Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Early Access

Plant functional traits as indicators of forest management strategies and ecological resilience

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13299
Submitted
22 December 2025
Published
21-04-2026

Abstract

Forests are complex socio-ecological systems that deliver key ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, water regulation, carbon storage and timber production. Increasingly, traditional timber-focused management is giving way to ecosystem-based approaches that incorporate plant traits into forest management plans. This shift supports biodiversity conservation, improves ecosystem resilience and promotes long-term forest health. Plant functional traits such as wood density, leaf size, root depth and specific leaf area, play a key role in regulating ecosystem processes and elucidating interactions between tree species and their environment. This review summarises current evidence that trait-based frameworks improve forest management, support climate change efforts and enhance ecosystem services. A structured literature search identified studies linking functional diversity to ecosystem stability, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling and adaptability. By focusing on functional traits, this approach provides insight into how these traits influence ecosystem functions like carbon storage, nutrient recycling and habitat availability. Furthermore, practitioners can predict forest responses to climate change and other biotic and abiotic stresses by incorporating functional traits into forest management strategies, thereby fostering ecosystem services. Overall, integrating functional traits provides a robust framework for improving forest resilience, conserving biodiversity and balancing ecological health with economic goals in changing climate scenarios.

References

  1. 1. Chamberlain JL. Sustainable forest management beyond the timber-oriented status quo: transitioning to co-production of timber and non-wood forest products-a global perspective. Curr For Rep. 2020;6:26–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-019-00107-1
  2. 2. Nijnik M, Miller D. Targeting sustainable provision of forest ecosystem services with special focus on carbon sequestration. Dev Environ Sci. 2013;13:547–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-098349-3.00025-6
  3. 3. Cornelissen JH, Lavorel S, Garnier E, Díaz S, Buchmann N, Gurvich DE, et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot. 2003;51:335–80. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT02124
  4. 4. Felton A, Nilsson U, Sonesson J, Felton AM, Roberge JM, Ranius T, et al. Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio. 2016;45:124–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0749-2
  5. 5. Baskent EZ, Borges JG, Kašpar J, Tahri M. A design for addressing multiple ecosystem services in forest management planning. Forests. 2020;11:1108. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101108
  6. 6. Zhou D, Ni Y, Yu X, Lin K, Du N, Liu L, et al. Trait-based adaptability of Phragmites australis to the effects of soil water and salinity in the Yellow River Delta. Ecol Evol. 2021;11:11352–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7925
  7. 7. Chave J, Coomes D, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Swenson NG, Zanne AE. Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:351–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01285.x
  8. 8. Sterck FJ, Poorter L, Schieving F. Leaf traits determine the growth-survival trade-off across rain forest tree species. Am Nat. 2006;167:758–65. https://doi.org/10.1086/503056
  9. 9. Westoby M, Falster DS, Moles AT, Vesk PA, Wright IJ. Plant ecological strategies: some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2002;33:125–59. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150452
  10. 10. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature. 2004;428:821–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403
  11. 11. Grime JP. Plant strategies, vegetation processes and ecosystem properties. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
  12. 12. Shipley B, Vile D, Garnier E. From plant traits to vegetation structure: chances and challenges for functional plant ecology. Ecology. 2006;87:183–90. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0822
  13. 13. Poorter L, McDonald I, Alarcón A, Fichtler E, Licona JC, Peña-Claros M, et al. The importance of wood traits and hydraulic conductance for the performance and life history strategies of 42 rainforest tree species. New Phytol. 2010;185:481–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03092.x
  14. 14. Körner C. Concepts in empirical plant ecology. Plant Ecol Divers. 2018;11:405–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2018.1540021
  15. 15. Aerts R. The advantages of being evergreen. Trends Ecol Evol. 1995;10:402–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89156-9
  16. 16. Lavorel S, Garnier E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct Ecol. 2002;16:545–56. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2002.00664.x
  17. 17. Gillison AN. Plant functional types and traits at the community, ecosystem and world level. In: van der Maarel E, Franklin J, editors. Vegetation ecology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013. p. 347–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118452592.ch12
  18. 18. Perez-Harguindeguy N, Diaz S, Garnier E, Lavorel S, Poorter H, Jaureguiberry P, et al. Corrigendum to: New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust J Bot. 2016;64:715–6. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT12225_CO
  19. 19. Asner GP, Martin RE, Anderson CB, Knapp DE. Quantifying forest canopy traits: imaging spectroscopy versus field survey. Remote Sens Environ. 2015;158:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.11.011
  20. 20. Kattge J, Bönisch G, Díaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice IC, Leadley P, et al. TRY plant trait database-enhanced coverage and open access. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:119–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14904
  21. 21. Ruehr NK, Grote R, Mayr S, Arneth A. Beyond the extreme: recovery of carbon and water relations in woody plants following heat and drought stress. Tree Physiol. 2019;39:1285–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpz032
