Best Practices for Measuring Photosynthesis at Multiple Scales

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration book series (AIPH, volume 37)

Summary

Studies of bryophyte photosynthetic performance have generally adapted techniques developed for use in vascular plants and relied on underlying vascular plant functional models as guides. Within this context, bryophytes present intellectual and methodological challenges, but also opportunities relative to their vascular plant counterparts. For example, although the leaf is clearly a functional unit for vascular plants, the comparable bryophyte structure may or may not serve a similar purpose. Instead, shoot systems and their organization into canopies are often employed as the functional equivalent. Unfortunately, due to issues of scale and alternative functional demands on bryophyte shoots like external transport and nutrient uptake, neither the methodologies nor the underlying models that lead to an integrated understanding of photosynthesis in vascular plants apply well to bryophytes. This chapter will consider the appropriate functional units for studies of bryophyte photosynthesis and relate it to the growth form and life form literature. Methods to characterize photosynthetic “leaf” area, water content, and canopy structure will be evaluated relative to their use in characterizing rates of photosynthesis. In addition, various methods are used to study photosynthetic function and these will be considered in light of their appropriate spatial and temporal domains.

Keywords

Vascular Plant Relative Water Content Plant Water Status Bryophyte Species Shoot System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations:

LAI –

Leaf area index;

Pmax

Maximum rate of net photosynthesis;

ϕPSII

Quantum yield of photosystem II;

SAI

Shoot area index;

STAR

Shoot silhouette to needle leaf area ratio

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Heinjo During, Nadia Soudzilovskaia, Tanya Elumeeva and Simone Lang for discussions and collaboration and acknowledge support of NWO (Dutch Science Foundation) through grants ALW 852.00.070 and N-047.018.003 to HCC, National Science Foundation grant 0922883 to SKR and to Union College for sabbatical leave for SKR to complete this project.

