• bryophytes;
  • disturbance;
  • dynamic vegetation model;
  • ecosystem function;
  • plant functional type;
  • stability;
  • warming;
  • wildfire


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information


I.Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region50
II.The role of moss in ecological resilience51
III.Response of moss to disturbance54
IV.Future research needs60


Mosses in northern ecosystems are ubiquitous components of plant communities, and strongly influence nutrient, carbon and water cycling. We use literature review, synthesis and model simulations to explore the role of mosses in ecological stability and resilience. Moss community responses to disturbance showed all possible responses (increases, decreases, no change) within most disturbance categories. Simulations from two process-based models suggest that northern ecosystems would need to experience extreme perturbation before mosses were eliminated. But simulations with two other models suggest that loss of moss will reduce soil carbon accumulation primarily by influencing decomposition rates and soil nitrogen availability. It seems clear that mosses need to be incorporated into models as one or more plant functional types, but more empirical work is needed to determine how to best aggregate species. We highlight several issues that have not been adequately explored in moss communities, such as functional redundancy and singularity, relationships between response and effect traits, and parameter vs conceptual uncertainty in models. Mosses play an important role in several ecosystem processes that play out over centuries – permafrost formation and thaw, peat accumulation, development of microtopography – and there is a need for studies that increase our understanding of slow, long-term dynamical processes.

I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Many northern, high-latitude ecosystems are characterized by an abundance of mosses. In general, mosses and other nonvascular plants show a pattern of increasing abundance with increasing latitude, whereas vascular plant species richness declines steeply along the same gradient (Vitt & Pakarinen, 1977; Wielgolaski et al., 1981; Jagerbrand et al., 2006). At a landscape scale, moss diversity is highest in mesic, high-pH habitats and on particular substrates such as fallen logs (Robinson et al., 1989; Belland & Schofield, 1994; Vitt et al., 2003; Mills & Macdonald, 2004; Hylander & Dynesius, 2006). Despite their abundance, only in the past few decades have mosses been recognized as important, dynamic components of northern plant communities. In part, this is likely because many mosses are difficult to identify to species, which could cause ecologists to focus on other components of vegetation or lump species into groups that may or may not be meaningful. Mosses also are more difficult to use in glasshouse or common-garden experiments than vascular plants, and thus have not been used as common model systems for ecological research (but see Jonsson & Soderstrom, 1988; Rixen & Mulder, 2005; Lindo & Gonzalez, 2010). For many decades, bryophytes were regarded as slow-growing and evolutionarily rigid plants that exhibited little adaptive change in response to recent climatic and environmental variation. However, it is now recognized that bryophytes display a variety of life history strategies, can have polymorphism comparable to vascular plants, and can form relatively large populations in environments subject to change and fine-sale disturbance (Slack, 1982; Longton, 1988; Vitt, 1990; Okland, 1995; Pharo & Zartman, 2007).

In general, mosses possess several key traits that allow them to persist in cold regions, including a high degree of phenotypic plasticity and a broad response of net assimilation rates to temperature. Mosses can be regarded as opportunistic in terms of CO2 exchange in that they are able to respond positively to favorable environmental conditions where and when they occur, with CO2 assimilation even during low temperature and irradiance (Kallio & Heinonen, 1975; Oechel & Sveinbjörnsson, 1978; Harley et al., 1989). Key functional traits include tolerance to dessication and the ability to switch quickly between metabolic activity and rest. While vascular plants avoid dessication during drought by actively regulating internal water content (i.e. homoiohydry) through morphological adaptations such as well-developed conducting systems, leaf stomata, cuticle, and roots, these features are all poorly developed or absent in mosses. Instead, mosses tolerate periods of drought largely through physiological responses, such as by suspending metabolism (controlled cessation) when water is not available and by withstanding cell dessication.

In their Tansley review, Proctor & Tuba (2002) argued that the moss strategy of poikilohydry ‘is not merely the primitive starting point of plants that failed to achieve homoiohydry, but a highly evolved strategy of adaptation in its own right, optimal in some situations and at least a viable alternative in some others’. When faced with dessication, net assimilation rates in mosses usually decline rapidly as tissue water content falls below the threshold required to maintain full turgor (Longton, 1988). Their cytoplasm can survive at low water contents for long periods, and upon rehydration resume metabolic activity. This strategy, however, has metabolic costs, as recovery is preceded by a burst of respiration that results in a net energy loss (Skre & Oechel, 1981). Desiccation time affects the timing and completeness of recovery, and extended desiccation can cause intense respiration and death. While many moss species can tolerate dessication, there is a wide variety of adaptations in terms of water economy among mosses (Vitt & Glime, 1984), as well as large variation in the relation of desiccation tolerance to desiccation intensity (Proctor & Tuba, 2002).

In general, these traits are not considered to be specific adaptations to cold region environments, but almost certainly increase the fitness of mosses growing in harsh northern conditions. In turn, and as described in more detail in Section II, moss traits related to water, nutrient, and thermal tolerances influence ecosystem processes such as net primary productivity (NPP), decomposition, and soil energy fluxes and thus are important for our understanding of how northern ecosystems respond to perturbation following disturbance.

The goal of this review is to investigate the role of mosses in the stability and resilience of northern ecosystems to disturbance. While stability emphasizes equilibrium and resistance to change, ecological resilience is defined as the ability of a system to absorb perturbations while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning. Resilience thus reflects the capacity of a system to adapt to stress and change (Holling, 1973; Gunderson, 2000). Understanding the resilience of northern communities and ecosystems is important given that recent warming has resulted in changes in sea ice, snow cover, glaciers and permafrost (cf. Hinzman et al., 2005; Grosse et al., 2011; Karlsson et al., 2011; Liston & Hiemstra, 2011), and has increased the frequency and intensity of wildfires and insect outbreaks (Soja et al., 2007; Kurz et al., 2008; Mack et al., 2011; Turetsky et al., 2011). Cumulatively, these changes have the potential to greatly influence plant species composition, abundance, and diversity, with implications for ecosystem function and feedbacks to regional and global climate (cf. Euskirchen et al., 2007, 2009).

Boreal and arctic ecosystems may differ in their response to disturbances, including climate change. Boreal forests are generally dominated by a few common tree species, often with a single species dominating large areas. This may increase the vulnerability of boreal ecosystems and landscapes to disturbance, including pulse (short-term events that impact a system rapidly such as wildfire or rapid permafrost degradation) or press (impacts driven by decadal to century-scale changes such as soil warming and top-down permafrost thaw) disturbances (Grosse et al., 2011). On the other hand, boreal forests are strongly regulated by and adapted to disturbance. Boreal fire intervals range from c. 50 to 500 yr depending on climate and soil drainage conditions, and many species exhibit traits that enable post-fire persistence (cf. Pausas et al., 2004; Johnstone, 2006). Insect outbreaks, ranging from chronic to epidemic, also are typical of the boreal disturbance regime (Soja et al., 2007). Relative to boreal forests, arctic plant communities may be less adapted to recovery following disturbance. Typical fire return intervals in the Low Arctic, which is dominated by shrub tundra, are c. 140–480 yr (Higuera et al., 2011). Further north, biomass is lower and fire rarely occurs, with the fire return interval as high as 5000 yr (Hu et al., 2010). However, if perturbed during disturbance, the long life span of some arctic plants through clonal reproduction may allow for rapid recovery (Chapin et al., 1994).

