found this is suitable for determining the water available for mosses, though it is just a rough evaluation.
The other comments are as follows:
Introduction:
Comment 2: Line 38: “plants” should be “bryophytes”?
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. While our study focuses solely on mosses, it's worth noting that mosses are regarded as the most primitive higher plants. As a result, our research can offer useful insights into how higher plants adapt to environmental changes. Given this, we believe that using the term "plants" instead of "bryophytes" is more suitable.
Comment 3: Line 50: revise “decoupled”.
Response: As suggested, the “decoupled” was corrected to “decoupling”, seen in line 53 of the revised manuscript.
Methods:
Comment 4: Line 80-82: the unit should be hm2. About the longitude range of Chebaling National Nature Reserve, is it necessary to show the 46″? since the other ranges are only to minute.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in lines 85-86 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 5: Line 86-89: What are the patches, how were they sampled, how many patches sampled, and were the habitats’ environment recorded based on the patches? Please clarify clearly in the Methods.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have corrected the manuscript as follows: “We selected 11 prominent species as objective species in the two regions, though only 7 of these species were present in both regions (refer to Table 1). Moss patches that form monospecific layers of our objective species were selected to collect samples for trait analysis. A total of 53 distinct moss patches in the two regions that were selected (with 3-5 replicates for each studied species), ensuring a minimum distance of 20 meters between each. To provide comprehensive documentation, we carefully recorded the environmental conditions of each patch, including its latitude, longitude, elevation, substrate, slope, and canopy density. To determine canopy density, we captured an image of all vascular plant cover above the moss surface using a smartphone camera and a wide-angle lens. The canopy density was then calculated from the captured image using ImageJ, an image analysis software. Furthermore, we developed a scoring system to assess the water availability in microhabitats based on the distance between the patch's shade and its water source. The scoring system assigns a score of 1 if there is no significant water source within 2 meters of the patch and a canopy shade of less than or equal to 0.3. A score of 2 indicates no significant water source within 2 m but with a canopy shade greater than 0.3. A score of 3 indicates a significant water source within 2 meters of the patch, directly influenced by water. The higher the score, the stronger the water availability”
Comment 6: Line 92: What are the underlying substrates? Please provide the information.
Response: As per your suggestion, we have now added the information to the new version of Table 1.
Comment 7: Line 116: The full name of SMA should be given at the first occurrence.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 129 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 8: Line 133-134: the citation format (Song et al. 2015) should be corrected according to the journal request, and listed in the References.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 146 and reference 18 of the revised manuscript.
Results
Comment 9: Figure 2：The abbreviations in the Figure should be explained the caption.
Response: As per your suggestion, we have added the explanation of CBL (Chebaling National Nature Reserve) and GS (Guanshan National Nature Reserve) in the revised manuscript. Other abbreviations can be seen in Table 2 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 10: How did you calculate the average total cover of lichen and bryophytes, since the data were derived from two heights and orientations, it should be better presented in a figure, e.g.
Response: We are unable to comprehend your suggestion. Our study did not cover the total coverage of lichen and bryophytes.
Commnet 11:In the column of Models in Table 2, it should be “Mixed (Species)”. Also, the meaning of * should be given.
Response: Done accordingly, seen in Table 3 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 12: Line 232: I don’t think the traits including LL, CW, CL, and L/W are all belonging to leaf length, please check and revise.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Leaf length (LL) and Leaf length-to-width ratio (L/W) are both direct measurements of leaf size. Additionally, costa length (CL) and costa width (CW) are supporting structures of the leaf blade and, as such, are often closely associated with leaf size and structure. We have revised the manuscript, as the original phrasing was misleading. Instead of "a trade-off between leaf length," we now state "a trade-off between traits related to leaf size and structure."(Line 247 in the revised manuscript)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is very interesting and fact-rich. However I'm not satisfied with too short discussion on the comparison of two regions. The author have to expand supplementary material by adding original data separately for two stidied regions for all traits observed in 7 studied species known in both regions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI found nothing unclear in English
Author Response
Thanks for your appreciation. Now, the original data have been added as supplementary. As seen in Table S1 and Table S1.csv.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhy the authors have used three species of a single genus, the genus Plagiomnium, in their study? These three species are all very similar in appearance. It would be better to use a wider range of species from different families. As only a small selection of species was included in the studies, it is difficult to generalise the results due to the data situation.
