Is there a 'suboptimal' woody species height? A response to Scheffer et al. (January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McGlone, Matt S.; Richardson, Sarah J.; Jordan, Gregory J.; Perry, George L.W.
• Is Part Of: Trends in ecology & evolution. Volume 30:Number 1(2015)
• Page Start: 4
• Page End: 5
• Publication Date: 2015-01
• Subjects: Ecology -- Periodicals; Evolution (Biology) -- Periodicals; 576.8
• DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0169-5347

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="author-highlights" id="abs0005"> <title id="sect0005">Highlights</title> <sec> <p id="spar0005"> <list id="lis0005"> <list-item id="lsti0005"> <label></label> <p id="par0005">We challenge the concept that intermediate woody species heights are suboptimal.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0010"> <label></label> <p id="par0010">There is no bimodality in woody species heights at a regional flora scale.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0015"> <label></label> <p id="par0015">Claims that there is a deficit in 8–10 m high species are incorrect.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0020"> <label></label> <p id="par0020">Global plant trait databases under-represent shrubs and over-represent forests.</p> </list-item> </list> </p> </sec> </abstract>