Here, we use literature review, synthesis of empirical studies and model simulations to explore issues related to the role of northern mosses in ecological resilience. We focus only on mosses, and do not consider other nonvascular groups such as liverworts or hornworts, although some of our findings may be relevant to these other plant types.

II. The role of moss in ecological resilience

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

1. The effects of moss on northern ecosystem function

Several reviews have assessed the role of mosses in food web dynamics, plant competition, and carbon and nutrient cycling (cf. Van Breemen, 1995; Turetsky, 2003; Nilsson & Wardle, 2005; Cornelissen et al., 2007; Lindo & Gonzalez, 2010; Turetsky et al., 2010). Mosses can dominate primary productivity in northern environments, on average contributing to 20 and 50% of above-ground NPP in boreal forests and wetlands, respectively (Turetsky et al., 2010). Mosses are important for nitrogen cycling and availability for vascular plant uptake because of their low nitrogen-use efficiency, high cation exchange (leading to nitrogen interception and retention), and slow decomposition rates (cf. Hobbie et al., 2000; Malmer et al., 2003; Turetsky et al., 2010). By regulating soil temperature and moisture, mosses also control concentrations of plant-available nitrogen (cf. Gornall et al., 2007). Additionally, some species, particularly feather mosses and Sphagnum, can serve as an important source of ecosystem nitrogen by facilitating biological nitrogen fixation (Basilier, 1979; DeLuca et al., 2007; Markham, 2009; Kip et al., 2011). Mosses are also important to phosphorus cycling in that they absorb phosphate and reduce availability for vascular uptake (Chapin et al., 1987). On the other hand, Crowley & Bedford (2011) found that moss created more oxidized conditions in shallow fen soils, and overall enabled greater phosphorus acquisition by forb species. This highlights the fact that mosses can have positive or negative interactions with vascular plants, depending on species and abiotic conditions. Gornall et al. (2011) present a conceptual model of the impacts of the moss layer on vascular performance in which negative effects begin to outweigh any positive effects with increasing depth of the moss layer.

Because of their influence on soil climate, NPP, nutrient content, and decomposition rates, mosses facilitate surface peat accumulation and thus long-term soil carbon accumulation. As a result of slow rates of soil carbon accumulation over millennia, large stocks of carbon are currently held in frozen mineral soils and in frozen and unfrozen peatland soils, all of which may be vulnerable to soil warming and changing disturbance regimes (Grosse et al., 2011). Based on c. 620 peat cores collected across western Canada (Zoltai et al., 2000), bryophytes (mostly Sphagnum remains) were estimated to represent c. 50% of the total peat volume (Turetsky, 2003). In model simulations of > 8000 yr of peat accumulation, vascular plants accounted for 65% of total NPP but only 35% of the remaining peat mass. Vascular plants had < 5% of their total NPP remaining in the peat, whereas moss groups had > 10% remaining (Frolking et al., 2010).

By regulating soil climate and peat accumulation, mosses strongly influence vascular plant recruitment and regeneration. Because organic soils tend to be poor seedbeds, in particular for broadleaf species that have small seeds, mosses indirectly control vascular regeneration (cf. Johnstone & Chapin, 2006; Astrup et al., 2008; Camill et al., 2010; Soudzilovskaia et al., 2011). Mosses also appear to directly inhibit vascular plant germination through allelopathy (cf. Steijlen et al., 1995), although Soudzilovskaia et al. (2011) found strong negative relationships between bryophyte phenolics and seedling germination in the laboratory but not in field settings. Decreases in moss abundance and resulting decreases in soil moisture can reduce habitat quality for wildlife in some cases (Hodson et al., 2010). In general, mosses play an integral role in northern ecosystem food webs, because they are eaten by some animals (Prins, 1982), regulate key habitat conditions such as soil climate, and serve as important habitat for soil organisms that interact to form the detrital food web (Lindo & Gonzalez, 2010).

Mosses and peat play an important role in permafrost stability by buffering surface soils and permafrost from fluctuating air temperatures. In the growing season, surface soil temperatures are negatively related to the thickness of organic soil layers (Harden et al., 2006; Romanovsky et al., 2008). Both observational and manipulative studies have quantified the importance of mosses to ground heat flux (van der Wal & Brooker, 2004; Gornall et al., 2007; Blok et al., 2011). Also, modeling studies incorporating thick organic soils have shown its importance in permafrost dynamics (e.g. Yi et al., 2007; Lawrence et al., 2008; Wisser et al., 2011). While some moss species have high moisture retention, in general the porosities of organic soil layers are higher than mineral soils (Yi et al., 2009). Thus, drainage occurs with seasonal ice thaw and the ensuing drier conditions further protect surface permafrost.

Mosses also are important to the formation of microtopography – elevated mounds (hummocks) separated by low hollows – in both forests and peatlands. Hummocks tend to vary in height from a few cm to 1 m (Ivanov, 1981). Paleoecological and modeling evidence suggests that these microtopography features are long-lived (e.g. Nungesser, 2003). The formation of hummock-hollow microtopography creates a gradient of distance to water table, increasing the diversity of microhabitats and niches for moss species. Hummock species must be able to retain and use water efficiently and avoid desiccation, more so than species living in hollows (Titus et al., 1983; Rydin, 1993). For example, species in the Sphagnum section Acutifolia form dense populations of small individuals, leading to greater water retention and transport than hollow communities. Sphagnum communities in hollows are often dominated by species in the section Cuspidata, which tend to have larger capitula diameters and lower population densities. Because of such traits, hollow species are highly productive but prone to desiccation, and thus are competitively excluded from hummocks (Rydin, 1993). Several studies have documented substantial variation in decomposition rates among dominant Sphagnum spp., generally with slower decomposition rates in hummock than in hollow species (Johnson & Damman, 1991; Turetsky et al., 2008; Lang et al., 2009b; but see Hogg, 1993; Turetsky et al., 2010). The biochemical mechanism leading to differential decomposition rates is not well understood but appears to be related to nitrogen (cf. Lang et al., 2009b) and/or structural carbohydrates such as sphagnan (cf. Turetsky et al., 2008; Hájek et al., 2011). Regardless of the mechanism, differences in decomposition rates between hummock and hollow mosses are thought to affect peat properties and hydraulic transmissivity over time, reinforcing moisture differences among microhabitats (cf. Nungesser, 2003; Belyea & Baird, 2006).

By influencing the diversity of habitats for moss species, microtopography increases the diversity of functional traits related, in particular, to water balance. This in turn increases resistance at an ecosystem scale to drought as well as wildfire (Benscoter & Wieder, 2003; Belyea & Baird, 2006). Despite being situated further from the water table, hummocks burn less frequently and severely than hollows in continental forests and peatlands. This is because high water retention by hummock mosses inhibits both the initiation and downward propagation of combustion (Benscoter et al., 2011). Across c. 80 black spruce forests in Alaska, the area of unburned Sphagnum hummocks was a strong predictor of how much organic soil escaped burning at a stand scale (Shetler et al., 2008). In situ survival within these unburned ‘islands’ could also be important to recolonization and rates of succession post-fire. Hylander & Johnson (2010) documented that small-scale refugia can be important for forest bryophytes after fire, but concluded that their role in recolonization is not well understood.