It is recommended to check the use of the term’s mosses and bryophytes in the manuscript. Bryophytes is used in English to refer to the entire group (Bryophyta, Marchantiophyta, Anthocerotophyta), mosses only to the Bryophyta. In the manuscript, the term changes abruptly between mosses and bryophytes.
You can only find out which moss species were considered in the study in the supplement. This information belongs in the methodology chapter of the main section. In Figure 1, the names of the mosses are printed on the right, but in a font size that is far too small to be read.
In Figures S1, S2 and S2 in the supplement, the letters and numbers are far too small and indistinct, so that nothing can be recognised. In this form, the figures are of no use. The figures should either be inserted in high-resolution form. If this is not possible, they should be omitted as they do not provide any information in their current form.
The legend of Table S1 contains many spelling mistakes and should be corrected as follows: Table S1 The family, life-forms, and sampled region of the eleven moss species used in the study. CBL: Chebaling, GS: Guanshan.
There are many recent studies on the taxonomy of Hypnum. The correct name for Hypnum plumaeforme ist now Calohypnum plumiforme, see Kučera, J., O. I. Kuznetsova, A. Manukjanová & M. S. Ignatov. 2019. A phylogenetic revision of the genus Hypnum: towards completion. Taxon 68(4): 628–660.
Campylopus is now placed in Leucobryaceae, see Goffinet B, Buck WR, Shaw AJ. 2009. Morphology and classification of the Bryophyta. In: Goffinet B, Shaw AJ, editors. Bryophyte biology. 2nd ed. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 55–138.
There is a spelling mistake at Plagiomnium maximovigzii. The correct name of that species is. Plagiomnium maximoviczii. This should be adopt at all passages in the text and in the figures.
Table 1: One of the traits is the costa width. The text in the methodology should indicate where this was measured, as the width decreases from the bottom to the top of the sheet.
Line 12: change montanes to mountain ranges.
Line 24: Keywords – the two keywords bryophytes and function traits are already mentioned in the title, please choose other keywords instead.
Line 80 and 82: change hm2 to hm2.
Line 107: change CO2 to CO2.
Line 133: Song et al. 2015 seems to be not included in the references. Include it in the references and change Song et al. 2015 by the number in the reference list.
Line 145-146: cell wall thickness (CWT) is listed here by cross-sectional area of shoot. It could therefore be assumed that the cell wall thickness in the shoot cross-section is meant here. However, according to Table 1, this does not appear to be the case and the information refers to the leaf cells. This should be better expressed here.
Table 1: What is the difference between Cross axis area and Cross-sectional area? These terms mean the same thing. According to the information in the text, CAA means cross-sectional area of central strand and CSA means cross-sectional area of shoot. This should also be expressed in the table by choosing suitable terms.
Line 346: change Aarea by Aarea
Line 347: change Carea by Carea and Narea by Narea
Line 364: the author contributions are not given
Line 374: Data Availability Statement – please adopt this section
Line 380: Acknowledgement – please adopt this section
Line 383: Conflicts of Interest – please adopt this section
Author Response
Comment 1: Why the authors have used three species of a single genus, the genus Plagiomnium, in their study? These three species are all very similar in appearance. It would be better to use a wider range of species from different families. As only a small selection of species was included in the studies, it is difficult to generalise the results due to the data situation.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. To properly measure the functional traits of mosses (especially the chemical traits), we need to select dominant species with relatively big stature and biomass in each region. The inclusion of three species from a single genus was not initially intentional but rather because they were the dominant species in both regions we studied. However, we found that although the 3 plagiomnium are similar in appearance, their habitats are quite different, with P. acutum found in relatively dry and open habitats, while P. succulentum and P. maximoviczii are generally found in shaded habitats near streams. Therefore, we believe they may provide meaningful information about the relationship between microstructure/physiological traits and environments. We appreciate your suggestion to expand our selection, but it would require additional studies in more regions. Our lab is currently exploring more regions to study the regional diversity of functional traits in mosses. If you are interested in this area of research, we invite you to stay tuned for our upcoming studies.