  22. 22. Lavorel S, Grigulis K, McIntyre S, Williams NS, Garden D, Dorrough J, et al. Assessing functional diversity in the field–methodology matters. Funct Ecol. 2008;22:134–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01339.x
  23. 23. Garnier E, Cortez J, Billès G, Navas ML, Roumet C, Debussche M, et al. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology. 2004;85:2630–7. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0799
  24. 24. Villéger S, Mason NW, Mouillot D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology. 2008;89:2290–301. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1206.1
  25. 25. Chave J, Andalo C, Brown S, Cairns MA, Chambers JQ, Eamus D, et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and balance in tropical forests. Oecologia. 2005;145:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0100-x
  26. 26. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, et al. Plant functional traits and ecosystem processes: a global synthesis. Ecol Lett. 2008;11:1065–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01219.x
  27. 27. Echeverría-Londoño S, Enquist BJ, Neves DM, Violle C, Boyle B, Kraft NJ, et al. Plant functional diversity and the biogeography of biomes in North and South America. Front Ecol Evol. 2018;6:219. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00219
  28. 28. Zirbel CR, Bassett T, Grman E, Brudvig LA. Plant functional traits and environmental conditions shape community assembly and ecosystem functioning during restoration. J Appl Ecol. 2017;54:1070–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12885
  29. 29. Ahrens CW, Andrew ME, Mazanec RA, Ruthrof KX, Challis A, Hardy G, et al. Plant functional traits differ in adaptability and are predicted to be differentially affected by climate change. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:232–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5890
  30. 30. Freund SM, Newingham BA, Chambers JC, Urza AK, Roundy BA, Cushman JH. Plant functional groups and species contribute to ecological resilience a decade after woodland expansion treatments. Ecosphere. 2021;12:e03325. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3325
  31. 31. Albrich K, Rammer W, Turner MG, Ratajczak Z, Braziunas KH, Hansen WD, et al. Simulating forest resilience: a review. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2020;29:2082–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13197
  32. 32. Sakschewski B, Von Bloh W, Boit A, Poorter L, Peña-Claros M, Heinke J, et al. Resilience of Amazon forests emerges from plant trait diversity. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:1032–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3109
  33. 33. Miedema Brown L, Anand M. Plant functional traits as measures of ecosystem service provision. Ecosphere. 2022;13:e3930. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3930
  34. 34. Bravo F, van Der Werf W, Tognetti R, Mazía N, Anten NP, Piazza MV, et al. Unleashing the power of plant structural and functional diversity: from common observations to theory and management models. Food Energy Secur. 2024;13:e70005. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.70005
  35. 35. Balachowski JA, Volaire FA. Implications of plant functional traits and drought survival strategies for ecological restoration. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:631–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12979
  36. 36. Cheesman AW, Preece ND, van Oosterzee P, Erskine PD, Cernusak LA. The role of topography and plant functional traits in determining tropical reforestation success. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:1029–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12980
  37. 37. Yu H, Chen Y, Zhou G, Xu Z. Coordination of leaf functional traits under climatic warming in an arid ecosystem. BMC Plant Biol. 2022;22:439. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-022-03818-z
  38. 38. Fischer FM, Wright AJ, Eisenhauer N, Ebeling A, Roscher C, Wagg C, et al. Plant species richness and functional traits affect community stability after a flood event. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371:20150276. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0276
  39. 39. Espelta JM, Cruz-Alonso V, Alfaro-Sánchez R, Hampe A, Messier C, Pino J. Functional diversity enhances tree growth and reduces herbivory damage in secondary broadleaf forests, but does not influence resilience to drought. J Appl Ecol. 2020;57:2362–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13728
  40. 40. Singh S. Low-to moderate-level forest disturbance effects on plant functional traits and associated soil microbial diversity in Western Himalaya. Front For Glob Chang. 2021;4:710658. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.710658
  41. 41. Seidler R, Bawa K. Biodiversity in logged and managed forests. In: Levin SA, editor. Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2013. p. 446–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00248-3
  42. 42. Asner GP, Mascaro J, Muller-Landau HC, Vieilledent G, Vaudry R, Rasamoelina M, et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia. 2012;168:1147–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2165-z
  43. 43. Munishi LK, Ngondya IB. Realizing UN decade on ecosystem restoration through a nature-based approach: a case review of management of biological invasions in protected areas. PLOS Sustain Transform. 2022;1:e0000027. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000027
  44. 44. Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N. Functional diversity and ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48:1079–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02048.x
  45. 45. Díaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277
  46. 46. Anderegg WR, Flint A, Huang CY, Flint L, Berry JA, Davis FW, et al. Tree mortality predicted from drought-induced vascular damage. Nat Geosci. 2015;8:367–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2400
  47. 47. Agha SB, Alvarez M, Becker M, Fèvre EM, Junglen S, Borgemeister C. Invasive alien plants in Africa and the potential emergence of mosquito-borne arboviral diseases—a review and research outlook. Viruses. 2020;13:32. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2400