2. Using models to explore the role of moss in ecological resilience

Because of the already-mentioned difficulty of using mosses in plant-level experiments, and the cost and difficulty of performing field experiments in remote northern areas, ecological models are an important tool for understanding the function and resilience of mosses. The strong role of moss in both fast (cf. soil heat fluxes) and slow (cf. permafrost aggradation, peat accumulation) ecosystem dynamics means that models are sometimes the only available tool, given their ability to examine vegetation and ecosystem responses over long time-frames. On the other hand, model results are fundamentally circumscribed by what pools and processes are actually built into the model and how they are represented, and model results can never be perfectly confirmed (Oreskes et al., 1994). Despite these limitations, model simulations are critical to identify knowledge gaps, formulate hypotheses, and examine long-term dynamics. In this way, empirical studies will continue to inform modelling work, and vice versa.

Dynamic vegetation models (DVMs) represent a synthesis of research in four main groups of processes: plant geography, plant physiology and biogeochemistry, vegetation dynamics, and biophysics. The most important unique feature of DVMs is their ability to simulate vegetation dynamics, that is, transient changes in vegetation structure in response to variations in the external environment. DVMs generally simulate the effects of changes in climate on natural vegetation in a spatially explicit manner. Within a grid cell, vegetation may be modeled by fractions or strata occupied by multiple plant functional types (PFTs). Competition among PFTs is considered for basic resources, including light, nitrogen, and water. Vegetation growth in DVMs is represented by NPP, which is usually modeled explicitly as the balance of carbon uptake by photosynthesis and release by autotrophic respiration. Plant succession processes, such as establishment, competition, and mortality, are often included.

Plant functional types are plant species grouped according to their effects on community or ecosystem function (Chapin et al., 1998; Walker et al., 1999), how they respond to disturbance (Friedel et al., 1988; Smith et al., 1997), and/or similarities in resource use (Grime, 1979). PFT classification is central to DVMs, yet the sets of PFTs adopted by existing models can be arbitrary and the appropriate parameter values for particular PFTs are sometimes not well established (but see Kattge et al., 2011). This is particularly true for mosses – given that bryophyte species are often lumped into a single PFT in models or not included at all. A number of DVMs and ecosystem models have included moss as a single or as multiple PFTs (e.g. Pastor et al., 2002; Nungesser, 2003; Zhuang et al., 2006; Bond-Lamberty et al., 2007; Yurova et al., 2007; Heijmans et al., 2008; Euskirchen et al., 2009; Wania et al., 2009; Frolking et al., 2010). These models vary in time step as well as how moss is parameterized (Table 1). In empirical studies, mosses are often analyzed as groups according to substrate preference (e.g. rock vs log; Frisvoll & Presto, 1997; Astrom et al., 2007), overstory canopy preference (Astrom et al., 2007; Baldwin & Bradfield, 2007), and microtopographic position, all of which reflect the response of mosses to moisture, light, and chemical gradients (cf. Robinson et al., 1989; Glaser et al., 1990; Bridgham et al., 1996). Quantifying variation in traits related to drought tolerance and avoidance (such as stem density, leaf/branch morphology, water retention and capillary wicking, metabolic change following re-wetting), light acquisition and tolerance (such as leaf area, chlorophyll content, pigmentation), and nitrogen use and economy (such as nitrogen-use efficiency, affiliation with N2 fixers, cation exchange capacity) would allow for more robust classification of response traits (Lavorel & Garnier, 2002; Waite & Sack, 2010).

Table 1.   Comparison of characteristics (related to moss PFTs) of the models as they were used in this paper
ModelMoss PFTsControls on moss NPPMoss PFT parametersCompetition with vascular PFTsTime Step/DurationReference
  1. GPP, gross primary productivity; NPP, net primary productivity; PFT, plant functional type.

  2. STM-TEM does not include PFTs and is therefore not included here.

Biome-BGCOne – feather moss or Sphagnum depending on dominant moss typeTemperature, water content, [CO2], nutrients, lightWater: carbon at full turgor Fraction external water Leaf water potential at full and zero turgor Reduction in conductance as a result of cuticular waterWater, light, nutrientsDaily time step for seasons to decades Bond-Lamberty et al. (2007)
TEM-DVMTwo –Sphagnum and feather moss, which were parameterized depending on the ecosystem type in which they are locatedTemperature, water content, [CO2], nutrients, lightParameterized and calibrated with PFT-specific:  GPP  NPP  Maximum potential NPP  Nitrogen uptake  Nitrogen availability  Net nitrogen mineralization  Vegetation C and N  Soil C and NLight, nutrientsMonthly time step for seasons to decades Euskirchen et al. (2009)
HPMFive – brown moss, three Sphagnum (lawn, hummock, hollow), feather mossWater table depth, peat depth (as proxy for nutrients)Optimum water table and peat depth NPP response to suboptimal conditions Maximum potential NPP Initial litter decomposition rateNot directly; inferred from PFT realized niches in water table and peat depthAnnual time step for decades to millennia Frolking et al. (2010)

There is surprisingly little information directly linking moss traits to specific ecosystem functions (effect traits, Suding et al., 2008; but see Cornelissen et al., 2007; Waite & Sack, 2011). Studies have commonly grouped mosses by life history traits such as spore size, frequency of sporophyte production, growth form, and presence of vegetative reproduction (cf. During, 1992; Baldwin & Bradfield, 2007; Darell & Cronberg, 2011). Some studies have related moss life history traits to water retention and economy (e.g. Hedderson & Longton, 1996). Chapin et al. (1996)’s classification of arctic plant species first partitioned cryptogam species into moss and lichen, and then further divided mosses into Sphagnum vs nonSphagnum spp. based on properties related to peat accumulation. Segregating Polytrichum spp. from other moss species also has been suggested based on life history and water economy traits (cf. Gordon et al., 2001). Elumeeva et al. (2011) quantified water retention across 22 bryophyte species at both the shoot and colony levels, and their analyses provided support for six PFTs based on water economy and habitat preference. Studies that screen moss species for a variety of traits will be useful for PFT classification, but linking traits to ecosystem processes is necessary (Suding et al., 2008).

Frolking et al. (2010) used relationships between relative NPP, water table depth and peat height to represent five moss PFTs in the Holocene Peat Model (HPM), a one-dimensional model that simulates peat accumulation at an annual time step as the net balance between above- and below-ground productivity and litter or peat decomposition. In a new simulation using the HPM, we explored the role of moss in the response of peat accumulation to a drying perturbation. We imposed climatic drying as a linear increase in evapotranspiration (ET) starting 3000 yr after the beginning of the simulation and ending with a 30% increase by the end of the 5000 yr simulation. We then conducted the same drying simulation, this time completely removing the moss cover at the onset of drying and increasing vascular NPP so that total NPP was essentially unchanged. The baseline 5000 yr simulation represents a typical raised bog, where the transition between the fen and bog phases occurs after c. 1500 yr, and where the vegetation cover of the last 3500 yr comprises primarily Sphagnum mosses and shrubs. Gradual drying reduced peat accumulation, though the effect was small for the first 1500 yr of drying, by which time ET had declined by 23%. After this, once a threshold was reached where the loss of water through ET was too high to be compensated by precipitation, the system responded with a relatively abrupt drop in water table and a period of net peat loss. In the ‘drying + no moss’ scenario, C accumulation slowed earlier (by c. 500 yr) in the period of declining ET, leading to wetter conditions as the peat could not outgrow the water table. At the same time the deeper peat is relatively unaffected, as it resists drying because of its low hydraulic transmissivity. When the simulated water table is near the surface, it responds to dry periods (low precipitation generated stochastically) with much greater variability (Fig. 1). Across the no disturbance, drying, and drying + no moss scenarios, the total accumulated peat mass was 260, 210, and 186 kg C m−2, respectively (of which 136, 103 and 64 kg C m−2 were derived from moss litter). In these HPM simulations, moss presence maintained two ecosystem characteristics – carbon accumulation rate, and water table depth along with its associated vegetation composition – for much longer in the face of a slowly but persistently increasing ‘press’ disturbance (drying).


