Oecologia

, Volume 167, Issue 4, pp 1115–1125 | Cite as

Sphagnum growth and ecophysiology during mire succession

  • Anna M. Laine
  • Eija Juurola
  • Tomáš Hájek
  • Eeva-Stiina Tuittila
Ecosystem ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Sphagnum mosses are widespread in areas where mires exist and constitute a globally important carbon sink. Their ecophysiology is known to be related to the water level, but very little is currently known about the successional trend in Sphagnum. We hypothesized that moss species follow the known vascular plant growth strategy along the successional gradient (i.e., decrease in production and maximal photosynthesis while succession proceeds). To address this hypothesis, we studied links between the growth and related ecophysiological processes of Sphagnum mosses from a time-since-initiation chronosequence of five wetlands. We quantified the rates of increase in biomass and length of different Sphagnum species in relation to their CO2 assimilation rates, their photosynthetic light reaction efficiencies, and their physiological states, as measured by the chlorophyll fluorescence method. In agreement with our hypothesis, increase in biomass and CO2 exchange rate of Sphagnum mosses decreased along the successional gradient, following the tactics of more intensely studied vascular plants. Mosses at the young and old ends of the chronosequence showed indications of downregulation, measured as a low ratio between variable and maximum fluorescence (Fv/Fm). Our study divided the species into three groups; pioneer species, hollow species, and ombrotrophic hummock formers. The pioneer species S. fimbriatum is a ruderal plant that occurred at the first sites along the chronosequence, which were characterized by low stress but high disturbance. Hollow species are competitive plants that occurred at sites with low stress and low disturbance (i.e., in the wet depressions in the middle and at the old end of the chronosequence). Ombrotrophic hummock species are stress-tolerant plants that occurred at sites with high stress and low disturbance (i.e., at the old end of the chronosequence). The three groups along the mire successional gradient appeared to be somewhat analogous to the three primary strategies suggested by Grime.

Keywords

Photosynthesis Chlorophyll fluorescence Meadow Fen Bog Bog moss Successional gradient 