References

  1. Alpert P, Oechel WC (1987) Comparative patterns of net photosynthesis in an assemblage of mosses with contrasting distributions. Am J Bot 74:1787–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bader MY, Zotz G, Lange OL (2009) How to minimize the sampling effort for obtaining reliable estimates of diel and annual CO2 budgets in lichens. Lichenologist 42:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes BV, Zak DR, Denton SR, Spurr SH (1998) Forest ecology, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates JW (1998) Is “life-form” a useful concept in bryophyte ecology? Oikos 82:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benscoter BW, Vitt DH (2007) Evaluating feathermoss growth: a challenge to traditional methods and implications for the boreal carbon budget. J Ecol 95:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond-Lamberty B, Gower ST (2007) Estimation of stand-level leaf area for boreal bryophytes. Oecologia 151:584–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buck WR, Goffinet B (2000) Morphology and classification of mosses. In: Shaw AJ, Goffinet G (eds) Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark DL, Nadkarni NM, Gholz HL (1998) Growth, net production, litter decomposition, and net nitrogen accumulation by epiphytic bryophytes in a tropical montane forest. Biotropica 30:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clymo RS (1963) Ion exchange in Sphagnum and its relation to bog ecology. Ann Bot 27:309–324Google Scholar
  10. Clymo RS, Hayward PM (1982) The ecology of Sphagnum. In: Smith AJE (ed) Bryophyte ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 229–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coley PD (1988) Effects of plant growth rate and leaf lifetime on the amount and type of antiherbivore defense. Oecologia 74:531–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornelissen JHC, Thompson K (1997) Functional leaf attributes predict litter decomposition rate in herbaceous plants. New Phytol 135:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cornelissen JHC, Lang SI, Soudzilovskaia NA, During HJ (2007) Comparative cryptogam ecology: a review of bryophyte and lichen traits that drive biogeochemistry. Ann Bot 99:987–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC, Amatangelo K, Dorrepaal E, Eviner VT, Godoy O, Hobbie SE, Hoorens B, Kurokawa H, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Quested HM, Santiago LS, Wardle DA, Wright IJ, Aerts R, Allison SD, van Bodegom P, Brovkin V, Chatain A, Callaghan TV, Díaz S, Garnier E, Gurvich DE, Kazakou E, Klein JA, Read J, Reich PB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Vaieretti MV, Westoby M (2008) Plant species traits are the predominant control on litter decomposition rates within biomes worldwide. Ecol Lett 11:1065–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crandall-Stotler B, Stotler RE (2000) Morphology and classification of the Marchantiophyta. In: Shaw AJ, Goffinet G (eds) Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dilks TJK, Proctor MCF (1979) Photosynthesis, respiration and water content in bryophytes. New Phytol 82:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorrepaal E, Cornelissen JHC, Aerts R, Wallen B, Van Logtestijn RSP (2005) Are growth forms consistent predictors of leaf litter quality and decomposability across peatlands along a latitudinal gradient? J Ecol 93:817–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. During HJ (1979) Life strategies of bryophytes – preliminary review. Lindbergia 5:2–18Google Scholar
  19. During HJ (1992) Ecological classification of bryophytes and lichens. In: Bates JW, Farmer AM (eds) Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  20. Elumeeva TG, Soudzilovskaia NA, During HJ, Cornelissen JHC (2011) The importance of colony structure versus shoot morphology for the water balance of 22 subarctic bryophyte species. J Veg Sci 22:152–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fowbert JA (1996) An experimental study of growth in relation to morphology and shoot water content in maritime Antarctic mosses. New Phytol 133:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Furness SB, Grime JP (1982) Growth rate and temperature responses in bryophytes II. A comparative study of species of contrasted ecology. J Ecol 70:525–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gimingham CH, Birse EM (1957) Ecological studies on growth-form in bryophytes: I. Correlation between growth-form and habitat. J Ecol 45:533–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gimingham CH, Smith RIL (1971) Growth form and water relations of mosses in the maritime Antarctic. Br Antarct Surv Bull 25:1–21. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/documents/bas_bulletins/bulletin25_02.pdf
  25. Glime JM (2006) Bryophytes and herbivory. Cryptogam Bryol 27:191–203Google Scholar