Figure 1. Holocene Peat Model (HPM) simulations of: (a) accumulating peat carbon over the 5000 yr simulation for the baseline scenario (solid black line), a gradual drying starting in simulation year 3000 (dashed green line), and removal of moss and drying starting in year 3000 (solid orange line); (b) 50 yr simple moving window average of simulated water table depth for the three scenarios; and (c) moss fraction of cumulative total net primary productivity (NPP). The parameterization of the model is similar to the one presented in Frolking et al. (2010) for the Mer Bleue peatland (45.40°N, 75.50°W), a 28 km2 ombrotrophic bog. The prescribed annual precipitation input is based on a regional precipitation reconstruction (Muller et al., 2003) corresponding to the first 5000 yr of peat accumulation of the Mer Bleue peatland, including random variability based on the confidence intervals of the reconstruction (variability during 0–3000 yr is caused only by stochastic precipitation).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Simulations with another process-based model, the soil thermal model (STM) version of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (STM-TEM), have also explored the importance of moss in the resilience of carbon and nutrient cycling in boreal conifer forests following wildfire. Zhuang et al. (2002) compared recovery of soil moisture, temperature, and aspects of nutrient cycling in scenarios with and without moss recovery post-fire. For several decades after fire, soils in the burned stand are warmer and drier than in the unburned stand because more radiation reaches the soil surface, causing higher evaporation, and because of greater drainage associated with a thicker active layer after fire (Fig. 2a,b). During ecosystem recovery post-fire, the simulation with moss growth resulted in both lower NPP (Fig. 2d) and heterotrophic respiration (Fig. 2e) in comparison to the simulation without moss growth. Although the presence of mosses had little effect on the pattern of NEP after fire (Fig. 2f), it did affect the patterns of accumulation of carbon in the ecosystem, as vegetation carbon accumulation is greater in the simulation without moss growth (Fig. 2g) because of greater nitrogen uptake in warmer soils, and soil carbon accumulation is slightly greater in the simulation with moss growth (Fig. 2h), because of slower decomposition in colder soils. Thus, these simulations indicate that mosses play a role in the resilience of soil carbon recovery after fire in the ecosystem.


Figure 2. Soil thermal model version of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (STM-TEM) simulations of the dynamics of soil temperature, soil moisture, nitrogen cycling, carbon fluxes, and carbon stocks in the sensitivity analysis for moss growth. Scenarios include a stand with moss cover that was not burned (black line), a stand that was burned and moss allowed to grow during stand development (also known as the ‘standard’ scenario, light gray line), and a stand that was burned and moss not allowed to grow during stand development (dark gray line). (a) Soil temperature integrated over 20 cm of soil relative to the soil surface; (b) mean volumetric soil moisture of the humic organic layer from May to September; (c) annual net nitrogen mineralization; (d) annual net primary productivity (NPP); (e) annual heterotrophic respiration/decomposition (RH); (f) annual net ecosystem production (NEP); (g) vegetation carbon; (h) soil carbon. Reprinted, with permission, from Zhuang et al. (2002).

Download figure to PowerPoint

The HPM and STM-TEM simulations show that loss of the ground moss layer can have important consequences for how ecosystem processes either resist or respond to perturbations associated with drying and wildfire. Both simulations considered the effects of large reductions in moss abundance and did not consider how changing moss species composition might influence ecosystem processes following disturbances. While some severe disturbances, such as prolonged drought or severe burning, may reduce total moss abundance, in many cases, changing environmental conditions are more likely to cause shifts in moss species composition. To our knowledge, no empirical or modeling study has systematically varied the relative abundance of individual moss PFTs within a community to ask questions about the effects of moss abundance vs composition on ecosystem processes. In Section III, we explore how northern moss abundance and composition likely will respond to climate change and disturbances, and how this could influence the recovery of ecosystem processes.

III. Response of moss to disturbance

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

In a ‘stable state’, ecosystem attributes may fluctuate, but within limits maintained by internal ecosystem structures or external constraints (Scheffer et al., 2001). As a result, ecosystems undergoing successional compositional changes are not necessarily changing state (Drever et al., 2006). Disturbance and succession are linked because disturbance is often a mechanism for resetting succession, renewing limiting resources, and allowing species to coexist (Glenn-Lewin & Van Der Maarel, 1992).

1. Directional autogenic and exogenic succession

In northern peatlands, primary succession has been determined by stratigraphical reconstruction of plant macrofossils with depth in peat cores or using spatial time-since-initiation chronosequences. These studies in general show directional succession where peat initiation coincides with minerotrophic swamp and fen communities, which develop into ombrotrophic bog communities. The transition from minerotrophic to ombrotrophic conditions is driven by the accumulation of a peat layer that insulates the peatland surface from water inputs from underlying mineral soil and surrounding areas, leading to changes in pore water chemistry such as decreases in calcium and magnesium concentrations and increases in acidity (Gignac & Vitt, 1990). While brown mosses such as Warnstorfia spp. are often the first mosses to dominate during peatland succession, subsequent colonization of Sphagnum spp. is a critical point in peatland succession. Some Sphagnum spp. accelerate rates of peat accumulation because of their poor litter quality that resists decomposition (e.g. Turetsky et al., 2007; Strakováet al., 2010). The high cation exchange capacity of Sphagnum has previously been linked to rapid acidification associated with Sphagnum expansion (Clymo & Hayward, 1982; Van Breemen, 1995), which, in turn, favors ombrotrophic Sphagnum spp. and limits the growth of other plant species (Rydin et al., 1999). Recently the acidification mechanism via differences in cation exchange capacity has been questioned, because no differences were found between brown mosses and Sphagna (Soudzilovskaia et al., 2010). Instead, Soudzilovskaia et al. (2010) suggested that the rapid acidification results purely from the accelerated height growth that prevents the neutralizing flow of mineral-rich water into the surface (Soudzilovskaia et al., 2010). While the development of ombrotrophy is considered to be a gradual process (Korhola, 1992), paleoecological records often show a rapid transition to ombrotrophic plant assemblages (Janssens et al., 1992; Hughes & Barber, 2003). Disturbance such as severe burning also can favor Sphagnum and cause rapid ecosystem shifts to a bog stage (Tuittila et al., 2007; Tahvanainen, 2011). Alternatively, in some cases, directional succession towards ombrotrophic conditions can be reversed as a result of changes in hydrology or the loss of peat with increased decomposition, which favors establishment of fen vegetation (Tolonen, 1971; Hughes & Dumayne-Peaty, 2002).