Comment 2: It is recommended to check the use of the term’s mosses and bryophytes in the manuscript. Bryophytes is used in English to refer to the entire group (Bryophyta, Marchantiophyta, Anthocerotophyta), mosses only to the Bryophyta. In the manuscript, the term changes abruptly between mosses and bryophytes.
Response: Done accordingly. We replaced "bryophyte" with "moss" throughout the revised manuscript except for some places in the Introduction section.
Comment 3: You can only find out which moss species were considered in the study in the supplement. This information belongs in the methodology chapter of the main section. In Figure 1, the names of the mosses are printed on the right, but in a font size that is far too small to be read.
Response: As per your suggestion, we have moved table S1 to the manuscript and renamed it as "Table 1". Figure 1 was redrawn to increase the font size.
Comment 4: In Figures S1, S2 and S2 in the supplement, the letters and numbers are far too small and indistinct, so that nothing can be recognised. In this form, the figures are of no use. The figures should either be inserted in high-resolution form. If this is not possible, they should be omitted as they do not provide any information in their current form.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We wanted to let you know that we had already included high-resolution versions of Figures S1, S2, and S3 in our manuscript submission. Nonetheless, we value your feedback and will re-upload the supplemental materials with high-resolution images once more. Should you experience any difficulties viewing the high-resolution images during your review, kindly contact us through the editor. We would be delighted to furnish you with the vector images in pdf format.
Comment 5: The legend of Table S1 contains many spelling mistakes and should be corrected as follows: Table S1 The family, life-forms, and sampled region of the eleven moss species used in the study. CBL: Chebaling, GS: Guanshan.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in table 1 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 6: There are many recent studies on the taxonomy of Hypnum. The correct name for Hypnum plumaeforme ist now Calohypnum plumiforme, see Kučera, J., O. I. Kuznetsova, A. Manukjanová & M. S. Ignatov. 2019. A phylogenetic revision of the genus Hypnum: towards completion. Taxon 68(4): 628–660.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The “Hypnum plumaeforme” has been revised to “Calohypnum plumiforme” throughout the revised manuscript.
Comment 7: Campylopus is now placed in Leucobryaceae, see Goffinet B, Buck WR, Shaw AJ. 2009. Morphology and classification of the Bryophyta. In: Goffinet B, Shaw AJ, editors. Bryophyte biology. 2nd ed. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; p. 55–138.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in table 1 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 8: There is a spelling mistake at Plagiomnium maximovigzii. The correct name of that species is. Plagiomnium maximoviczii. This should be adopt at all passages in the text and in the figures.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in table 1 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 9: Table 1: One of the traits is the costa width. The text in the methodology should indicate where this was measured, as the width decreases from the bottom to the top of the sheet.
Response: As per your suggestion, we added “costa width at the widest part (CW)” in the Method section. As seen in lines 155-156.
Comment 10: Line 12: change montanes to mountain ranges.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 12.
Comment 11: Line 24: Keywords – the two keywords bryophytes and function traits are already mentioned in the title, please choose other keywords instead.
Response: As per your suggestion, we added “Bryophytes,” “adaptation,” and “trait spectra” as the new keywords and “bryophytes” in the title has been revised to “mosses”.
Comment 12: Line 80 and 82: change hm2 to hm2.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in lines 85-86 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 13: Line 107: change CO2 to CO2.
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 120 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 14: Line 133: Song et al. 2015 seems to be not included in the references. Include it in the references and change Song et al. 2015 by the number in the reference list.
Response: Done accordingly (Reference 18).
