PREreview of Alternative designs lead to similar performance when traits and performance vary on different axes

This review was performed by a pre-review journal club of ecologists including grad students, post docs, and faculty. We were excited to review this paper because we are interested in functional traits and ecological theory.  

Review authors: Fiona Boardman, Robin Fales, Monica Sheffer, Olivia Cattau, Zachary Bengtsson, Annie Colgan, Sanford Leake, Grace Leuchtenberger, Rachel Potter, Julia Smith, Lauren Buckley, Emily Carrington, Chuck Flaherty, Jim Kenagy

Summary

Nolting & Holsinger use data from Nolting et al. 2021 to compare variability among Protea species in terms of multivariate structure traits and performance indicators. They find that while species can differ greatly in their suite of multivariate structural traits, measures of performance primarily vary within species, as opposed to among species. They develop a model to demonstrate this paradox, suggesting alternative design as a solution, and apply their findings to Protea species. We do  have some concerns outlined below.

Major Concerns 

This paper is very reliant on the Nolting et al. 2021 paper and would therefore benefit from a concise description of how this paper builds on and differs from the 2021 paper, and offers additional novelty, early in the paper. 

Although we recognize this may not be feasible, additional datasets from other taxa would be helpful in making this paradox generalizable beyond Protea especially since there are many plant trait databases available. If it is not feasible to add more data, please discuss the limitations of only using one genus. 

We are confused about the general structure of the manuscript. Overall, the organization is not intuitive as a reader. We suggest separating the modeling in its own section and introducing it earlier. Figure 5 should be introduced earlier than the discussion. It is confusing to have so much packed into the “materials and methods” section, including what reads like discussion/explanation around the model. Generally, flow could be improved between sections and tying them together. 

Minor Concerns 

• If the target journal includes an audience beyond plant physiologists, consider adding a schematic to describe the traits visually.
• Please justify the decision not to include what is empirically known about how structural traits impact physiological performance in model development.
• We encourage the authors to consider archiving the data and code or adding to a trait database.  
• Line edits:
• 85-87: statements read as a bit contradictory - maybe work to clarify these? 
• 116-147: These methods could be simplified more. 
• 118-119: What defines a population here, and how many species per site? 
• 145-147: This information should come earlier. 
• 150: Could be formatting, but is this within the methods or a new section entirely? 
• 168-173: These read more like results than methods.
• 266-267 Do you mean panels B and D not C and D?
• 386-399: This part of the discussion feels more like a figure legend than the discussion, please focus more on the implication rather than figure its-self (ie: terms like coloring)
• 408: Which colors are what performance level? 
• Figure 5: It would be very helpful to have a color legend in the figure instead of only in the caption.