Mosses also undergo strong directional succession during post-fire recovery. While succession of the vascular understory community in boreal forests can follow initial floristics, with the post-fire community consisting largely of species found in unburned mature forests (Foster, 1985), mosses often follow relay floristics (Foster, 1985; Benscoter & Vitt, 2008). Soon after fire in boreal forests and peatlands, pioneer moss species such as Polytrichum piliferum and Polytrichum juniperinum may temporarily replace late successional mosses Dicranum polysetum, Hylocomium splendens, Ptilidium ciliare and Pleurozium shreberi (Maikawa & Kershaw, 1976; Marozas et al., 2007). In continental bogs, Sphagnum communities tend to dominate midsuccessional sites, but are outcompeted by feather mosses with canopy closure (Benscoter & Vitt, 2008).

Independent of fire, Sphagnum spp. can actually displace feather moss communities in more mesic forests, likely by increasing soil moisture and thus reducing canopy cover, leading to peat formation through paludification (Fenton & Bergeron, 2006). In such conditions, tree growth is reduced (Sarkkola et al., 2003) but Sphagnum mosses are protected from the stress induced by strong irradiation (Hájek et al., 2009). Such humid microclimates created by Sphagnum and tree canopy favor epiphytic mosses and lichens, leading to increased ecosystem diversity (Kuusinen, 1996).

2. Moss community response to disturbance

Floristic composition is often used as a measure of ecological resilience following some disturbance event. Lack of convergence to predisturbance floristic composition does not necessarily imply a lack of resilience with respect to other ecosystem characteristics. For example, despite shifts in species composition, an ecosystem could still be ecologically resilient if there was still recovery back to a similarly functional forest, peatland, or tundra ecosystem. However, given the importance of mosses to the numerous ecosystem processes reviewed earlier, it seems likely that substantial changes in moss abundance and/or community composition will have implications for how ecosystems function (see also Figs 1, 2). We used a literature review to examine responses across disturbance types (i.e. fire, warming, nutrient addition, drought) and ecosystems (tundra, meadow, forest, peatland). We included studies that examined moss community responses to disturbance as the change in total species richness, total abundance (% cover of moss), and/or net growth rates. We also noted where studies quantified changes in functional composition. Because studies reported different response variables, we did not perform a formal meta-analysis but instead summarized qualitative trends. In particular, we were interested in whether various disturbances caused significant decreases, increases, or no net change to the moss community, and whether this varied by biome or ecosystem type (see the details in Supporting Information Table S1).

We compared moss community responses across disturbance types between boreal and arctic ecosystems. In boreal communities, mosses declined in abundance or species richness in c. 50% of cases, while in arctic communities mosses declined in 40% of cases (Fig. 3). These trends do not appear to be affected by the duration of study. Of the studies that examined moss recovery for > 10 yr, mosses still showed declines in total cover or species richness in c. 45% of cases (Table S1). However, within most disturbance types, there was considerable variation in the responses – positive, negative, neutral – of both boreal and arctic mosses, and this variation did not decline with increasing sample size.


Figure 3. Results of a literature review of moss community responses (increase, white; no change, gray; decrease, black) to disturbance as changes in total moss % cover (abundance), species richness, and/or productivity. Results from different ecosystem types (forests vs wetlands) or from unique sites contained in a single study are included as unique effects. Studies used in the compilation of Fig. 3 are listed below. Also see Supporting Information Table S1 for additional details and results from each study. Arnesen (1999); Arroniz-Crespo et al. (2011); Astrom et al. (2005, 2007); Baldwin & Bradfield (2010); Botting & Fredeen (2006); Breeuwer et al. (2009); Chapin et al. (1995); Dorrepaal et al. (2004); Dynesius & Hylander (2007); Dynesius et al. (2009); Gerdol et al. (2007); Gordon et al. (2001); Graglia et al. (2001); Grellmann (2002); Gunnarsson & Rydin (2000);Gunnarsson et al. (2004); Hauessler et al. (2002, 2004); Heijmans et al. (2002); Hobbie & Chapin (1998); Hobbie et al. (1999); Hotes et al. (2010); Hunt et al. (2005); Jagerbrand et al. (2006); Jandt et al. (2008); Jonasson (1992); Jonasson et al. (1999); Jorgenson et al. (2010); Juutinen et al. (2010); Kelley & Epstein (2009); Kemper & Macdonald (2009); Keuper et al. (2011); Kreyling et al. (2008); Lang et al. (2011); Mack et al. (2008); Marozas et al. (2007); Molau & Alatalo (1998); Murray et al. (1993); Newmaster & Bell (2002); Newmaster et al. (1999); Nilsson et al. (2002); Phoenix et al. (2001); Potter et al. (1995); Press et al. (1998); Racine et al. (2004); Richardson et al. (2002); Riutta et al. (2007); Rixen & Mulder (2005); Robinson et al. (1998); Rudolphi & Gustafsson (2011); Rydgren et al. (2004); Saarnio et al. (2003); Shaver et al. (2001); Söderström (1988); Sonesson et al. (1996, 2002); Speed et al. (2010); van der Wal et al. (2005); Wardle et al. (2008); Weltzin et al. (2000, 2001, 2003); Wiedermann et al. (2007).

Download figure to PowerPoint

At least partly because of differences in disturbance severity, moss communities may be more resistant (exhibit greater stability) to disturbance in wetter environments (sheltered microhabitats, north-facing sites, riparian forests, wetlands, etc.) than in drier habitats. In response to timber harvest practices, boreal mosses are more resistant to perturbation in north-facing slopes and riparian forests than in drier forests (Astrom et al., 2007; Dynesius et al., 2009; Baldwin & Bradfield, 2010), likely as a result of changes in both microclimate and microhabitats following harvesting. For example, clear cuts in north-facing stands in western Canada were shadier than south-facing clear cuts, which promoted moss survival (Astrom et al., 2007). However, Baldwin & Bradfield (2010) found that disturbance-associated species also persisted longer during vegetation recovery in drier forests than in more humid forests. Perhaps similarly, Sphagnum mosses appear to be more resistant to change during warming than other mosses (Gunnarsson, 2005; Lang et al., 2009a,b, 2011). The persistence of Sphagnum mosses, which tend to be found in wetter microhabitats and promote soil moisture retention, also increased the stability of the entire plant community to warming (Keuper et al., 2011; Lang et al., 2011). However, following severe disturbances, Sphagnum may have low resilience. For example, while bryophyte abundance recovered more quickly from disturbance related to seismic exploration in riparian tundra than in drier tundra, Sphagnum cover showed low resilience (Jorgenson et al., 2010).

The majority of studies included in our synthesis quantified changes in moss abundance and/or components of diversity, and for simplicity we considered all of these variables together. While it is clear from our review that there are ample studies of moss community change following disturbance, there are far fewer studies investigating linkages between plant community change and recovery of ecosystem processes. Clearly, changes in moss abundance and diversity may not have identical impacts on ecosystem-level processes. Change in total abundance of the moss ground layer, for example, is relevant for some ecosystem processes, such as water retention and energy fluxes (cf. Blok et al., 2011), but the effects of species richness are less clear. An understanding of how species composition responds to disturbance also can reveal important insights into community or ecosystem function, as communities with no net change in total moss abundance or species richness may still be undergoing significant shifts in species or functional group composition. Not surprisingly, in our synthesis, several studies found post-disturbance increases in Polytrichum spp. at the expense of species such as Tomenthypnum nitens and feather mosses (Jonasson, 1992; Potter et al., 1995; Botting & Fredeen, 2006). This is not necessarily indicative of low resilience, unless community composition remains altered or the ecosystem is pushed into new successional trajectories.