Comment 15: Line 145-146: cell wall thickness (CWT) is listed here by cross-sectional area of shoot. It could therefore be assumed that the cell wall thickness in the shoot cross-section is meant here. However, according to Table 1, this does not appear to be the case and the information refers to the leaf cells. This should be better expressed here.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now moved the location of “cross-sectional area of the central strand (CAA), cross-sectional area of the shoot (CSA)” to front “leaf area (LA), leaf length (LL), leaf width at the widest part (LW)”. This change will help to prevent any misunderstandings. As seen in lines 153-153 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 16: Table 1: What is the difference between Cross axis area and Cross-sectional area? These terms mean the same thing. According to the information in the text, CAA means cross-sectional area of central strand and CSA means cross-sectional area of shoot. This should also be expressed in the table by choosing suitable terms.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Now, we corrected them to “Cross-axis area of central strand” and “Cross-sectional area of the shoot.” As seen in Table 2 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 17: Line 346: change Aarea by Aarea
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 365 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 18: Line 347: change Carea by Carea and Narea by Narea
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 366 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 19: Line 364: the author contributions are not given
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in lines 387-393 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 20: Line 374: Data Availability Statement – please adopt this section
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in line 396 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 21: Line 380: Acknowledgement – please adopt this section
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in lines 397-399 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 22: Line 383: Conflicts of Interest – please adopt this section
Response: Done accordingly. As seen in lines 399 of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments:
- In the text there are some ideas that require clarification. Signed in the text.
- The results section includes information that should go in the discussion section
- How to estimate the density of the canopy?
- The figures 2 A, B, C y D are complex, difficult to interpret. Judging by the quantity and length of the arrows, there are many variables that are related to the main components. Multivariate analysis does not fulfill its function of summarizing, of eliminating variables related to each other, of showing any response tendency.
- There is high correlation between several of the analyzed variables, the purpose of the PCA is to eliminate noise, redundancy, but it is not used for this
- Perhaps it is more appropriate to represent the components 1 y 3 y 2 y 3 instead of including the components 3 and 4, which explain a smaller percentage of variation
- The results must be analyzed with caution, because the multivariate analysis indicates that very little of the total variation is explained by the analyzed variables. For example, in figure 2 C, lines 3 and 4 explain less than 26% of the total variation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: In the text there are some ideas that require clarification. Signed in the text.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the manuscript. We have carefully replied to each point mentioned in the uploaded PDF file and made corresponding changes to the manuscript. We have also highlighted the corrected information to make it more visible.
Comment 2: The results section includes information that should go in the discussion section
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, but we respectfully express our disagreement regarding the information presented in the result section of the PDF you provided. The sentence in question serves as a thorough summary of the paragraph and should remain in its current location rather than being relocated to the DISCUSSION section.
Comment 3: How to estimate the density of the canopy?
Response: As per your suggestion, we added the method of measuring canopy density as follows: We captured an image of all vascular plant cover above the moss surface using a smartphone camera and a wide-angle lens. The canopy density was then calculated from the captured image using ImageJ, an image analysis software. As seen in lines 97-100 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 4: The figures 2 A, B, C y D are complex, difficult to interpret. Judging by the quantity and length of the arrows, there are many variables that are related to the main components. Multivariate analysis does not fulfill its function of summarizing, of eliminating variables related to each other, of showing any response tendency. There is high correlation between several of the analyzed variables, the purpose of the PCA is to eliminate noise, redundancy, but it is not used for this.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Some researchers prefer to remove highly correlated variables before conducting principal component analysis. This simplifies the model and enhances its readability and interpretability. However, this approach may result in the loss of crucial information, especially if the correlation between variables is fundamental to the problem's understanding. Furthermore, variables with high correlation may reflect important structures or information within the data, and their exclusion may overlook critical aspects. It's important to remember that excluding variables is subjective, and different researchers may make different choices, thereby introducing personal biases and a lack of objectivity.
In plant functional trait research, a plant's functions are realized synergistically through multiple functional traits, and there are trade-offs with other functions. Therefore, a high correlation among traits is essential information that cannot be ignored. We are of the opinion that incorporating variables that exhibit strong correlations in the analysis is crucial in achieving a thorough comprehension of the trade-offs and synergies among different moss functional traits. This may pose some challenges in interpreting Principal Component Analysis (PCA) outcomes. Still, it enables us to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the interrelationships between the functional traits of mosses, ultimately leading to a more informed interpretation of the results of the analysis.
Comment 5: Perhaps it is more appropriate to represent the components 1 y 3 y 2 y 3 instead of including the components 3 and 4, which explain a smaller percentage of variation
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Despite components 3 and 4 having a lower explained variance compared to components 1 and 2, they still surpassed the 10% threshold. Additionally, when these two components are merged, their combined variance is nearly equivalent to that of component 1. Hence, we have concluded that both components 3 and 4 are valuable and will be retained.
