Advertisement

Moss regulates soil evaporation leading to decoupling of soil and near-surface air temperatures

  • Shidong Chen
  • Zhijie Yang
  • Xiaofei Liu
  • Jie Sun
  • Chao Xu
  • Decheng Xiong
  • Weisheng Lin
  • Yiqing Li
  • Jianfen GuoEmail author
  • Yusheng YangEmail author
Soils, Sec 2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Moss covers a vast area from the polar to the tropics on a global scale and has important regulatory effects on the biogeochemical processes in the soil. Previous studies had shown that moss on soil could reduce soil temperature in the warm period and plays an important role in the stability of the soil carbon pool in the context of global warming. The cooling effect of soil temperature by moss may be due to its ability to accelerate soil water evaporation. Most vascular plants achieve limited homeothermy by transpiration, but moss has no organs which can regulate transpiration. Can moss also regulate soil water evaporation as the transpiration of vascular plants? The objective of this study was to determine the differences in temperature and evaporation between moss-covered and bare soil.

Materials and methods

A year-round mesocosm experiment was carried out to investigate soil temperature and evaporation with and without moss. We used a high time-resolution instrument which could simultaneously monitor soil temperature beneath moss layers, photosynthetically active radiation, and near-surface air temperature (20 cm above the soil) in a 10-min interval. In the meantime, we used a chamber method to monitor soil evaporation and heat flux inside the mesocosms simultaneously.

Results and discussion

We found that the evaporation of the moss increased drastically when near-surface air temperature exceeded 30 °C, which kept maximum soil temperature around 30 °C. This finding was different from many previous studies which reported that the evaporation of moss was always greater than bare soil or similar to open water surface. The phenomenon we found may be important for moss, which allowed moss to minimize the loss of water at high temperature and maintain a relatively constant temperature. It is known that moss is a C3 plant, and the high-temperature threshold for the photosynthesis of C3 vascular plants is also around 30 °C. Thus, the temperature-regulating behavior could improve the net carbon gain for moss and benefit for its survival. To our best knowledge, there is no research reporting this phenomenon. In the context of global warming, the temperature-regulating behavior of moss is very important for its controls on soil carbon dynamics and its other ecological functions, especially at lower latitudes with higher soil temperature.

Conclusions

Our result showed that moss can also achieve limited homeothermy through soil water evaporation similarly as the vascular plant through transpiration, and the temperature threshold was around 30 °C. This homeothermy led to the decoupling of soil temperature and near-surface air temperature. How mosses elevate water evaporation in response to high temperature remains to be a challenge for future research.

Keywords

Decouple Evaporation Homeotherms Moss Soil temperature Transpiration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Francis Bowles for helping with the design of the environmental factor monitoring system.

Funding information

This research was supported by the Joint Fund for the Promotion of Cross-strait Cooperation in Science and Technology (U1505233), the National “973” Program of China (2014CB954003), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31500506).

