Several candidate size metrics explain vital rates across multiple populations throughout a widespread species' range

Abstract Individual plant size often determines the vital rates of growth, survival and reproduction. However, size can be measured in several ways (e.g. height, biomass, leaf length). There is no consensus on the best size metric for modelling vital rates in plants. Demographic datasets are expanding in geographic extent, leading to choices about how to represent size for the same species in multiple ecological contexts. If the choice of size variable varies among locations, inter‐population comparative demography increases in complexity. Here, we present a framework to perform size metric selection in large‐scale demographic studies. We highlight potential pitfalls and suggest methods applicable to diverse study organisms. We assessed the performance of five different size metrics for the perennial herb Plantago lanceolata , across 55 populations on three continents within its native and non‐native ranges, using the spatially replicated demographic dataset PlantPopNet. We compared the performance of each candidate size metric for four vital rates (growth, survival, flowering probability and reproductive output) using generalized linear mixed models. We ranked the candidate size metrics based on their overall performance (highest generalized R 2 ) and homogeneity of performance across populations (lowest total magnitude of, and variance in, population‐level error). While all size variables performed well for modelling vital rates, the number of leaves (modelled as a discrete variable, without transformation) was selected as the best size metric, followed by leaf length. We show how to interrogate potential trade‐offs between overall explanatory power and homogeneity of predictions across populations in any organism. Synthesis . Size is an important determinant of vital rates. Using a dataset of unprecedented spatial extent, we find (a) consistent size‐based models of growth, survival and reproduction across native and non‐native populations of this cosmopolitan plant species and (b) that several tested size metrics perform similarly well. This is encouraging for large‐scale demographic studies and for comparative projects using different size metrics, as they may be robust to this methodological difference.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Ecology
Published
2025-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.70148
Primary Topic
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Several candidate size metrics explain vital rates across multiple populations throughout a widespread species' range

Yvonne M. Buckley, Adrian Oprea, Deborah A. Roach, Francis Q. Brearley et al.
Journal of Ecology
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
article

Several candidate size metrics explain vital rates across multiple populations throughout a widespread species' range

Yvonne M. Buckley, Adrian Oprea, Deborah A. Roach, Francis Q. Brearley, Jennifer R. Gremer, Annabel L. Smith, Johan Ehrlén, Siri Lie Olsen, Lauchlan H. Fraser, Cheryl B. Schultz, Bénédicte Bachelot, Richard P. Duncan, Ayco J. M. Tack, Elizabeth M. Wandrag, Anna Mária Csergő, Olav Skarpaas, Mária Höhn, Christina M. Caruso, Anna Roeder, Liv Norunn Hamre, Christiane Roscher, Jane A. Catford, Melanie Morales, John M. Dwyer, Maude E. A. Baudraz, Astrid Wingler, Dylan Z. Childs, Zuzana Münzbergová, Michele Lonati, Aveliina Helm, Marjo Saastamoinen, Joachim Töpper, Aldo Compagnoni, Satu Ramula, Joslin L. Moore, Anna Bucharová, Jesús Villellas, Martin Andrzejak, Judit Bódis, Peter A. Vesk, Glenda M. Wardle, Ruth Kelly, Pil Uthaug Rasmussen, Simon P. Blomberg, Alain Finn, William K. Petry, Aoife Molloy, Rachel M. Penczykowski, Lotte Korell, Lajos Benedek, Caroline M. McKeon, Bret D. Elderd, Matthew Coghill, Ronny Groenteman, Gregory E. Vose, Sergi Munné‐Bosch, Lauri Laanisto, Marı́a B. Garcı́a, Meelis Pärtel, Anna‐Liisa Laine, Simone Ravetto Enri, R. Drew Sieg
article en

Abstract

Abstract Individual plant size often determines the vital rates of growth, survival and reproduction. However, size can be measured in several ways (e.g. height, biomass, leaf length). There is no consensus on the best size metric for modelling vital rates in plants. Demographic datasets are expanding in geographic extent, leading to choices about how to represent size for the same species in multiple ecological contexts. If the choice of size variable varies among locations, inter‐population comparative demography increases in complexity. Here, we present a framework to perform size metric selection in large‐scale demographic studies. We highlight potential pitfalls and suggest methods applicable to diverse study organisms. We assessed the performance of five different size metrics for the perennial herb Plantago lanceolata , across 55 populations on three continents within its native and non‐native ranges, using the spatially replicated demographic dataset PlantPopNet. We compared the performance of each candidate size metric for four vital rates (growth, survival, flowering probability and reproductive output) using generalized linear mixed models. We ranked the candidate size metrics based on their overall performance (highest generalized R 2 ) and homogeneity of performance across populations (lowest total magnitude of, and variance in, population‐level error). While all size variables performed well for modelling vital rates, the number of leaves (modelled as a discrete variable, without transformation) was selected as the best size metric, followed by leaf length. We show how to interrogate potential trade‐offs between overall explanatory power and homogeneity of predictions across populations in any organism. Synthesis . Size is an important determinant of vital rates. Using a dataset of unprecedented spatial extent, we find (a) consistent size‐based models of growth, survival and reproduction across native and non‐native populations of this cosmopolitan plant species and (b) that several tested size metrics perform similarly well. This is encouraging for large‐scale demographic studies and for comparative projects using different size metrics, as they may be robust to this methodological difference.

Journal of EcologyVol. 113(11)
Oklahoma State University (US), Australian National University (AU), Manchester Metropolitan University (GB), Louisiana State University (US), Magyar Agrár- és Élettudományi Egyetem (HU), The University of Sydney (AU), Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (AU), University of Helsinki (FI), Washington State University Vancouver (US), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE), North Carolina State University (US), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University (RO), University of Turku (FI), Thompson Rivers University (CA), Philipps University of Marburg (DE), Stockholm University (SE), The University of Queensland (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (NO), King's College London (GB), University of Oslo (NO), University of Canberra (AU), Universidad de Alcalá (ES), Estonian University of Life Sciences (EE), Truman State University (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Trinity College Dublin (IE), University College Cork (IE), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE), Merritt College (US), Vestlandsforsking (NO), Institute of Ecology and Botany (HU), Institute of Botany of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SK), Institute of Nature Management (BY), Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Botany (CZ), National Research Centre for the Working Environment (DK), Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (ES), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NO), Agri Food and Biosciences Institute (GB), ACT Government (AU), University of Virginia (US), University of York (GB), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO), University of Turin (IT), University of Tartu (EE), Monash University (AU), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE), Universitat de Barcelona (ES), University of Guelph (CA), University of Tübingen (DE), University of California, Davis (US), Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ), University of Sheffield (GB)
Washington State University, National Research Centre, Helsingin Yliopisto, School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Truman State University, ACT Government, University College Cork, University of Sydney, University of Melbourne, University of Canberra, Irish Research Council, Eesti Teadusagentuur, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung, Universitetet i Oslo, Norges Forskningsråd, Nature, Directorate for Biological Sciences, European Regional Development Fund, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.