3. Effects of warming on moss–vascular plant relations

Air temperature increases indirectly affect moss communities by altering vascular plant biomass, affecting light intensities for ground layer mosses, and stimulating nutrient turnover. Enhanced nutrient mineralization as a result of warming are expected to favor fast-growing species over slower-growing species with conservative nutrient-use strategies such as some mosses. The shading hypothesis predicts that increased nitrogen mineralization and availability with warming will favor vascular productivity more than moss productivity, and that increased shading by the vascular plant canopy will reduce moss fitness (cf. van der Wal et al., 2005). On the other hand, the race for space hypothesis (following Keuper et al., 2011) predicts that warming will stimulate moss productivity, which in turn stimulates vascular vertical incremental growth (i.e. grow or be buried by moss). Our literature review showed that boreal and arctic moss communities have variable responses to warming experiments (see Fig. 3). Increases in vascular growth and shading sometimes appeared to occur at the expense of mosses. However, mosses can also respond positively to warming and increased nutrient content when the availability of other resources, such as moisture and light, are favorable (Juutinen et al., 2010).

Because of their limited time-frame, warming experiments represent ‘changed climate’ rather than ‘climate change’ (Frolking et al., 2010) – that is, they measure physiological responses more than changes in vegetation as a result of altered competition and/or succession. Model simulations are necessary to explore such longer-term dynamics. Here we present a new simulation using the Biome-BGC model (Running & Hunt, 1993; Thornton, 1998) to examine the effects of warming on moss vs tree growth. Biome-BGC is a ‘big leaf’ model in which the canopy is modeled as two (sun and shaded) photosynthesizing surfaces. Growth, respiration, and mortality are fully integrated with the nitrogen cycle. Detritus flows to eight litter and soil pools, which vary in their turnover rates. The simulations reported here incorporate vegetation competition (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2005; Table 1), allowing for changes in plant communities as well as disturbances. We simulated two different ecosystems: an upland black spruce forest with feather moss ground cover, and a forested peatland in which total NPP was roughly equally split between Sphagnum and black spruce (following data from Bond-Lamberty et al., 2007). At the end of the spin-up phase, the upland had 18 kg C m−2 in its soil, 0.20 kg C m−2 of live moss, and 15.4 kg C m−2 of live trees, while the simulated peatland had 26.3 kg C m−2 in the top 1 m of peat, 0.62 kg C m−2 of live moss, and 19.7 kg C m−2 of live trees. NPP was dominated (c. 10×) by trees in the upland forest, although very cold and wet conditions favored mosses (Fig. 4a). The simulated peatland exhibited different competitive patterns. Precipitation increases alone had essentially no effect on NPP balance (Fig. 4b), while precipitation decreases initially resulted in trees benefiting at the expense of mosses. In Biome-BGC, most trees cannot grow in completely waterlogged soil. When drainage increases, soils become more oxic and trees are allowed to grow and transpire, which starts a positive feedback between tree productivity and soil moisture conditions. As a result, a threshold effect exists in the model at c. 400 mm yr−1; below this precipitation, the increasingly oxic soil supported greater tree growth and limited moss growth, resulting in strong increases in ecosystem ET (not shown). Below c. 250 mm yr−1, however, even trees started to be limited by the lowering water table. The temperature effect was simpler, with mosses always benefiting from colder temperatures (Fig. 4). In summary, the competitive balance between vascular and nonvascular plants was sensitive to changes in air temperature and precipitation in the simulated forest and peatland. The ecosystem was resilient to change within the climate envelope observed for north-central Canada (ovals in Fig. 4), but tree NPP generally increased at the expense of moss NPP under moderately warmer and drier conditions.


Figure 4. Biome-BGC simulations of the effect of 100 yr changes in mean annual precipitation (MAP) and mean annual temperature (MAT) on competitive balance between mosses and trees for boreal well-drained forest (a) and poorly drained forested bog (b). The color scale is based on the logarithm of NPPmoss/NPPtree, with light blue indicating moss-dominated net primary productivity (NPP) and dark blue indicating tree-dominated NPP. The white ‘X’ indicates current conditions for north-central Manitoba, surrounded by dashed ellipses showing interannual climate variation (1σ, 2σ, 3σ). Gray areas indicate zero tree NPP. For the self-initialization (i.e. spin-up phase, c. 3000 yr), we used 1980–1999 meteorological data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project (Kister et al., 2001) with MAT (−3.7°C) and precipitation (490 mm yr−1) of north-central Manitoba, Canada. From this steady state, we ran 100 yr simulations in which the climate and soil drainage were varied for each run: MAT ranged from −5 to +4°C of normal, MAP from 40 to 200% of normal, and soil drainage rates spanned roughly an order of magnitude. These were run in a full-factorial design (c. 14 000 simulations total), with results ensembled (Thornton et al., 2002) to account for interannual climate variability.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Arctic climate is changing more quickly than at boreal latitudes (Serreze et al., 2000). Increased shrub cover and productivity have been documented using remote sensing as well as plot-level observational studies and manipulations (Chapin et al., 1995; Tape et al., 2006; Hudson & Henry, 2009; Hill & Henry, 2010). These changes can cause reductions in moss abundance or growth through canopy shading and litter burial (Hobbie & Chapin, 1998; van der Wal et al., 2005). To examine the effects of warming on competition between vascular plants and mosses in the Arctic, we build on the simulation reported by Euskirchen et al. (2009) to examine potential future changes in tundra moss and vascular productivity. The model domain spanned from the Arctic Ocean to the tundra-boreal forest ecotone in northern Alaska and was classified as 8% wet sedge tundra, 11% shrub tundra, 12% heath tundra, and 15% tussock tundra (with the remaining portion of the region including forest, barren ground, glaciers, and lakes). We used a version of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model with a Dynamic Vegetation Component (TEM-DVM; Euskirchen et al., 2009), which simulates multiple vegetation pools, soil thermal regimes, and PFTs that compete for nitrogen and light. Increases in shading as a result of increases in vascular productivity did not appear to be detrimental to moss growth in these simulated tundra environments (Fig. 5). The simulations showed that moss contributions to vegetation carbon, vegetation nitrogen, and NPP either increased (particularly in the tussock and shrub tundra types) or stayed the same across all ecosystems between the two time periods (Fig. 5). Changes in moss vegetation carbon, vegetation nitrogen, and NPP as a percentage of total vegetation change were generally small (1–3%; Table 2). In general, both the direction and magnitude of these simulations agreed with observational studies, showing increases in both moss and vascular biomass in the Arctic (Hudson & Henry, 2009). In the High Arctic in Norway, Prach et al. (2010) found no evidence of vegetation change, including moss, between the mid-1930s and 2008 attributable to climate change. Together, these results suggest that tundra mosses can be resistant to perturbation caused by warming and increases in vascular shading. It is possible that further increases in vascular biomass beyond those reported in Table 2 could begin to negatively impact moss productivity. Additional simulations that intentionally alter the growth or biomass of vascular PFTs could be valuable in identifying thresholds in vascular PFT biomass above which light limitations negatively impact mosses.


Figure 5. Terrestrial Ecosystem Model with a Dynamic Vegetation Component (TEM-DVM) simulations of change in moss vegetation carbon (a), other plant functional type (PFT) vegetation carbon (b), moss vegetation nitrogen (c), other PFT vegetation nitrogen (d), moss NPP (e), and other PFT net primary productivity (NPP) (f) between 2003 and 2100 across tussock tundra, shrub tundra, wet sedge tundra, and heath tundra in northern Alaska. Following model calibration, we performed simulations based on a climate scenario that represents an ‘intermediate’ amount of warming (B2 Scenario; Nakicenovic & Swart, 2000) and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research general circulation model version 3. Across the study region, from 2003 and 2100, air temperature increased by 0.08°C yr−1 averaged across seasons (greatest in autumn and winter, 0.10°C yr−1) and precipitation increased by 1.3 mm yr−1. We performed model simulations for the years 1900–2100, and examined the data from the ‘future’ period, 2003–2100. (Error bars are ± 1SD.)

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 2.   Percentage of arctic moss and vascular plant contributions to total ecosystem vegetation carbon, vegetation nitrogen, and net primary productivity (NPP) in 2003–2013 (first decade of analysis) and 2091–2100 (final decade of analysis) by ecosystem type
Ecosystem typePercentage of moss (vascular plant) contributions
Vegetation CVegetation NNPP
  1. Other contributions not as a result of vascular plants or mosses are the result of lichens.

Wet sedge1.6 (97.6)1.4 (97.5)14.5 (85.7)16.7 (83.8)2.2 (97.5)2.3 (97.5)
Tussock33.1 (42.8)34.0 (42.8)35.2 (55.0)35.1 (55.1)23.4 (68.7)21.7 (68.6)
Heath2.7 (74.3)2.5 (79.2)11.7 (81.0)15.0 (78.1)9.7 (78.9)8.5 (78.9)
Shrub6.9 (90.6)6.5 (91.7)8.5 (81.9)6.9 (83.8)8.4 (83.7)8.3 (86.7)

4. The role of moss in northern regime shifts

Ecosystems tend to contain many feedback loops, although dominant feedbacks eventually emerge and cause systems to self-organize into a particular structure and function (Rietkerk et al., 2004; see also Belyea & Baird, 2006). Perturbations that overwhelm or change these feedbacks may exceed the resilience of a system, causing it to be transformed to a new state with different properties and feedbacks (cf. Scheffer et al., 2001). The term ‘regime shifts’ are often used to describe abrupt changes between contrasting, persistent states. Most disturbances do not cause lasting changes in ecosystem structure or function (Turner et al., 1997). However, very severe disturbances or multiple disturbances that occur relatively quickly may cause regime shifts (Paine et al., 1998; Frelich & Reich, 1999; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Brown & Johnstone, 2011).

Northern high-latitude ecosystems have properties that convey resilience at varying spatial scales (e.g. long-lived, clonally reproducing plants; semi-serotinous cones of black spruce that disperse seeds post-fire). It seems likely that moss traits that influence nutrient immobilization, vascular recruitment and surface soil moisture also are important to the stabilizing feedbacks of northern forests, tundra, and wetlands. Because they produce biomass that, in general, decomposes slowly, mosses over time also contribute to the formation of microtopography, maintenance of seasonal ice and permafrost, and the formation of ombrotrophic conditions (see Section II). By contributing to these key ecosystem attributes, mosses play a role in both the resistance and the resilience of northern ecosystems.

We reviewed documented and hypothesized regime shifts for northern regions in the context of moss-related stabilizing factors (Table 3). In the majority of these regime shifts, mosses and their effects on soil temperature and nutrient cycling likely play a role in the dominant stabilizing feedbacks for one of the domains. The model simulations reported in this paper can also provide insights into how mosses contribute to ecosystem resilience and what changes to the moss community might mean for potential regime shifts. The models, for example, clearly indicate the importance of mosses in regulating moist cool soils (TEM results) or reducing water table variation (HPM results). In most cases, these moss impacts are indirect and are associated with accumulation of thick organic layers (i.e. ≥ 20 cm of surface peat). Under these conditions, Gornall et al. (2011) also suggested that mosses will have net negative effects on vascular plant communities. The model simulations also both showed that mosses were important to C and N accumulation. On the other hand, our simulations did not provide clear indications of regime shifts, even when the moss layer was completely removed. In the HPM simulation, loss of moss did cause the system to stop accumulating peat, but only c. 500–600 yr after the onset of the disturbance. Even without moss, the simulated system functionally remained a peatland for several centuries. Similarly, in the TEM and Biome-BGC simulations, loss/reductions in moss also did not lead to abrupt changes in ecosystem function. A more sophisticated understanding of moss traits and relationships to ecosystem processes from both field and modeling studies will provide a platform that can be used to ask questions about the role of moss in dominant stabilizing feedbacks, how those feedbacks can be disrupted, and what that might mean for regime shifts.

Table 3.   Overview of regime shifts in northern ecosystems and the potential role of mosses in stabilizing one of the domains
Regime shiftTriggerLikely stabilizing factors for the more moss-rich domainKey references
Conifer [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] deciduous forestFire that consumes organic soil layerHigh moisture content of some mosses inhibits deep combustion. Moss maintains low nutrients, peat accumulation, and poor-quality seedbeds Johnstone et al. (2010)
Grassland [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] moss-dominated tundraClimate and/or reduction of grazingMosses maintain cold, wet, and low-nutrient soils van der Wal (2006)
Moss conifer forest [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] lichen woodlandConsecutive disturbancesreduce black spruce seed poolMosses create conditions for slow decomposition and peat accumulation, and create poor quality seedbeds Payette et al. (2000); Payette & Delwaide (2003)
Tundra [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] boreal forestVegetation–climate feedbacks Bonan et al. (1992)
Tussock tundra [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] shrub tundra or forestClimate, possible feedbacks with snowMosses maintain low nutrients, which may constrain shrub expansionSturm et al. (2001); Devi et al. (2008); Tape et al. (2012)
Permafrost lake/wetland [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] drained basinPermafrost thawand drainageMosses and thick peat layers help to stabilize permafrost Jorgenson & Osterkamp (2005); Karlsson et al. (2011)
Permafrost forest/tundra [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] thermokarst lake or wetlandPermafrost thaw and floodingMosses and thick peat layers help to stabilize permafrost Jorgenson & Osterkamp (2005); Karlsson et al. (2011)
Coastal marsh [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] exposed sedimentGrazing by snow geese Jefferies, et al. (2006)

IV. Future research needs

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Different possible relationships between species diversity and resilience lead to several ecological hypotheses. The insurance hypothesis suggests that greater diversity ensures a greater range of responses to environmental perturbation, resulting in a positive relationship between diversity and resilience (cf. Yachi & Loreau, 1999; Hooper et al., 2005). Alternatively, complementarity (niche differentiation, facilititation) among species in diverse communities might be disrupted with shifts in environmental conditions. In general, hypotheses about relationships between plant species diversity, resilience, and ecosystem processes are based almost exclusively on vascular plants. Several recent studies have found positive correlations between moss species richness and ecosystem water retention by comparing monocultures to mixed assemblages of species (Rixen & Mulder, 2005; Michel et al., 2012). Working with mosses to test hypotheses about diversity poses some logistical challenges, as moss species tend to be more difficult to manipulate and grow in experimental communities than most vascular plant species. However, moss transplant or species removal experiments may be valuable in examining the effects of diversity. Experiments that manipulate components of diversity, both evenness and richness (sensu Mulder et al., 2004), would also be interesting in the context of understanding moss effects on community and ecosystem processes. Finally, there is a great need for understanding the role of moss in cross-scale resilience, particularly across trophic levels. Recent work has highlighted the role of moss in food webs (cf. Lindo & Gonzalez, 2010), but more work is needed before we have an understanding of the strength of interactions involving moss species, and how those interactions influence ecosystem stability (McCann, 2000).