Comment 6: The results must be analyzed with caution, because the multivariate analysis indicates that very little of the total variation is explained by the analyzed variables. For example, in figure 2 C, lines 3 and 4 explain less than 26% of the total variation.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Through our study, we should identify PC2, PC3, and PC4 as pivotal components that require special attention. While each of these components individually explains less than 26% of the variance, the combined contribution of PC3 and PC4 is comparable to that of PC1. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that the primary variations in mosses' functional traits occur across various dimensions rather than the only primary axis, as evidenced by the relatively close total variance explained by the first four principal components. However, it is imperative to conduct further research on a wider range of moss species and regions to validate our findings. As a result, we have included the following cautionary statement: "It is imperative to highlight that our findings require further scrutiny and evaluation across a broader range of moss species and regions in future research endeavors. This will enable us to validate our findings and establish a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms that drive such outcomes."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs a reviewer and because of my experience in the use of multivariate analyzes in plant communities, I do not agree with the responses of the authors of the manuscript. Likewise, the fundamentals of the use of multivariate analyzes are very clear.
Author Response
As a reviewer and because of my experience in the use of multivariate analyzes in plant communities, I do not agree with the responses of the authors of the manuscript. Likewise, the fundamentals of the use of multivariate analyzes are very clear.
Response: We are sorry to hear that you disagree with our interpretation of the results from the principal component analysis (PCA). We understand that our differing research backgrounds may have influenced our varying interpretations. While your expertise lies in plant communities, our research focuses on the functional traits of plants. In plant functional trait research, a plant's functions are realized synergistically through multiple functional traits, and there are trade-offs with other functions. Therefore, a high correlation among traits is essential information that cannot be ignored. We are of the opinion that incorporating variables that exhibit strong correlations in the analysis is crucial in achieving a thorough comprehension of the trade-offs and synergies among different moss functional traits. This may pose some challenges in interpreting Principal Component Analysis (PCA) outcomes. Still, it enables us to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the interrelationships between the functional traits of mosses, ultimately leading to a more informed interpretation of the results of the analysis.
Now, we also included a list of published articles in the following, where principal component analysis was used to study animal and plant traits. These articles utilized either highly correlated variables or analyzed more than two principal components. We hope that these references can help bridge the disagreement in interpreting the result of PCA.
Reference:
- Leite, C.E.C.; Souza, B. de K.F.; Manfio, C.E.; Wamser, G.H.; Alves, D.P.; de Francisco, A. Sweet Potato New Varieties Screening Based on Morphology, Pulp Color, Proximal Composition, and Total Dietary Fiber Content via Factor Analysis and Principal Component Analysis. Front. Plant Sci.2022, 13, 852709, doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.852709.
- Falk, A.R.; Lamsdell, J.C.; Gong, E. Principal Component Analysis of Avian Hind Limb and Foot Morphometrics and the Relationship between Ecology and Phylogeny. Paleobiology2021, 47, 314–336, doi:10.1017/pab.2020.39.
- SACK, L.; COWAN, P.D.; JAIKUMAR, N.; HOLBROOK, N.M. The ‘Hydrology’ of Leaves: Co‐ordination of Structure and Function in Temperate Woody Species. Plant Cell Environ.2003, 26, 1343–1356, doi:10.1046/j.0016-8025.2003.01058.x.
- Wang, Z.; Bader, M.Y. Associations between Shoot-Level Water Relations and Photosynthetic Responses to Water and Light in 12 Moss Species. AoB PLANTS2018, 10, doi:10.1093/aobpla/ply034.
- Van Zuijlen, K.; Klanderud, K.; Dahle, O.S.; Hasvik, Å.; Knutsen, M.S.; Olsen, S.L.; Sundsbø, S.; Asplund, J. Community-Level Functional Traits of Alpine Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens after Long-Term Experimental Warming. Arct. Sci.2022, 8, 843–857, doi:10.1139/as-2020-0007.
- Grau‐Andrés, R.; Kardol, P.; Gundale, M.J. Trait Coordination in Boreal Mosses Reveals a Bryophyte Economics Spectrum. J. Ecol.2022, 110, 2493–2506, doi:10.1111/1365-2745.13965.
