, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 170–184 | Cite as

Relationships Between Plant Assemblages and Water Flow Across a Boreal Forest Landscape: A Comparison of Liverworts, Mosses, and Vascular Plants

  • Lenka KuglerováEmail author
  • Mats Dynesius
  • Hjalmar Laudon
  • Roland Jansson


The distribution of water across landscapes affects the diversity and composition of ecological communities, as demonstrated by studies on variation in vascular plant communities along river networks and in relation to groundwater. However, non-vascular plants have been neglected in this regard. Bryophytes are dominant components of boreal flora, performing many ecosystem functions and affecting ecosystem processes, but how their diversity and species composition vary across catchments is poorly known. We asked how terrestrial assemblages of mosses and liverworts respond to variation in (i) catchment size, going from upland-forest to riparian settings along increasingly large streams and (ii) groundwater discharge conditions. We compared the patterns found for liverworts and mosses to vascular plants in the same set of study plots. Species richness of vascular plants and mosses increased with catchment size, whereas liverworts peaked along streams of intermediate size. All three taxonomic groups responded to groundwater discharge in riparian zones by maintaining high species richness further from the stream channel. Groundwater discharge thus provided riparian-like habitat further away from the streams and also in upland-forest sites compared to the non-discharge counterparts. In addition, soil chemistry (C:N ratio, pH) and light availability were important predictors of vascular plant species richness. Mosses and liverworts responded to the availability of specific substrates (stones and topographic hollows), but were also affected by soil C:N. Overall, assemblages of mosses and vascular plants exhibited many similarities in how they responded to hydrological gradients, whereas the patterns of liverworts differed from the other two groups.


catchment size groundwater discharge liverworts mosses riparian river network species richness vascular plants 



We thank Henrik Weibull for inventorying and identifying all bryophytes in the study plots, Johan Lingegård, Julia Jansson, and Isak Lindmark for helping with the fieldwork, and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript. Funding was provided by the Swedish Research Council Formas (to R. Jansson), SITES, Mistra Future Forests, and Formas Forwater (to H. Laudon), and SJCKMS Kempe foundation and Gunnar and Ruth Björkmans Fund for Botanical Research in Norrland (to L. Kuglerová).

Supplementary material

10021_2015_9927_MOESM1_ESM.docx (180 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 180 kb)