References

  1. Andrus RE (1986) Some aspects of Sphagnum ecology. Can J Bot 64:416–426Google Scholar
  2. Andrus RE, Wagner DJ, Titus JE (1983) Vertical zonation of Sphagnum mosses along hummock-hollow gradients. Can J Bot 61:3128–3139Google Scholar
  3. Bazzaz FA (1979) The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 10:351–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bazzaz FA (1996) Plants in changing environment. Linking physiological, population, and community ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Björkman O (1981) Responses to different quantum flux densities. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology. Springer, Heidelberg, 12A:57–107 Google Scholar
  6. Charman DJ (2002) Peatlands and environmental change. Wiley, Chichester, p 301Google Scholar
  7. Clymo RS, Hayward PM (1982) The ecology of Sphagnum. In: Smith AJE (ed) Bryophyte ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 229–290Google Scholar
  8. Gaberščik A, Martinčič A (1987) Seasonal dynamics of net photosynthesis and productivity of Sphagnum papillosum. Lindbergia 13:105–110Google Scholar
  9. Gorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Granath G, Strengbom J, Breeuwer A, Heijmans M, Berendse F, Rydin H (2009a) Photosynthetic performance in Sphagnum transplanted along a latitudinal nitrogen deposition gradient. Oecologia 159:705–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Granath G, Wiedermann M, Strengbom J (2009b) Physiological responses to nitrogen and sulphur addition and raised temperature in Sphagnum balticum. Oecologia 161:481–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granath G, Strengbom J, Rydin H (2010) Rapid ecosystem shifts in peatlands: linking plant physiology and succession. Ecology 91:3047–3056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevence to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunnarsson U (2005) Global patterns of Sphagnum productivity. J Bryol 27:269–279Google Scholar
  15. Gunnarsson U, Granberg G, Nilsson M (2004) Growth, production and interspecific competition in Sphagnum: effects of temperature, nitrogen and sulphur treatments on a boreal mire. New Phytol 163:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hájek T, Tuittila E-S, Ilomets M, Laiho R (2009) Light responses of mire mosses—a key to survival after water-level drawdown. Oikos 118:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hulme PD, Blyth AW (1982) The annual growth period of some Sphagnum species on the Silver Flowe National Reserve, south-west Scotland. J Bryol 12:287–291Google Scholar
  18. Johnson LC, Damman AWH (1993) Decay and its regulation in Sphagnum peatlands. Adv Bryol 5:249–296Google Scholar
  19. Laine J, Harju P, Timonen T, Laine A, Tuittila E-S, Minkkinen K, Vasander H (2009) The inticate beauty of Sphagnum mosses—a Finnish guide to identification (Univ Helsinki Dept Forest Ecol Publ 39). Department of Forest Ecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, pp 1–190Google Scholar
  20. Leppälä M, Kukko-oja K, Laine J, Tuittila E-S (2008) Seasonal dynamics of CO2 exchange during primary succession of boreal mires as controlled by phenology of plants. Ecoscience 15:460–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leppälä M, Oksanen J, Tuittila E-S (2011a) Methane flux dynamics during the mire succession. Oecologia 165:489–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leppälä M, Laine AM, Seväkivi M-L, Tuittila E-S (2011b) Differences in CO2 dynamics between successional mire plant communities during wet and dry summers. J Veg Sci 22:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lichtenthaler HK, Ač A, Marek MV, Kalina J, Urban O (2007) Differences in pigment composition, photosynthetic rates and chlorophyll fluorescence images of sun and shade leaves of four tree species. Plant Physiol Biochem 45:577–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindholm T (1990) Growth dynamics of the peat moss Sphagnum fuscum on hummocks on a raised bog in southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 27:67–78Google Scholar
  25. Lindholm T, Vasander H (1990) Production of eight species of Sphagnum at Suurisuo mire, southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 27:145–157Google Scholar
  26. Maseyk KS, Green TGA, Klinac D (1999) Photosynthetic response of New Zealand Sphagnum species. N Z J Bot 37:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Cholorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. J Exp Bot 50:659–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merilä P, Galand PE, Fritze H, Tuittila E-S, Kukko-oja K, Laine J, Yrjälä K (2006) Methanogen communities along a primary succession transect of mire ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 55:221–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murray KJ, Tenhunen JD, Nowak RS (1993) Photoinhibition as a control on photosynthesis and production of Sphagnum mosses. Oecologia 96:200–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rehell S, Heikkilä R (2009) Young successional stages of aapa mires on the land uplift coast of northern Ostrobothnia, Finland. SUO 60:1–22Google Scholar
  31. Rydin H, Jeglum JK (2006) Biology of peatlands. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 354Google Scholar
  32. Rydin H, McDonald AJS (1985a) Photosynthesis in Sphagnum at different water contents. J Bryol 13:579–584Google Scholar
  33. Rydin H, McDonald AJS (1985b) Tolerance of Sphagnum to water level. J Bryol 13:571–578Google Scholar
  34. Schipperges B, Rydin H (1998) Response of photosynthesis of Sphagnum species from contrasting microhabitats to tissue water content and repeated dessiccation. New Phytol 140:677–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sundberg S, Hansson J, Rydin H (2006) Colonization of Sphagnum on land uplift islands in the Baltic Sea: time, area, distance and life history. J Biogeogr 33:1479–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuittila E-S, Väliranta M, Laine J, Korhola A (2007) Quantifying patterns and controls of mire vegetation succession in a southern boreal bog in Finland using partial ordinations. J Veg Sci 18:891–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Valladares F, Pearcy RW (1997) Interactions between water stress, sun-shade acclimation, heat tolerance and photoinhibition in the sclerophyll Heteromeles arbutifolia. Plant Cell Environ 20:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Breemen N (1995) How Sphagnum bogs down other plants. Trends Ecol Evol 10:270–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vitt DH, Wieder RK (2009) Bryophyte-dominated peatlands. In: Goffinet B, Shaw J (eds) Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–392Google Scholar
  40. Wilcox D, Andrus RE (1987) The role of Sphagnum fimbriatum in secondary succession in a road salt impacted bog. Can J Bot 65:2270–2275Google Scholar
  41. Zangerl AR, Bazzaz FA (1983) Responses of an early and a late successional species of Polygonum to variations in resource availability. Oecologia 56:397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna M. Laine
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Eija Juurola
    • 2
  • Tomáš Hájek
    • 3
  • Eeva-Stiina Tuittila
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Department of Forest ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Institute of BotanyCzech Academy of SciencesTřeboňCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Forest ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations