Bryophyte Club
A Look into Moss Distribution with
Regard to Competition and Moisture in
the Subalpine Realm
Benjamin Wilkins
Vegetation Ecology
EBIO 4100-572 Summer 2014
Mountain Research Station, University of Colorado, Boulder
S
Moss: What, Where and Why?
S Embryophytes lacking true vascular tissue
(lignin, xylem tracheids, vessels)
S Liverworts, Hornworts, Mosses (Bryophyta)
(Troitsky, et al., 2007)
S North side of the tree?
S Dry Moss?
S Sonoran (Nash et al., 1977)
Ecological Perspective
S Further understanding of bryophyte distribution
S Spitsberg, Svalbard, Norway
S Glacial Retreat, low soil nutrients
S Moraine env. where competion was low (Minami et al., 1996)
S Adaptations to freezing – lowering vol. 80%
(Lenné et al., 2010)
S Climate change – increasing importance - conservation and
desertification
S This area – both extremes
S Interesting microsite distribution
Hypothesis
S The big question: Why can moss grow in some areas, but
not others?
S H0: Moss will tend to grow in soil that is either too wet or
too dry for other plant life to propagate.
S H1: There is no connection between moss presence and the
distribution of other vegetation.
Methods - My Sites
S Summit County – Riparian area and
Subalpine Forest
S Zone – 13S 408668mE,
4373505mN
S Elevation – 2,923m
S Boulder County – Como Creek and
Elk Meadow
S Zone – 13T 453892mE,
4431279mN
S Elevation – 2,957m
S 2 Dry, 2 Wet
S
156km apart
Methods
S Sampling Design – replication with random sampling
S Located 20 areas at each site in which moss (Mnium
arizonicum) is common
S Randomly selected 10 areas containing moss from each site
S Data Recorded
S Slope, aspect, canopy cover
S Soil - pH, moisture level, nutrient levels (N,P,K)
S Distance to closest vegetation
S
Indicator of competition
Methods - Equipment
S Canopy Mirror
S Lusterleaf Rapitest Meters®
S pH
S Fertility (scale of N,P,K ppm)
S Moisture (1-5 scale)
Data Analysis
S Accumulated and tested for
significance
S T-tests, P values
Results
pH by Sites (p<.0001)
13
pH
11
9
7
Wet Sites
5
Dry Sites
3
1
1
Wet and Dry Sites
Average Moisture Level by Site
Types (p<0.0001)
0.6
2.5
0.5
Nutrient Level (ppm)
2
Moisture Level
Average Nutrient Level by Site
Types (p=0.0001)
0.4
1.5
0.3
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0
0
1
Wet and Dry Moss Sites
1
Wet and Dry Moss Sites
Results
Moisture vs Distance to Nearest Vegetation
18
Chi-square (p=0.37)
Distance to Nearest Veg. (cm)
16
14
12
10
Summit County Riparian
Summit County Dry Forest
8
Elk Meadow Dry Forest
6
Como Creek Riparian
4
2
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Moisture Level
2.5
3
3.5
Discussion
S Agrees with findings (Minami et al., Nash et al.)
S Competition
S Moisture
S Future Studies
S Year-round life cycle
S Freezing conditions (Lenné et al.)
S Climate change and invasives
S Further identify/classify competition as native/non-native, etc.
S Dynamic nature of realized niche
Conclusion
S Thrive in wet, nutrient-rich environments
S High competition, plenty to go around
S Also in dry, nutrient-poor environments due to lessened
competition
S Less H2O and nutrients, but spaced farther apart
S Plenty o’ moss on the S side…
S Dry – 113.6 SE
Aspect°
S Wet – 170.3 S
250
200
150
100
Wet Sites
50
Dry Sites
0
1
Wet and Dry Sites
Literature Cited
S
Troitsky AV, Ignatov MS, Bobrova VK, Milyutina IA (December 2007). "Contribution of
genosystematics to current concepts of phylogeny and classification of bryophytes". Biochemistry
Mosc. 72 (12): 1368–76. Web.
http://protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v72/full/72121675.html
S
Yoshinori Minami, Hiroshi Kanda and Takehiro Masuzawa. “The Relationship Between
Distribution of Bryophytes and Soil Conditions on Deglaciated Arctic Terrain in Ny-Alesund”.
Poroc. NIPR Symp. Polar Biol., 9, 307-312, 1996. Web.
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110001026284.pdf ?id=ART0001194280&type=pdf&lang=en&host=cinii&o
rder_no=&ppv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1406149208&cp=
S
Lenné, Thomas, Bryant, Gary, Hocart, Charles, Huang, Cheng and Ball, Marilyn. “Freeze
avoidance: a dehydrating moss gathers no ice”. Plant, Cell & Environment, Volume 33, Issue 10,
pages 1731–1741, October 2010. Web. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.13653040.2010.02178.x/full
S
Nash, T.H, White, S.L. and Marsh, J.E. “Lichen and Moss Distribution and Biomass in Hot Desert
Ecosystems”. The Bryologist, Vol. 80, No. 3, Autumn, 1977. Web.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3242022?seq=1