Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?. Lett, S., Jónsdóttir, I. S., Becker-Scarpitta, A., Christiansen, C. T., During, H., Ekelund, F., Henry, G. H., Lang, S. I., Michelsen, A., Rousk, K., Alatalo, J. M., Betway, K. R., Rui, S. B., Callaghan, T., Carbognani, M., Cooper, E. J., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Dorrepaal, E., Egelkraut, D., Elumeeva, T. G., Haugum, S. V., Hollister, R. D., Jägerbrand, A. K., Keuper, F., Klanderud, K., Lévesque, E., Liu, X., May, J., Michel, P., Mörsdorf, M., Petraglia, A., Rixen, C., Robroek, B. J., Rzepczynska, A. M., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Tolvanen, A., Vandvik, V., Volkov, I., Volkova, I., & Zuijlen, K. v. Arctic Science, 8(3):609–637, September, 2022. Publisher: NRC Research Press
Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems? [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites.
@article{lett_can_2022,
	title = {Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?},
	volume = {8},
	url = {https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/as-2020-0057},
	doi = {10.1139/as-2020-0057},
	abstract = {The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites.},
	number = {3},
	urldate = {2024-03-27},
	journal = {Arctic Science},
	author = {Lett, Signe and Jónsdóttir, Ingibjörg S. and Becker-Scarpitta, Antoine and Christiansen, Casper T. and During, Heinjo and Ekelund, Flemming and Henry, Gregory H.R. and Lang, Simone I. and Michelsen, Anders and Rousk, Kathrin and Alatalo, Juha M. and Betway, Katlyn R. and Rui, Sara B. and Callaghan, Terry and Carbognani, Michele and Cooper, Elisabeth J. and Cornelissen, J. Hans C. and Dorrepaal, Ellen and Egelkraut, Dagmar and Elumeeva, Tatiana G. and Haugum, Siri V. and Hollister, Robert D. and Jägerbrand, Annika K. and Keuper, Frida and Klanderud, Kari and Lévesque, Esther and Liu, Xin and May, Jeremy and Michel, Pascale and Mörsdorf, Martin and Petraglia, Alessandro and Rixen, Christian and Robroek, Bjorn J.M. and Rzepczynska, Agnieszka M. and Soudzilovskaia, Nadejda A. and Tolvanen, Anne and Vandvik, Vigdis and Volkov, Igor and Volkova, Irina and Zuijlen, Kristel van},
	month = sep,
	year = {2022},
	note = {Publisher: NRC Research Press},
	keywords = {\#nosource},
	pages = {609--637},
}

Downloads: 0