Carbon storage and functional importance
in moss/lichen ground layers
Robert J. Smith, Sarah Jovan and Bruce McCune
Oregon State University
smithr2@onid.oregonstate.edu
Today:
1.
Carbon storage in the moss/lichen ground layer
2.
Functional roles of the moss/lichen ground layer
3.
Measuring carbon and function: Ground Layer Indicator
4.
Preliminary findings from interior Alaska
Carbon storage
Carbon storage
Photos: US-BLM and John Shaw
Functional roles
Lichens
Functional group
Ecosystem functions
Forage lichen
Wildlife forage
N-fixing lichen
N-fixation
Other lichen
Invertebrate habitat, bare site colonization
Crust lichen
Mosses
Liverworts
Sphagnum peat-moss
Soil-trapping, water infiltration,
undisturbed indicator
Carbon storage (peat), water regulation,
decomposition slowing
N-fixing feather moss
N-fixation
Feather moss
Rainfall interception
Turf moss
Soil accrual, bare-site colonization
Liverwort
Soil- and detritus binding,
water infiltration
Forage lichen
N-fixing lichen
Crust lichen
Other lichen
Feather moss
Turf moss
N-fixing feather moss
Sphagnum
We asked:
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
We asked:
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
We asked:
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
We asked:
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
4. How time-efficient is our sampling method?
We asked:
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
4. How time-efficient is our sampling method?
5. What are minimum sampling requirements of our method?
We asked:
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
4. How time-efficient is our sampling method?
5. What are minimum sampling requirements of our method?
6. What is the potential species capture of our method?
Method: FIA Ground Layer Indicator
Subplot
360°
Measure depth and area, live+dead,
× 32 microquads
2
Transects
Exclusion zone
Microquads
(cryptogam sampling)
180°
1
270°
45°
4
225°
90°
315°
3
135°
Biomass/C/N calibration
0.15
3
Density (g cm )
0.10
N = 150 samples
0.05
0.00
0
5
10
15
Depth (cm)
20
25
30
Implementation plots
Subplot
360°
N = 81 plots
(× 32 non-destructive samples ea.)
among 8 habitat types
2
Transects
Exclusion zone
Microquads
(cryptogam sampling)
180°
1
270°
45°
4
225°
90°
315°
3
135°
Alaska
Upland black spruce
Lowland black spruce
Alpine tundra
Mixed forest
Oregon
Montane forest
Coastal forest
Steppe
Dry forest
Alaska
Oregon
25000
1
Moss biomass (kg ha )
Results
20000
Moss biomass
15000
10000
5000
0
1
Lichen biomass (kg ha )
upland
mixed
alpine
coastal
montane dry forest
steppe
1500
Lichen biomass
1000
500
0
upland
400
)
low land
low land
mixed
alpine
coastal
montane dry forest
steppe
Lic
0
upland
Results
low land
mixed
Alaska
alpine
coastal
montane dry forest
Oregon
steppe
2
Mean cover (cm )
400
300
Area cover
200
100
4
Mean functional richness
Sample functional richness
0
upland
low land
mixed
alpine
coastal
3
montane dry forest
steppe
Functional richness
2
1
0
upland
lowland
mixed
alpine
coastal
montane
dry forest
steppe
Functional groups
-1
Estimated biomass (kg ha )
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Time efficiency
Habitat
State
N
Upland
Lowland
Mixed
Alpine
Coastal
Montane
Dry forest
Steppe
All
AK
AK
AK
AK
OR
OR
OR
OR
–
9
10
11
9
7
7
10
6
81
Reported numbers are means ± SE.
Time on plot
(minutes)
47.2 ± 3.2
59.0 ± 5.4
45.5 ± 3.6
75.6 ± 13.2
96.4 ± 7.5
95.0 ± 8.6
36.0 ± 2.1
45.8 ± 3.1
60.4 ± 3.4
Species capture
70
Species number
60
whole-plot
microplot
50
40
30
20
10
0
alpine
Cumulative
Whole-plot
Microplot
N
90
74
2
upland
lowland
53
33
2
74
52
2
coastal
42
20
2
montane
16
8
1
dry forest
30
28
3
Minimum sampling requirements: SE of cover (9999 bootstrap reps)
upland
lowland
mixed
alpine
coastal
montane
dry forest
steppe
200
150
2
SE of cover (cm )
100
50
0
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
0
10
N microplots
20
30
0
10
20
30
Summary
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
FIA Ground Layer Indicator
Summary
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
FIA Ground Layer Indicator
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
Interior AK is nationally important!
Summary
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
FIA Ground Layer Indicator
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
Interior AK is nationally important!
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
Interior AK is functionally rich!
Summary
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
FIA Ground Layer Indicator
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
Interior AK is nationally important!
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
Interior AK is functionally rich!
4. How time-efficient is our sampling method?
Avg 60.4 min / plot
Summary
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
FIA Ground Layer Indicator
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
Interior AK is nationally important!
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
Interior AK is functionally rich!
4. How time-efficient is our sampling method?
Avg 60.4 min / plot
5. What are minimum sampling requirements of our method?
32 samples / plot
Summary
1. How can we non-destructively measure biomass, C and N?
FIA Ground Layer Indicator
2. How do biomass, C, N differ among habitats?
Interior AK is nationally important!
3. How do functional groups differ among habitats?
Interior AK is functionally rich!
4. How time-efficient is our sampling method?
Avg 60.4 min / plot
5. What are minimum sampling requirements of our method?
32 samples / plot
6. What is the potential species capture of our method?
Recommend whole-plot surveys for biodiversity inventories
Challenge: deep/permafrost peat
Photos: ecosystema.ru ; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Nørnberg et al. (2004).
Acknowledgements
Lab work
Mike Amacher (USFS)
Advising/field assistance
Trish Wurtz (USFS)
Teresa Hollingsworth (USFS/UAF)
Project support
Doug Daoust (USFS)
Allison Nelson (USFS)
Field assistance
Nick Lisuzzo (USFS)
Shalane Frost (USFS)
Facilitating field work
Jamie Hollingsworth (UAF/LTER)
Habitat
State
Upland
AK
Lowland
AK
Mixed
AK
Alpine
AK
Coastal
OR
Montane
OR
Dry forest
OR
Steppe
OR
All
–
Reported numbers
Biomass:
N
moss+lichen
(kg ha-1)
9
21904
10
9694
11
6163
9
4006
7
847
7
470
10
231
6
287
81
–
are means ± SE.
Biomass:
moss only
(kg ha-1)
21649
9399
6045
2830
841
466
186
265
–
Biomass:
lichen only
(kg ha-1)
255
295
118
1177
6
4
45
22
–
Sample time
(minutes)
47.2 ± 3.2
59 ± 5.4
45.5 ± 3.6
75.6 ± 13.2
96.4 ± 7.5
95 ± 8.6
36 ± 2.1
45.8 ± 3
60.4 ± 3.4
Cover
cm-2)
(cm21000
353.3 ± 14.2
140.9 ± 7.3
194.5 ± 11.7
112.8 ± 5.5
107.1 ± 11.1
61 ± 7.7
20.5 ± 2.7
20.9 ± 2.5
143.5 ± 3.6
Depth
(cm)
15.8 ± 0.4
10.4 ± 0.3
6.2 ± 0.3
4.9 ± 0.2
1.1 ± 0.2
1.1 ± 0.1
0.9 ± 0.1
1.0 ± 0.1
6.6 ± 0.1