  26. Gorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green TGA, Lange OL (1995) Photosynthesis in poikilohydric plants: a comparison of lichens and bryophytes. In: Schulze E-D, Caldwell MM (eds) Ecophysiology of photosynthesis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths H, Maxwell K, Richardson D, Robe W (2004) Turning the land green: inferring photosynthetic physiology and diffusive limitations in early bryophytes. In: Hemsley AR, Poole I (eds) The evolution of plant physiology: from whole plants to ecosystems, chapter 1. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunnarsson U (2005) Global patterns of Sphagnum productivity. J Bryol 27:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hájek T, Beckett RP (2008) Water content components on desiccation and recovery in Sphagnum. Ann Bot 101:165–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hajek T, Ballance T, Limpens J, Zijlstra M, Verhoeven JTA (2011) Cell-wall polysaccharides play an important role in decay resistance of Sphagnum and actively depressed decomposition in vitro. Biogeochemistry 103:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayward PM, Clymo RS (1983) The growth of Sphagnum: experiments on, and simulation of, some effects of light flux and water-table depth. J Ecol 71:845–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hedderson TA, Longton RE (1996) Life history variation in mosses: water relations, size and phylogeny. Oikos 77:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hedenäs L (2002) Important complexes of intercorrelated character states in pleurocarpous mosses. Lindbergia 27:104–121Google Scholar
  35. Hikosaka K (2004) Interspecific difference in the photosynthetic-nitrogen relationship: patterns, physiological causes, and ecological consequences. J Plant Res 117:481–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hobbie SE (1996) Temperature and plant species control over litter decomposition in Alaskan tundra. Ecol Monogr 66:503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johansson LG, Linder S (1980) Photosynthesis in Sphagnum in different microhabitats on a Subarctic mire. In: Sonesson M (ed) Ecology of a subarctic mire, vol 30, Ecol bull., pp 181–190Google Scholar
  38. Johnson LC, Damman AWH (1991) Species-controlled Sphagnum decay on a South Swedish raised bog. Oikos 61:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kremer C, Pettolino F, Bacic A, Drinnan A (2004) Distribution of cell wall components in Sphagnum hyaline cells and in liverwort and hornwort elaters. Planta 219:1023–1035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krumnikl M, Sojka E, Gaura J, Motyka O (2010) Three-dimensional reconstruction of macroscopic features in biological materials. Comm Com Inf Sc 52:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krupa J (1984) Anatomical structure of moss leaves and their photosynthetic rate. Acta Soc Bot Pol 53:43–51Google Scholar
  42. Kuhry P (1994) The role of fire in the development of Sphagnum-dominated peatlands in western boreal Canada. J Ecol 82:899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kürschner H, Frey W, Parolly G (1999) Patterns and adaptive trends of life forms, life strategies and ecomorphological structures in tropical epiphytic bryophytes—a pantropical synopsis. Nova Hedwigia 69:73–99Google Scholar
  44. Lang SI, Cornelissen JHC, Klahn T, van Logtestijn RSP, Broekman R, Schweikert W, Aerts R (2009) An experimental comparison of chemical traits and litter decomposition rates in a diverse range of subarctic bryophyte, lichen and vascular plant species. J Ecol 97:886–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Limpens J, Berendse F (2003) How litter quality affects mass loss and N loss from decomposing Sphagnum. Oikos 103:537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Limpens J, Berendse F, Blodau C, Canadell JG, Freeman C, Holden J, Roulet N, Rydin H, Schaepman-Strub G (2008) Peatlands and the carbon cycle: from local processes to global implications – a synthesis. Biogeosciences 5:1475–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Magdefrau K (1982) Life-forms of bryophytes. In: Smith I (ed) Bryophyte ecology. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martin CE, Adamson VJ (2001) Photosynthetic capacity of mosses relative to vascular plants. J Bryol 23:319–323Google Scholar
  49. Meyer M, Seibt U, Griffiths H (2008) To concentrate or ventilate? Carbon acquisition, isotope discrimination and physiological ecology of early land plant life forms. Philos T Roy Soc B 363:2767–2778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mishler BD, Oliver MJ (2009) Putting Physcomitrella patens on the tree of life: the evolution and ecology of mosses. Ann Plant Rev 36:1–15Google Scholar
  51. Newton AE (2007) Branching architecture in pleurocarpous mosses. In: Newton AE, Tangney S (eds) Pleurocarpous mosses: systematics and evolution. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nobel PS (1977) Internal leaf area and cellular CO2 resistance: photosynthetic implications of variations with growth conditions and plant species. Physiol Plant 40:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nobel PS, Walker DB (1985) Structure of leaf photosynthetic tissue. In: Barber J, Baker NR (eds) Photosynthetic mechanisms and the environment. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, pp 501–531Google Scholar
  54. Popper ZA, Fry SC (2003) Primary cell wall composition of bryophytes and charophytes. Ann Bot 91:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Proctor MCF (1980) Diffusion resistance in bryophytes. In: Grace J, Ford ED, Jarvis PG (eds) Plants and their atmospheric environment. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 219–229Google Scholar
  56. Proctor MCF (1990) The physiological basis of bryophyte production. Bot J Linn Soc 104:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Proctor MCF (1999) Water-relations parameters of some bryophytes evaluated by thermocouple psychrometry. J Bryol 21:263–270Google Scholar
  58. Proctor MCF (2000) Physiological ecology. In: Shaw AJ, Goffinet B (eds) Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Proctor MCF, Nagy Z, Csintalan Z, Tuba Z (1998) Water-content components in bryophytes: analysis of pressure-volume relationships. J Exp Bot 49:1845–1854Google Scholar