References

  1. Blok D, Heijmans M, Schaepman-Strub G, van Ruijven J, Parmentier F, Maximov T, Berendse F (2011) The cooling capacity of mosses: controls on water and energy fluxes in a Siberian tundra site. Ecosystems 14:1055–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blonder B, Michaletz ST (2018) A model for leaf temperature decoupling from air temperature. Agric For Meteorol 262:354–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Díaz IA, Sieving KE, Peña-Foxon ME, Larraín J, Armesto JJ (2010) Epiphyte diversity and biomass loads of canopy emergent trees in Chilean temperate rain forests: a neglected functional component. For Ecol Manag 259:1490–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gates D, Hiesey W, Milner H, Nobs M (1964) Temperatures of Mimulus leaves in natural environments and in a controlled chamber. Carnegie Inst Wash Yearbook 63:418–428Google Scholar
  5. Gornall J, Jónsdóttir I, Woodin S, Van der Wal R (2007) Arctic mosses govern below-ground environment and ecosystem processes. Oecologia 153:931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. He X, He KS, Hyvönen J (2016) Will bryophytes survive in a warming world? Perspect Plant Ecol 19:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heijmans MM, Arp WJ, Chapin FS (2004) Controls on moss evaporation in a boreal black spruce forest. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 18(2).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002128
  8. Helliker BR, Richter SL (2008) Subtropical to boreal convergence of tree-leaf temperatures. Nature 454:511–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jácome J, Gradstein S, Kessler M (2011) Responses of epiphytic bryophyte communities to simulated climate change in the tropics. Bryophyte ecology and climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 191–207Google Scholar
  10. Kidron GJ, Vonshak A (2012) The use of microbiotic crusts as biomarkers for ponding, subsurface flow and soil moisture content and duration. Geoderma 181:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li XR, Ma FY, Xiao HL, Wang XP, Kim KC (2004) Long-term effects of revegetation on soil water content of sand dunes in arid region of northern China. J Arid Environ 57:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Linacre E (1967) Further notes on a feature of leaf and air temperatures. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie, Serie B 15:422–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maier S, Tamm A, Wu D, Caesar J, Grube M, Weber B (2018) Photoautotrophic organisms control microbial abundance, diversity, and physiology in different types of biological soil crusts. ISME J 12:1032–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merced A, Renzaglia KS (2017) Structure, function and evolution of stomata from a bryological perspective. Bryophyte Divers Evol 39:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Michaletz ST, Weiser MD, Zhou J, Kaspari M, Helliker BR, Enquist BJ (2015) Plant thermoregulation: energetics, trait-environment interactions, and carbon economics. Trend Ecol Evol 30:714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O'donnell JA, Romanovsky VE, Harden JW, McGuire AD (2009) The effect of moisture content on the thermal conductivity of moss and organic soil horizons from black spruce ecosystems in interior Alaska. Soil Sci 174:646–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Park H, Launiainen S, Konstantinov PY, Iijima Y, Fedorov AN (2018) Modeling the effect of moss cover on soil temperature and carbon fluxes at a Tundra site in northeastern Siberia. J Geophys Res-Biogeosci 123:3028–3044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Porada P, Van Stan JT, Kleidon A (2018) Significant contribution of non-vascular vegetation to global rainfall interception. Nat Geosci 11:563–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Potter K, Davidowitz G, Woods HA (2009) Insect eggs protected from high temperatures by limited homeothermy of plant leaves. J Exp Biol 212:3448–3454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pressel S, Renzaglia KS, Clymo RS, Duckett JG (2018) Hornwort stomata do not respond actively to exogenous and environmental cues. Ann Bot 122:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rice SK, Cornelissen JHC (2014) Best practices for measuring photosynthesis at multiple scales, photosynthesis in bryophytes and early land plants. Springer, pp 79–93Google Scholar
  22. Rocha AV, Shaver GR (2011) Postfire energy exchange in arctic tundra: the importance and climatic implications of burn severity. Glob Chang Biol 17:2831–2841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Soil Survey Staff of USDA (2014) Soil Survey Staff, 2014. Natural Resources Conservation Service 2014 National Soil Survey Handbook. Title 430-VI. U.S. Government Printing Office Washington D.C. Sec 602Google Scholar
  24. Song X, Barbour MM, Saurer M, Helliker BR (2011) Examining the large-scale convergence of photosynthesis-weighted tree leaf temperatures through stable oxygen isotope analysis of multiple data sets. New Phytol 192:912–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soudzilovskaia NA, van Bodegom PM, Cornelissen JH (2013) Dominant bryophyte control over high-latitude soil temperature fluctuations predicted by heat transfer traits, field moisture regime and laws of thermal insulation. Funct Ecol 27:1442–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steduto P, Çetinkökü Ö, Albrizio R, Kanber R (2002) Automated closed-system canopy-chamber for continuous field-crop monitoring of CO2 and H2O fluxes. Agric For Meteorol 111:171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stoy PC, Street LE, Johnson AV, Prieto-Blanco A, Ewing SA (2012) Temperature, heat flux, and reflectance of common subarctic mosses and lichens under field conditions: might changes to community composition impact climate-relevant surface fluxes? Arct Antarct Alp Res 44:500–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tucker CL, Ferrenberg S, Reed SC (2019) Climatic sensitivity of dryland soil CO2 fluxes differs dramatically with biological soil crust successional state. Ecosystems 22:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turetsky MR (2003) The role of bryophytes in carbon and nitrogen cycling. Bryologist 106:395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turetsky MR, Bond-Lamberty B, Euskirchen E, Talbot J, Frolking S, McGuire AD, Tuittila ES (2012) The resilience and functional role of moss in boreal and arctic ecosystems. New Phytol 196:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Upchurch DR, Mahan JR (1988) Maintenance of constant leaf temperature by plants—II. Experimental observations in cotton. Environ Exp Bot 28:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van der Wal R, Brooker R (2004) Mosses mediate grazer impacts on grass abundance in arctic ecosystems. Funct Ecol 18:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner S, Zotz G, Salazar Allen N, Bader MY (2013) Altitudinal changes in temperature responses of net photosynthesis and dark respiration in tropical bryophytes. Ann Bot 111:455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shen T, Corlett RT, Song L, Ma WZ, Guo XL, Song Y, Wu Y (2018) Vertical gradient in bryophyte diversity and species composition in tropical and subtropical forests in Yunnan, SW China. J Veg Sci 29: 1075–1087Google Scholar
  35. Xiao B, Zhao Y-G, Shao M-A (2010) Characteristics and numeric simulation of soil evaporation in biological soil crusts. J Arid Environ 74:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xiao B, Wang H, Fan J, Fischer T, Veste M (2013) Biological soil crusts decrease soil temperature in summer and increase soil temperature in winter in semiarid environment. Ecol Eng 58:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xiao B, Hu K, Ren T, Li B (2016) Moss-dominated biological soil crusts significantly influence soil moisture and temperature regimes in semiarid ecosystems. Geoderma 263:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Xu Y, Ramanathan V, Victor DG (2018) Global warming will happen faster than we think. Nature 565:30–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamori W, Hikosaka K, Way DA (2014) Temperature response of photosynthesis in C3, C4, and CAM plants: temperature acclimation and temperature adaptation. Photosynthesis Res 119:101–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory for Subtropical Mountain EcologyFujian Normal UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.College of Geographical SciencesFujian Normal UniversityFuzhouChina
  3. 3.College of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of HawaiiHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations