Modeling Bryophyte Productivity Across Gradients of Water Availability Using Canopy Form–Function Relationships

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511779701.023

22 - Modeling Bryophyte Productivity Across Gradients of Water Availability Using Canopy Form–Function Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2012

Jesse Mango and

Edited by

Nancy G. Slack and

Steven K. Rice: Affiliation:
Union College, Schenectady, USA
Nathali Neal: Affiliation:
Union College, Schenectady, USA
Jesse Mango: Affiliation:
Union College, Schenectady, USA
Kelly Black: Affiliation:
Clarkson University, Potsdam, USA
Nancy G. Slack: Affiliation:
Sage Colleges, New York
Lloyd R. Stark: Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Bryophytes can dominate plant–atmosphere exchange surfaces in mesic to hydric Arctic, boreal, and temperate ecosystems and can contribute up to 50% of gross primary production (Goulden & Crill 1997; Bisbee et al. 2001; O'Connell et al. 2003a), although estimates in more dense forests are lower (Skre & Oechel 1979; Kolari et al. 2006). Soils in these systems store approximately one third of the world's reactive pool of soil carbon (McGuire et al. 1995) with a major contribution coming from bryophytes (Gorham 1991; O'Neill 2000; Turetsky 2003). Within these systems, the bryophyte layer also influences hydrology, nutrient uptake and cycling, and soil temperature.

In the boreal zone, significant research has been undertaken to determine how forest bryophytes affect carbon exchange and sequestration. These studies have focused on the influence of environmental forcing variables (e.g., temperature, light, and water availability) on the productivity and carbon dynamics of feathermoss (Pleurozium) and Sphagnum moss species, the two most dominant groups ecologically. This work has led to a better understanding of temporal variation in bryophyte function and has provided insights into how the performance of individual species varies across gradients of temperature, light intensity, and water availability (Skre & Oechel 1979; Trumbore & Harden 1997; Bisbee et al. 2001; O'Connell et al. 2003a, b; Heijmans et al. 2004; Kolari et al. 2006; Kulmala et al. 2008).

However, these studies have neglected the causes and consequences of intraspecific variation, which can be similar in magnitude to differences among species.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Bryophyte Ecology and Climate Change , pp. 441 - 458

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779701.023 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alpert, P. & Oechel, W. C. (1987). Comparative patterns of net photosynthesis in an assemblage of mosses with contrasting microdistributions. American Journal of Botany 74: 1787–96.Google Scholar

Amthor, J. S., Chen, J. M., Clein, J. S.et al. (2001). Boreal forest CO2 exchange and evapotranspiration predicted by nine ecosystem process models: intermodel comparisons and relationships to field measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 33623–48.Google Scholar

Benscoter, B. W. & Vitt, D. H. (2007). Evaluating feathermoss growth: a challenge to traditional methods and implications for the boreal carbon budget. Journal of Ecology 95: 151–8.Google Scholar

Bisbee, K. E., Gower, S. T., Norman, J. M. & Nordheim, E. V. (2001). Environmental controls on ground cover species composition and productivity in a boreal black spruce forest. Oecologia 129: 261–70.Google Scholar

Bond-Lamberty, B. & Gower, S. T. (2007). Estimation of stand-level leaf area for boreal bryophytes. Oecologia 151: 584–92.Google Scholar

Christensen, J. H., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A.et al. (2007). Regional climate projections. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. Solomon, S., Quin, D., Manning, M., et al., pp. 847–940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lang, S. I., Soudzilovskaia, N. A. & During, H. J. (2007). Comparative cryptogam ecology: a review of bryophyte and lichen traits that drive biogeochemistry. Annals of Botany 99: 987–1001.Google Scholar

Dilks, T. J. K. & Proctor, M. C. F. (1979). Photosynthesis, respiration and water content in bryophytes. New Phytologist 82: 97–114.Google Scholar

During, H. J. (1992). Ecological classification of bryophytes and lichens. In Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment, ed. Bates, J. W. & Farmer, A. M., pp. 1–31. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gimingham, C. H. & Birse, E. M. (1957). Ecological studies on growth-form in bryophytes: I. Correlation between growth-form and habitat. Journal of Ecology 45: 533–45.Google Scholar

Girardin, M. P. & Mudelsee, M. (2008). Past and future changes in Canadian boreal wildfire activity. Ecological Applications 18: 391–406.Google Scholar

Gorham, E. (1991). Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecological Applications 1: 182–95.Google Scholar

Goulden, M. L. & Crill, P. M. (1997). Automated measurements of CO2 exchange at the moss surface of a black spruce forest. Tree Physiology 17: 537–42.Google Scholar

Grime, J. P., Thompson, K., Hunt, R.et al. (1997). Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialization in plants. Oikos 79: 259–81.Google Scholar

Hamerlynck, E. P., Csintalan, Z., Nagy, Z.et al. (2002). Ecophysiological consequences of contrasting microenvironments on the desiccation tolerant moss Tortula ruralis. Oecologia 131: 498–505.Google Scholar

Hayward, P. M. & Clymo, R. S. (1983). The growth of Sphagnum: experiments on, and simulation of, some effects of light flux and water-table depth. Journal of Ecology 71: 845–63.Google Scholar

Heijmans, M. M. P. D., Arp, W. J. & Chapin, F. S. (2004). Carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange from understory species in boreal forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 123: 135–47.Google Scholar

Kolari, P., Pumpanen, J., Kulmala, L.et al. (2006). Forest floor vegetation plays an important role in photosynthetic production of boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management 221: 241–8.Google Scholar

