I had the honour to write a @newphyt.bsky.social commentary on this fantastic paper — summarizing its key insights and exploring exciting directions for future research. Hope it may spark new ideas and helps the community! ✨
🔗 nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

We decided to focus on 4 core traits and rather expand on the functions when setting up this synthesis. But I agree, there is more to RD and SRL than just mycorrhiza. Therefore, and because of the differing CWM-RES, it made sense to test relationships with single traits rather than entire gradients.

Have a look at GRooT: groot-database.github.io/GRooT/

Congrats!

I am thinking along similar lines these days for similar reasons, I assume. It's a fine line and one should always question the own behavior no matter how easy going we think we are. Thanks for having done so over the years, I always felt safe, encouraged and supported in your lab 🌱

@elsaelsam.bsky.social 😉

I agree with both points. Measuring mycorrhizal colonization remains key to undoubtedly link D to collaboration. And anatomical traits should be a research focus (among others). There is a math relationship between D and SRL which strengthens the collaboration gradient irrespective of functioning.