4.4 Article

The role of mosses in ecosystem succession and function in Alaska's boreal forest

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1237-1264

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/X10-072

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF [DEB-0620579]
  2. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station [PNW01-JV11261952-231]
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [830997] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Shifts in moss communities may affect the resilience of boreal ecosystems to a changing climate because of the role of moss species in regulating soil climate and biogeochemical cycling. Here, we use long-term data analysis and literature synthesis to examine the role of moss in ecosystem succession, productivity, and decomposition. In Alaskan forests, moss abundance showed a unimodal distribution with time since fire, peaking 30-70 years post-fire. We found no evidence of mosses compensating for low vascular productivity in low-fertility sites at large scales, although a trade-off between moss and vascular productivity was evident in intermediate-productivity sites. Mosses contributed 48% and 20% of wetland and upland productivity, respectively, but produced tissue that decomposed more slowly than both nonwoody and woody vascular tissues. Increasing fire frequency in Alaska is likely to favor feather moss proliferation and decrease Sphagnum abundance, which will reduce soil moisture retention and decrease peat accumulation, likely leading to deeper burning during wildfire and accelerated permafrost thaw. The roles of moss traits in regulating key aspects of boreal performance (ecosystem N supply, C sequestration, permafrost stability, and fire severity) represent critical areas for understanding the resilience of Alaska's boreal forest region under changing climate and disturbance regimes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available