Krumnikl, M., Sojka, E., Gaura, J. & Motyka, O. (2008). A new method for bryophyte canopy analysis based on 3D surface reconstruction. Seventh International Conference on Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications Proceedings, ed. Snášel, V., Abraham, A., Saeed, K. & Pokorný, J., pp. 210–11. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.CrossRef

Kulmala, L., Launiainen, S., Pumpanen, J., et al. (2008). H2O and CO2 fluxes at the floor of a boreal pine forest. Tellus 60B:167–78.Google Scholar

Marschall, M. & Proctor, M. C. F. (2004). Are bryophytes shade plants? Photosynthetic light responses and proportions of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total carotenoids. Annals of Botany 94: 593–603.Google Scholar

McGuire, A. D., Melillo, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W. & Joyce, L. A. (1995). Equilibrium responses of soil carbon to climate change: empirical and process-based estimates. Journal of Biogeography 22: 785–96.Google Scholar

O'Connell, K. E. B., Gower, S. T. & Norman, J. M. (2003a). Comparison of net primary production and light-use dynamics of two boreal black spruce forest communities. Ecosystems 6: 236–47.Google Scholar

O'Connell, K. E. B., Gower, S. T. & Norman, J. M. (2003b). Net ecosystem production of two contrasting boreal black spruce forest communities. Ecosystems 6: 248–60.Google Scholar

O'Neill, K. P. (2000). Role of bryophyte-dominated ecosystems in the global carbon budget. In Bryophyte Biology, ed. Shaw, A. J. & Goffinet, B.. pp. 344–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Plummer, D. A., Caya, D., Frigon, A. et al. (2006). Climate and climate change over North America as simulated by the Canadian RCM. Journal of Climate 19: 3112–32.Google Scholar

Proctor, M. C. F. (1981). Diffusion resistance in bryophytes. In Plants and their Atmospheric Environment, ed. Grace, J., Ford, E. D. & Jarvis, P. G., pp. 219–29. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

Proctor, M. C. F. (2000). Physiological ecology. In Bryophyte Biology, ed. Shaw, A. J. & Goffinet, B., pp. 225–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Proctor, M. C. F., Nagy, Z., Csintalan, Zs. & Takács, Z. (1998). Water-content components in bryophytes: analysis of pressure-volume curves. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 1845–54.Google Scholar

Rice, S. K. (2006). Towards an integrated understanding of bryophyte performance: the dimensions of space and time. Lindbergia 31: 42–53.Google Scholar

Rice, S. K. & Schneider, N. (2004). Cushion size, surface roughness, and the control of water balance and carbon flux in the cushion moss Leucobryum glaucum (Leucobryaceae). American Journal of Botany 91: 1164–72.Google Scholar

Rice, S. K., Gutman, C. & Krouglicof, N. (2005). Laser scanning reveals bryophyte canopy structure. New Phytologist 166: 695–704.Google Scholar

Rice, S. K., Collins, D. & Anderson, A. M. (2001). Functional significance of variation in bryophyte canopy structure. American Journal of Botany 88: 1568–76.Google Scholar

Rice, S. K., Aclander, L. & Hanson, D. T. (2008). Do bryophyte shoot systems function like vascular plant leaves or canopies? Functional trait relationships in Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnaceae). American Journal of Botany 95: 1366–74.Google Scholar

Schuepp, P. H. (1993). Leaf boundary layers. New Phytologist 125: 477–507.Google Scholar

Shipley, B., Lechowicz, M. J., Wright, I. & Reich, P. B. (2006). Fundamental trade-offs generating the worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Ecology 87: 535–41.Google Scholar

Skre, O. & Oechel, W. C. (1979). Moss production in a black spruce Picea mariana forest with permafrost near Fairbanks, Alaska, as compared with two permafrost-free stands. Holarctic Ecology 2: 249–54.Google Scholar

Skre, O. & Oechel, W. C. (1981). Moss functioning in different taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska. I. Seasonal, phenotypic, and drought effects on photosynthesis and response patterns. Oecologia 48: 50–9.Google Scholar

Smith, T. M., Shugart, H. H. & Woodward, F. I. (eds.) (1997). Plant Functional Types. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sulyma, R. & Coxson, D. S. (2001). Microsite displacement of terrestrial lichens by feather moss mats in late seral pine-lichen woodlands of North-central British Columbia. Bryologist 104: 505–16.Google Scholar

Titus, J. E. & Wagner, D. J. (1984). Carbon balance for two Sphagnum mosses: water balance resolves a physiological paradox. Ecology 65: 1765–74.Google Scholar

Trumbore, S. E. & Harden, J. W. (1997). Accumulation and turnover of carbon in organic and mineral soils of the BOREAS northern study area. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 28817–30.Google Scholar

Turetsky, M. (2003). The role of bryophytes in carbon and nitrogen cycling. Bryologist 106: 395–409.Google Scholar

Whitehead, D. & Gower, S. T. (2001). Photosynthesis and light-use efficiency by plants in a Canadian boreal forest ecosystem. Tree Physiology 21: 925–9.Google Scholar

Williams, T. G. & Flanagan, L. B. (1996). Effect of changes in water content on photosynthesis, transpiration and discrimination against 13CO2 and C18O16O in Pleurozium and Sphagnum. Oecologia 108: 38–46.Google Scholar

Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., et al. (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428: 821–7.Google Scholar

Zotz, G., Schweikert, A., Jetz, W. & Westerman, H. (2000). Water relations and carbon gain are closely related to cushion size in the moss Grimmia pulvinata. New Phytologist 148: 59–67.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.