| Literature DB >> 27103989 |
Fia Bengtsson1, Gustaf Granath2, Håkan Rydin1.
Abstract
Peat mosses (Entities:
Keywords: Decomposition; functional traits; peat moss; photosynthetic capacity; production; trade‐offs
Year: 2016 PMID: 27103989 PMCID: PMC4833502 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Four of the species included in the study: Sphagnum fuscum (A), S. girgensohnii (B), S. cuspidatum (C), and S. magellanicum (D).
The study species and their main affinity to microtopographical position, vegetation type, and habitat openness in the study regions. In the analyses, the vegetation types open bog and fen soak were merged into one category (open bog/fen), and lagg fen, mire edge, and spruce forest were merged into another (mire margin). Nomenclature follows Flatberg (2013)
|
| Section | Author citation | Code | Microtopographical position | Vegetation type | Openness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Acutifolia | (Ehrh.) Hedw. | CA | Hummock | Pine bog | Semi |
|
| Acutifolia | (Schimp.) H. Klinggr. | FU1 FU2 | Hummock | FU1 Open bog | Open |
| FU2 Rich fen | ||||||
|
| Acutifolia | Russow | GI | Hummock | Spruce forest | Shaded |
|
| Acutifolia | Wilson | RU | Low hummock | Open bog | Open |
|
| Acutifolia | Russow | WA | Low hummock | Rich fen | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | (Russow) C.E.O. Jensen | AN | Low hummock | Mire edge | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | (Russow) C.E.O. Jensen | BA | Lawn | Open bog | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | Hoffm. | CU | Carpet–pool | Open bog | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | (H.Klinggr.) H. Klinggr. | FA | Lawn | Lagg fen | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | Lindb. | LI | Carpet | Open bog | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | (Russow) C.E.O. Jensen | MJ | Carpet | Open bog | Open |
|
| Cuspidata | (Brid.) Brid. | TE | Lawn | Open bog | Open |
|
| Sphagnum | Brid. | MG1 | MG1 Lawn–carpet | MG1 Open bog | MG1 open |
| MG2 | MG2 Hummock | MG2 Pine bog | MG2 semi | |||
| MG3 | MG3 Hummock | MG3 Spruce forest | MG3 shaded | |||
|
| Sphagnum | Lindb. | PA | Carpet | Fen soak | Open |
|
| Subsecunda | Schultz | CO | Lawn | Rich fen | Open |
Climate and weather data from the two sites (SMHI 2014)
| Kulflyten | Glon | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean for 30 years (1982–2013) | ||
| Mean temperature July | 16.6°C | 16.8°C |
| Mean temperature December | −2.6°C | −1.0°C |
| Mean temperature June–September | 14.1°C | 14.3°C |
| Mean annual precipitation | 733 mm | 649 mm |
| Total precipitation June–September | 316 mm | 277 mm |
| 2012 | ||
| Mean temperature June–September | 13.3°C | 13.8°C |
| Total precipitation June–September | 459 mm | 402 mm |
| 2013 | ||
| Mean temperature June–September | 14.5°C | 14.8°C |
| Total precipitation June–September | 224 mm | 260 mm |
Summarized stand structure variables and the HWT (height above water table) at which the studied species grew in 2012, showing mean ± SE for the n patches sampled
| Species | Code | Dry bulk density (mg cm−3) | Shoot density (cm−2) | HWT 2012 (mm) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | ||||
| Acutifolia | |||||||
|
| CA | 12.9 ± 0.92 | 7.1 ± 0.84 | 3.4 ± 0.18 | 2.7 ± 0.22 | 377 ± 49.8 | 10 |
|
| FU1 | 13.8 ± 1.05 | 20.4 ± 2.58 | 5.2 ± 0.39 | 7.1 ± 0.7 | 267 ± 14.4 | 10 |
|
| FU2 | 7.4 ± 1.15 | 7.6 ± 1.7 | 3.4 ± 0.37 | 3.4 ± 0.65 | 272 ± 40.5 | 6 |
|
| GI | 4.4 ± 0.44 | 4.1 ± 0.52 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.05 | 278 ± 43.3 | 9 |
|
| RU | 17.3 ± 0.83 | 17 ± 2.04 | 5.6 ± 0.37 | 6.7 ± 0.7 | 136 ± 13.7 | 10 |
|
| WA | 6.1 ± 0.76 | 5.1 ± 0.47 | 2.1 ± 0.28 | 2.3 ± 0.17 | 206 ± 29.4 | 6 |
| Cuspidata | |||||||
|
| AN | 8.2 ± 0.55 | 5.8 ± 0.55 | 2.9 ± 0.12 | 2.9 ± 0.24 | 127 ± 10.1 | 10 |
|
| BA | 16 ± 1.49 | 11.9 ± 1.06 | 2.6 ± 0.29 | 3.4 ± 0.38 | 54 ± 6.3 | 9 |
|
| CU | 7.8 ± 0.62 | 6.2 ± 0.45 | 1.6 ± 0.09 | 1.5 ± 0.18 | 3 ± 2.1 | 10 |
|
| FA | 6.4 ± 0.65 | 6.4 ± 0.69 | 2.3 ± 0.12 | 1.8 ± 0.09 | 114 ± 5.7 | 10 |
|
| LI | 18.7 ± 3.32 | 9.4 ± 1.03 | 1.5 ± 0.17 | 1.2 ± 0.12 | 41 ± 6.6 | 10 |
|
| MJ | 9.6 ± 0.84 | 9.4 ± 0.85 | 1.4 ± 0.11 | 1.8 ± 0.23 | 19 ± 3 | 9 |
|
| TE | 18.5 ± 1.15 | 17.4 ± 1.54 | 9.2 ± 0.89 | 7.5 ± 0.77 | 52 ± 8.4 | 9 |
| Sphagnum | |||||||
|
| MG1 | 13.7 ± 1.33 | 6.9 ± 0.67 | 1.5 ± 0.09 | 1.3 ± 0.11 | 54 ± 6.2 | 10 |
|
| MG2 | 10.8 ± 0.85 | 6.5 ± 0.6 | 1.7 ± 0.09 | 1.3 ± 0.08 | 335 ± 29.5 | 10 |
|
| MG3 | 6.3 ± 1.71 | 3.9 ± 0.72 | 1.1 ± 0.07 | 0.8 ± 0.07 | 304 ± 27.3 | 7 |
|
| PA | 13.4 ± 1.63 | 8.3 ± 0.97 | 1.3 ± 0.09 | 1.2 ± 0.08 | 57 ± 9.1 | 10 |
| Subsecunda | |||||||
|
| CO | 4.8 ± 0.31 | 3.2 ± 0.21 | 1.1 ± 0.11 | 1 ± 0.09 | 78 ± 14.6 | 6 |
Figure 2Upper panel shows growth in biomass Ga (g m−2) and lower panel length increment (mm) in two successive years (n = 6–10) for the sampled Sphagnum species. Bars show mean ± SE.
Figure 3Relationships between biomass growth in 2012 and 2013 per shoot (left; n = 156) and per area (right; n = 155) with lines for 1:1 relationship.
Figure 4Decomposition measured as mass loss after 14 months in the field and in the laboratory (n = 6–10). Bars show mean ± SE.
Figure 5The relationship between decay in field and in laboratory after 14 months measured as % mass loss of litter; n = 155. The line shows the 1:1 relationship.
Figure 6Upper panel: The photosynthetic capacity (net rate of CO 2 fixation under standard conditions) expressed per unit dry mass (NP g: mg g−1 h−1; n = 5). Lower panel: per unit area (NP a: mg cm−2 h−1; n = 5; bars show mean ± SE).
Figure 7Relationships between decay rate in the field (left; n = 150) or in the laboratory (right; n = 148) and the growth in biomass on an area basis Ga (total g m−2 for 2012 and 2013).
Figure 8The mass loss in laboratory conditions as a function of the photosynthetic capacity (net rate of CO2 fixation under standard conditions); n = 93.
Figure 9Growth in biomass (pooled 2012 and 2013) as a function of photosynthetic capacity (net rate of CO 2 fixation under standard conditions) per individual (left; n = 90) and per area (right; n = 90).
Figure 10PCA using the NIPALS algorithm (Dray and Dufour 2007). Top left: Trait space showing the factor loadings of the variables: Shootdens = average shoot density between 2012 and 2013; Bulkdens = average bulk density between 2012 and 2013; C/N ratio of litter; N = nitrogen concentration of litter; LossField = mass loss during two seasons (%); LI = pooled length increment in 2012 and 2013 (mm); Ga = pooled biomass growth (g m−2) 2012 and 2013; LossLab = mass loss of litter in laboratory after 14 months (%); NP = photosynthetic capacity (net rate of CO 2 fixation under standard conditions) expressed per unit dry mass (NP i; mg g−1 h−1); and per unit area (NP a; mg cm−2 h−1). Out of the variance explained by the three first axes, PC1 explains 39% and PC2 21%. Top right shows the species distribution along the PC axes (mean ± SE). Bottom left shows the species grouped by Sphagnum section, and bottom right shows the species grouped by vegetation type.
Figure 11PC1 scores for species representing different habitats (mean ± SE). There was an overall significant effect of openness of the habitat (ANOVA 2,91: F = 14.55; P < 0.0001), open and shaded differ (Tukey: P < 0.0001), and semi‐open and shaded differ (Tukey: P < 0.0001).