  60. Proctor MCF, Oliver MJ, Wood AJ, Alpert P, Stark LR, Cleavitt NL, Mishler BD (2007) Desiccation-tolerance in bryophytes: a review. Bryologist 110:595–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rice SK (2009) Mosses (Bryophytes). In: Likens GE (ed) Encyclopedia of inland waters, vol 1. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rice SK, Schneider N (2004) Cushion size, surface roughness, and the control of water balance and carbon flux in the cushion moss Leucobryum glaucum (Leucobryaceae). Am J Bot 91:1164–1172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rice SK, Gutman C, Krouglicof N (2005) Laser scanning reveals bryophyte canopy structure. New Phytol 166:695–704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rice SK, Aclander L, Hanson DT (2008) Do bryophyte shoot systems function like vascular plant leaves or canopies? Functional trait relationships in Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnaceae). Am J Bot 95:1366–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rice SK, Neal N, Mango J, Black K (2011a) Modeling bryophyte productivity across gradients of water availability using canopy form-function relationships. In: Tuba Z, Slack NG, Stark LR (eds) Bryophyte ecology and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 441–457Google Scholar
  66. Rice SK, Neal N, Mango J, Black K (2011b) Relationships among shoot tissue, canopy and photosynthetic characteristics in the feathermoss Pleurozium schreberi. Bryologist 114:367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rydin H, Gunnarsson U, Sundberg S (2006) The role of Sphagnum in peatland development and persistence. In: Wieder RK, Vitt DH (eds) Boreal peatland ecosystems, Ecological Studies Series. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scheffer RA, van Logtestijn RSP, Verhoeven JTA (2001) Decomposition of Carex and Sphagnum litter in two mesotrophic fens differing in dominant plant species. Oikos 92:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Scholfield WB (1981) Ecological significance of morphological characters in the moss gametophyte. Bryologist 84:149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simon T (1987) The leaf-area index of three moss species (Tortula ruralis, Ceratodon purpureus, and Hypnum cupressiforme). Symp Biol Hung 35:699–706Google Scholar
  71. Skre O, Oechel WC (1981) Moss functioning in different taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska. I. Seasonal, phenotypic, and drought effects on photosynthesis and response patterns. Oecologia 48:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith WK, Hughes NM (2009) Progress in coupling plant form and photosynthetic function. Castanea 74:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stenberg P, Palmroth S, Bond BJ, Sprugel DG, Smolander H (2001) Shoot structure and photosynthetic efficiency along the light gradient in a Scots pine canopy. Tree Physiol 21:805–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thérézein M, Palmroth S, Brady R, Oren R (2007) Estimation of light interception properties of conifer shoots by an improved photographic method and a 3D model of shoot structure. Tree Physiol 27:1375–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tobias M, Niinemets Ü (2010) Acclimation of photosynthetic characteristics of the moss Pleurozium schreberi to among-habitat and within-canopy light gradients. Plant Biol 12:743–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Turetsky MR, Crow SE, Evans RJ, Vitt DH, Wieder RK (2008) Trade-offs in resource allocation among moss species control decomposition in boreal peatlands. J Ecol 96:1297–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Altena C, van Logtestijn RSP, Cornwell WK, Cornelissen JHC (2012) Species composition and fire: non-additive mixture effects on ground fuel flammability. Front Funct Plant Ecol 3:1–10Google Scholar
  78. Van der Hoeven EC, Huynen CIJ, During HJ (1993) Vertical profiles of biomass, light intercepting area and light intensity in chalk grassland mosses. J Hattori Bot Lab 74:261–270Google Scholar
  79. Vanderpoorten A, Goffinet B (2009) Introduction to bryophytes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Verhoeven JTA, Liefveld WM (1997) The ecological significance of organochemical compounds in Sphagnum. Acta Bot Neerl 46:117–130Google Scholar
  81. Vitt DH (1990) Growth and production dynamics of boreal mosses over climatic, chemical and topographic gradients. Bot J Linn Soc 104:35–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Waite M, Sack L (2010) How does moss photosynthesis relate to leaf and canopy structure? Trait relationships for 10 Hawaiian species of contrasting light habitats. New Phytol 185:156–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams TG, Flanagan LB (1998) Measuring and modeling environmental influences on photosynthetic gas exchange in Sphagnum and Pleurozium. Plant Cell Environ 21:555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zotz G, Kahler H (2007) A moss “canopy”—small scale differences in microclimate and physiological traits in Tortula ruralis. Flora 202:661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zotz G, Rottenberger S (2001) Seasonal changes in Diel CO2 exchange of three central European moss species: a one-year field study. Plant Biol 3:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zotz G, Schweikert A, Jetz W, Westerman H (2000) Water relations and carbon gain are closely related to cushion size in the moss Grimmia pulvinata. New Phytol 148:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUnion CollegeSchenectadyUSA
  2. 2.Systems Ecology, Department of Ecological ScienceVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations