4.5 Article

Environmental controls on ground cover species composition and productivity in a boreal black spruce forest

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 129, 期 2, 页码 261-270

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s004420100719

关键词

boreal black spruce forests; Sphagnum; feathermoss; net primary production; soil drainage

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boreal black spruce forests typically have a dense ground cover of bryophytes. The two main bryophyte groups in boreal black spruce forests, feathermoss and Sphagnum, have ecophysiological characteristics that influence the biogeochemical cycles of black spruce forests differently. The objective of this study was to examine the environmental controls of ground cover composition and net primary production (NPP) of feathermoss and Sphagnum in a boreal black spruce forest in central Saskatchewan. The fraction of Sphagnum ground cover was positively correlated to canopy photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) transmittance (r(2)=0.48, P=0.03), but the fraction of feathermoss ground cover was negatively correlated to canopy PAR transmittance in plots where Sphagnum was present (r(2)=0.87, P <0.0001). Sphagnum presence was inversely correlated (P=0.0001) to water table index, defined as water table depth relative to the peat layer, while feathermoss occurred in a wider range of microenvironments. Average NPP for 1998 was more than three times greater for Sphagnum (77 g C m(-2) year(-1)) than feathermoss (24 g C m(-2) year(-1)), but the average bryophyte NPP for 1998 was 25 g C m(-2) year(-1) because feathermoss was the dominant ground cover. The large, but differing, peat carbon content of Sphagnum- versus feathermoss-dominated boreal forests and peatlands necessitates the need to accurately quantify fraction ground cover. Additional validation of the empirical models between environmental variables and fraction ground cover of bryophytes is necessary, but the reported relationships offer an approach to model carbon dynamics of bryophytes in boreal forests and peatlands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据