  48. 48. Junker RR, Kuppler J, Bathke AC, Schreyer ML, Trutschnig W. Dynamic range boxes–a robust nonparametric approach to quantify size and overlap of n-dimensional hypervolumes. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:1503–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12611
  49. 49. Lavorel S, Storkey J, Bardgett RD, De Bello F, Berg MP, Le Roux X, et al. Linking functional diversity and ecosystem services. J Veg Sci. 2013;24:942–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12083
  50. 50. Keddy PA. A pragmatic approach to functional ecology. Funct Ecol. 1992;6:621–6. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389954
  51. 51. Paini DR, Sheppard AW, Cook DC, De Barro PJ, Worner SP, Thomas MB. Global threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:7575–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602205113
  52. 52. Hao Q, Yang S, Song Z, Li Z, Ding F, Yu C, et al. Silicon affects plant stoichiometry and accumulation of C, N and P in grasslands. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:1304. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01304
  53. 53. Cooke J, Leishman MR. Is plant ecology more siliceous than we realise? Trends Plant Sci. 2011;16:61–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.10.003
  54. 54. Massey FP, Ennos AR, Hartley SE. Silica in grasses as a defence against insect herbivores: contrasting effects on folivores and a phloem feeder. Ecology. 2006;87:595–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01082.x
  55. 55. Cooke J, DeGabriel JL, Hartley SE. The functional ecology of plant silicon. Funct Ecol. 2016;30:1270–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12711
  56. 56. Massey FP, Hartley SE. Physical defences wear you down: progressive and irreversible impacts of silica on insect herbivores. J Anim Ecol. 2009;78:281–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01472.x
  57. 57. Frew A, Weston LA, Reynolds OL, Gurr GM. The role of silicon in plant biology: a paradigm shift in research approach. Ann Bot. 2018;121:1265–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcy009
  58. 58. Violle C, Navas ML, Vile D, Kazakou E, Fortunel C, Hummel I, et al. Let the concept of trait be functional. Oikos. 2007;116:882–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15559.x
  59. 59. Nyasembe VO, Cheseto X, Kaplan F, Foster WA, Teal PE, Tumlinson JH, et al. The invasive American weed Parthenium hysterophorus can negatively impact malaria control in Africa. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0137836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137836
  60. 60. Albert CH, Grassein F, Schurr FM, Vieilledent G, Violle C. When and how should intraspecific variability be considered in trait-based plant ecology? Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2011;13:217–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2011.04.003
  61. 61. Kramer-Walter KR, Bellingham PJ, Millar TR, Smissen RD, Richardson SJ, Laughlin DC. Root traits are multidimensional: specific root length is independent from root tissue density and the plant economic spectrum. J Ecol. 2016;104:1299–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12562
  62. 62. Fontana S, Thomas MK, Moldoveanu M, Spaak P, Pomati F. Individual-level trait diversity predicts phytoplankton community properties better than species richness or evenness. ISME J. 2018;12:356–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.160
  63. 63. Gross N, Bagousse-Pinguet YL, Liancourt P, Berdugo M, Gotelli NJ, Maestre FT. Functional trait diversity maximises ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:0132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0132
  64. 64. Hanisch M, Schweiger O, Cord AF, Volk M, Knapp S. Plant functional traits shape multiple ecosystem services, their trade-offs and synergies in grasslands. J Appl Ecol. 2020;57:1535–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13644
  65. 65. Laliberté E, Legendre P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology. 2010;91:299–305. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2244.1
  66. 66. Uyi O, Mukwevho L, Ejomah AJ, Toews M. Invasive alien plants in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review and synthesis of their insecticidal activities. Front Agron. 2021;3:725895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2021.725895
  67. 67. Weidenhamer JD, Callaway RM. Direct and indirect effects of invasive plants on soil chemistry and ecosystem function. J Chem Ecol. 2010;36:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9735-0
  68. 68. Witt A, Beale T, Van Wilgen BW. An assessment of the distribution and potential ecological impacts of invasive alien plant species in eastern Africa. Trans R Soc South Africa. 2018;73:217–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0035919X.2018.1529003
  69. 69. Afzal MR, Naz M, Ashraf W, Du D. The legacy of plant invasion: impacts on soil nitrification and management implications. Plants. 2023;12:2980. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12162980
  70. 70. Goncalves E, Herrera I, Duarte M, Bustamante RO, Lampo M, Velasquez G, et al. Global invasion of Lantana camara: has the climatic niche been conserved across continents? PLoS One. 2014;9:e111468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111468
  71. 71. Kilawe CJ, Baltazary IS, Malila BP, Lyimo PJ, Mwakalukwa EE. Replacement of native trees by the neotropical invasive tree Cedrela odorata L. in the Kimboza Forest Reserve, Tanzania. Biol Invasions. 2023;25:3697–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03136-x
  72. 72. Garbuzov M, Reidinger S, Hartley SE. Interactive effects of plant-available soil silicon and herbivory on competition between two grass species. Ann Bot. 2011;108:1355–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr230
  73. 73. Schoelynck J, Müller F, Vandevenne F, Bal K, Barão L, Smis A, et al. Silicon–vegetation interaction in multiple ecosystems: a review. J Veg Sci. 2014;25:301–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12055
  74. 74. Pörtner HO, Bock C, Mark FC. Oxygen- and capacity-limited thermal tolerance: bridging ecology and physiology. J Exp Biol. 2017;220:2685–96. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.134585

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.