  1. Anderson MJ. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46.Google Scholar
  2. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang 59:390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagella S. 2014. Does cross-taxon analysis show similarity in diversity patterns between vascular plants and bryophytes? Some answers from a literature review. CR Biol 337:276–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates DM, Maechler M. 2009. lmer4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32.Google Scholar
  5. Bendix J, Stella JC. 2013. Riparian vegetation and the fluvial environment: a biogeographic perspective. In: Shroder J, Ed. Treatise on geomorphology. San Diego: Academic Press. p 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruun HH, Moen J, Virtanen R, Grytnes JA, Oksanen L, Angerbjorn A. 2006. Effects of altitude and topography on species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens in alpine communities. J Veg Sci 17:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bång A, Nilsson C, Holm S. 2007. The potential role of tributaries as seed sources to an impoundment in Northern Sweden: a field experiment with seed mimics. River Res Appl 23:1049–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canham CD. 1988. An index for understory light levels in and around canopy gaps. Ecology 69:1634–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chevan A, Sutherland M. 1991. Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–6.Google Scholar
  10. Cornelissen JHC, Lang SI, Soundzilovskaia NA, During HJ. 2007. Comparative cryptogam ecology: a review of bryophyte and lichen traits that drive biogeochemistry. Ann Bot 99:987–1001.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. DeLuca TH, Zackrisson O, Nilsson MC, Sellstedt A. 2002. Quantifying nitrogen-fixation in feather moss carpets of boreal forests. Nature 419:917–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn RR, Colwell RK, Nilsson C. 2006. The river domain: why are there more species halfway up the river? Ecography 29:251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn WC, Milne BT, Mantilla R, Gupta VK. 2011. Scaling relations between riparian vegetation and stream order in the Whitewater River network, Kansas, USA. Landsc Ecol 26:983–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dynesius M, Hylander K, Nilsson C. 2009. High resilience of bryophyte assemblages in streamside compared to upland forests. Ecology 90:1042–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dynesius M, Zinko U. 2006. Species richness correlations among primary producers in boreal forests. Divers Distrib 12:703–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erős T, Schmera D, Schick RS. 2011. Network thinking in riverscape conservation—a graph-based approach. Biol Conserv 144:184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glime, JM. 2007. Bryophyte ecology. Volume 1. Physiological ecology. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Accessed 14 Jan 2015.
  18. Gould WA, Walker MD. 1999. Plant communities and landscape diversity along a Canadian arctic river. J Veg Sci 10:537–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham MH. 2003. Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant EHC, Lowe WH, Fagan WF. 2007. Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. Ecol Lett 10:165–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallingbäck T, Hedenas L, Weibull H. 2006. New checklist of Swedish bryophytes. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 100:96–148.Google Scholar
  22. Harner MJ, Stanford JA. 2003. Differences in cottonwood growth between a losing and a gaining reach of an alluvial floodplain. Ecology 84:1453–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Honnay O, Verhaeghe W, Hermy M. 2001. Plant community assembly along dendritic networks of small forest streams. Ecology 82:1691–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hylander K, Dynesius M. 2006. Causes of the large variation in bryophyte species richness and composition among boreal streamside forests. J Veg Sci 17:333–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hylander K, Dynesius M, Jonsson BG, Nilsson C. 2005. Substrate form determines the fate of bryophytes in riparian buffer strips. Ecol Appl 15:674–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hylander K, Weibull H. 2012. Do time-lagged extinctions and colonizations change the interpretation of buffer strip effectiveness?—a study of riparian bryophytes in the first decade after logging. J Appl Ecol 49:1316–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jansson R, Laudon H, Johansson E, Augspurger C. 2007. The importance of groundwater discharge for plant species number in riparian zones. Ecology 88:131–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonsson BG. 1996. Riparian bryophytes of the HJ Andrews Experimental Forest in the western Cascades, Oregon. Bryologist 99:226–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jonsson BG. 1997. Riparian bryophyte vegetation in the Cascade mountain range, Northwest U.S.A.: patterns at different spatial scales. Can J Bot 75:744–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonsson M, Kardol P, Gundale MJ, Bansal S, Nilsson M-C, Metcalfe DB, Wardle DA. 2015. Direct and indirect drivers of moss community structure, function, and associated microfauna across a successional gradient. Ecosystems 18:154–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krok TOBN, Almquist S. 1994. Svensk flora. Fanerogamer och ormbunksväxter. Stockholm: Liber Utbildning.Google Scholar
  32. Kruskal JB. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling—a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuglerová L, Jansson R, Ågren A, Laudon H, Malm-Renöfält B. 2014a. Groundwater discharge creates hotspots of riparian plant species richness in a boreal forest stream network. Ecology 95:715–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuglerová L, Ågren A, Jansson R, Laudon H. 2014b. Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: ecological and biogeochemical implications for forest management. For Ecol Manag 334:74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuglerová L, Jansson R, Sponseller RA, Laudon H, Malm-Renöfält B. 2015. Local and regional processes determine plant species richness in a river-network metacommunity. Ecology 96:381–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Laudon H, Taberman I, Ågren A, Futter M, Ottosson-Löfvenius M, Bishop K. 2013. The Krycklan Catchment Study—A flagship infrastructure for hydrology, biogeochemistry, and climate research in the boreal landscape. Water Resour Res 49:7154–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee TD, Laroi GH. 1979. Bryophyte and understory vascular plant beta diversity in relation to moisture and elevation gradients. Vegetatio 40:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lite SJ, Bagstad KJ, Stromberg JC. 2005. Riparian plant species richness along lateral and longitudinal gradients of water stress and flood disturbance, San Pedro River, Arizona, USA. J Arid Environ 63:785–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naiman RJ, Décamps H. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nilsson C, Grelsson G, Johansson M, Sperens U. 1989. Patterns of plant species richness along riverbanks. Ecology 70:77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nilsson C, Jansson R, Kuglerová L, Lind L, Ström L. 2012. Boreal riparian vegetation under climate change. Ecosystems 16:401–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nilsson MC, Wardle DH. 2005. Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Front Ecol Environ 3:421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H. 2013. Vegan: R Community ecology packge.Google Scholar
  44. Pabst RJ, Spies TA. 1998. Distribution of herbs and shrubs in relation to landform and canopy cover in riparian forests of coastal Oregon. Can J Bot 76:298–315.Google Scholar
  45. Planty-Tabacchi AM, Tabacchi E, Naiman RJ, Deferrari C, Décamps H. 1996. Invasibility of species rich communities in riparian zones. Conserv Biol 10:598–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollock MM, Naiman RJ, Hanley TA. 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands—a test of biodiversity theory. Ecology 79:94–105.Google Scholar
  47. R Developmental Core Team. 2013. R: a language and environment to statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  48. Richardson JS, Naiman RJ, Swanson FJ, Hibbs DE. 2005. Riparian communities associated with Pacific Northwest headwater streams: assemblages, processes, and uniqueness. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:935–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sabo JL, Sponseller R, Dixon M, Gade K, Harms T, Heffernan J, Jani A, Katz G, Soykan C, Watts J, Welter A. 2005. Riparian zones increase regional species richness by harboring different, not more, species. Ecology 86:56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Selonen VAO, Kotiaho JS. 2013. Buffer strips can pre-empt extinction debt in boreal streamside habitats. BMC Ecol 13:24.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Stewart KJ, Mallik AU. 2006. Bryophyte responses to microclimatic edge effects across riparian buffers. Ecol Appl 16:1474–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Tabacchi E, PlantyTabacchi AM, Salinas MJ, Decamps H. 1996. Landscape structure and diversity in riparian plant communities: a longitudinal comparative study. Regul Rivers Res Manag 12:367–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tamm CO. 1991. Nitrogen in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Stud 81:1–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walsh C, Mac Nally R. 2013. hier.part: hierarchical partitioning. R package version 1.0-4.
  55. Wastenson L, Fredén C, Eds. 2002. Sveriges Nationalatlas. Berg och Jord. Vällingby: Sveriges Nationalatlas.Google Scholar
  56. Wiens JA. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zinko U, Seibert J, Dynesius M, Nilsson C. 2005. Plant species numbers predicted by a topography-based groundwater flow index. Ecosystems 8:430–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Forest Science CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural ScienceUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations