Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.

We test the relationship between canopy photosynthesis and reflected near‐infrared radiation from vegetation across a range of functional (photosynthetic pathway and capacity) and structural conditions (leaf area index, fraction of green and dead leaves, canopy height, reproductive stage, and leaf angle inclination), weather conditions, and years using a network of field sites from across central California. We based our analysis on direct measurements of canopy photosynthesis, with eddy covariance, and measurements of reflected near‐infrared and red radiation from vegetation, with light‐emitting diode sensors. And we interpreted the observed relationships between photosynthesis and reflected near‐infrared radiation using simulations based on the multilayer, biophysical model, CanVeg. Measurements of reflected near‐infrared radiation were highly correlated with measurements of canopy photosynthesis on half‐hourly, daily, seasonal, annual, and decadal time scales across the wide range of function and structure and weather conditions. Slopes of the regression between canopy photosynthesis and reflected near‐infrared radiation were greatest for the fertilized and irrigated C₄ corn crop, intermediate for the C₃ tules on nutrient‐rich organic soil and nitrogen fixing alfalfa, and least for the native annual grasslands and oak savanna on nutrient‐poor, mineral soils. Reflected near‐infrared radiation from vegetation has several advantages over other remotely sensed vegetation indices that are used to infer canopy photosynthesis; it does not saturate at high leaf area indices, it is insensitive to the presence of dead legacy vegetation, the sensors are inexpensive, and the reflectance signal is strong. Hence, information on reflected near‐infrared radiation from vegetation may have utility in monitoring carbon assimilation in carbon sequestration projects or on microsatellites orbiting Earth for precision agriculture applications.