Northern plant communities are often thought to have low functional redundancy. Functional redundancy refers to the notion that ecosystems will be more resilient if a function is fulfilled by multiple species (Walker, 1995; Naeem, 1998). If one species is eradicated, another species will be present in the community to provide the same function. For northern mosses, functional singularity (i.e. that species are individualistic in their effects on multiple functions) is likely to be equally important to evaluate. If moss communities have low functional redundancy or a high degree of functional singularity, how sensitive are those key species to environmental variation? Relationships between diversity and stability often have more to do with functional diversity than with a species diversity effect (cf. Tilman et al., 1997; Wardle et al., 1999). Thus, assessments of functional redundancy or singularity in moss communities require robust definitions of PFTs as a starting point. To achieve this, efforts to quantify traits across moss species are needed, particularly in light of a response–effect framework (cf. Suding et al., 2008). As our understanding of response traits develops, can we use those traits to accurately predict changes in species abundance with environmental variation? Are the effects of mosses on ecosystem processes proportional to their local abundance or are there situations where species effects are disproportionate to their abundance (Suding et al., 2008)? Greater insight into moss effect traits will influence how species are classified into PFTs (Cornelissen et al., 2007), but could also affect how certain processes are represented in models. Finally, our understanding of all of these issues will benefit from a stronger understanding of phenotypic plasticity among traits. With environmental variation, some response traits might vary more within a species than among species. Assessment of trait plasticity will allow for informed decisions of how best to aggregate species, and whether using mean trait values is appropriate or not.

Throughout this paper, we have referred to a number of models that have included moss as a PFT (Table 1). As these and other models are used to address (or raise) questions of ecological resilience, and the role of mosses in resilience, it is important to consider both parameter uncertainty for specific model processes (e.g. cuticular conductance of CO2, optimal water table for hollow Sphagnum) as well as conceptual uncertainty – that is, adequate representation of potentially important processes (e.g. moss spore dispersal, PFT establishment following disturbance and effects on nutrient cycling). Are the models more limited by uncertainty in the parameterization of the processes included or by what is not represented in the model at all? There are established methods for quantifying parameter uncertainty impacts on model results. These analyses are important to determine which parameters in a model are both influential (strong sensitivities) and poorly constrained by field and laboratory studies. On the other hand, of the many process not yet included in the few models discussed here, which are the most important to consider? ‘Hierarchical’ analyses (e.g. Wang et al., 2009), in which a model is split into functional layers, may offer a way for moss and ecosystem modelers to evaluate the importance of, and uncertainty introduced by, the inclusion of particular processes.

Initial progress in representing mosses in DVMs and other models may come from tackling conceptual uncertainties. For example, the modeling simulations presented earlier in this paper suggest that loss of moss within northern plant communities will reduce soil carbon accumulation primarily by influencing decomposition rates and soil N availability. Despite being designed to examine processes at different timescales, two models (HPM and STM-TEM) both showed a significant effect of moss removal where it was an imposed condition. Results from the Biome-BGC and DVM-TEM suggest that northern, moss-rich ecosystems would need to experience extreme perturbation before mosses were eliminated. In field studies, moss community response to disturbance was varied (Fig. 3, Table S1), but moss was never/rarely eliminated from the system. Conceptual uncertainties related to these issues as well as other topics covered in the previous sections (e.g. controls on moss population viability, moss–vascular plant competition under changing resource availability, the role of microtopography in stability–resilience tradeoffs) are important to consider in northern ecosystem models. As conceptual uncertainty is reduced, parameter uncertainty becomes more important to evaluate, which may require additional moss ecophysiology or other studies. For example, White et al. (2000) evaluated parameter uncertainty in Biome-BGC and found that vascular NPP is sensitive to leaf and fine root C : N, maximum stomatal conductance, specific leaf area, and percentage of leaf N in Rubisco. If similar conclusions were reached for moss parameterizations, do we understand enough about how these traits in mosses vary among species and environments to constrain model parameterization?

Using multiple models in analyses (model intercomparison projects) offers another approach for potentially reducing uncertainty (cf. Murphy et al., 2004). Based on the results of simulations for a given region common to all models, are some models outliers while others show more agreement? At this time, it seems clear to us that moss models are not ready for intercomparison studies because they have been developed for different purposes. Nonetheless, even without formal comparison, the results from the simulations reported here allowed us to explore moss responses to changing climate in tundra vs boreal regions (DVM-TEM vs Biome-BGC, respectively), while the comparisons between HPM and STM-TEM illustrated the role of mosses in carbon storage across longer vs shorter time-frames.

As noted throughout this paper, moss communities in many northern forests and peatlands are structured by environmental gradients defined by microtopography. In turn, microtopography stabilizes ecosystems in the face of perturbation during drought and wildfire. How can microtopography be parameterized in larger-scale models? Will cumulative stresses reduce the resilience of moss communities, microtopography, and thus northern ecosystems? What is the role of moss in potential tradeoffs between stability and resilience, and could interactions between climate change and disturbances make northern ecosystems vulnerable to new regime shifts? Related to all of these questions, what processes do models need to include to address compound disturbances occurring over decades, further compounded by a noisy trend in climate?

V. Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Mosses in boreal and arctic ecosystems are ubiquitous components of plant communities, represent an important component of plant diversity, and have a strong influence on the cycling of water, nutrients, energy and carbon. While our simulations clearly indicated that loss of a moss layer in both boreal peatlands and forests would have profound influences on ecosystem processes and resilience, our literature review of moss community responses to disturbance showed all possible responses (increases, decreases, no change) within most disturbance categories in boreal and arctic regions. By combining literature review and synthesis with model simulations, this review has touched upon some key issues related to the role of moss in the stability and resilience of northern ecosystems. There are many more questions that deserve study in the realm of the ‘bryosphere’ (cf. Lindo & Gonzalez, 2010) and ‘bryogeochemistry’ (cf. Turetsky, 2003). Studies that employ a variety of approaches (such as paleoreconstructions, moss transplant and removal experiments, modeling studies and experiments) will be necessary to unravel the complex interactions among mosses, their environment, and ecosystem function. Mosses play a key role in long-term processes such as peat accumulation, the formation of microtopography and permafrost stability. It is therefore critical that future research approaches include models and experiments operating within a time-frame that is relevant to represent these processes and their associated feedback.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

We thank Courtney Miller for assistance with the review of moss responses to disturbance. This manuscript also was improved greatly through advice and discussions with Jill Johnstone, Dale Vitt, Werner Kurz, David Olefeldt, Teresa Hollingsworth, and comments from two anonymous reviewers. M.R.T. and A.D.M. received support for this research from NSF DEB-0425328; M.R.T. from the NSERC; S.F. from NSF ARC-1021300 and NASA NNX09AQ36G; A.D.M. and E.E. from USGS Alaska Climate Science Center; and E-S.T. from the Academy of Finland (140863).


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information
  • Arnesen T. 1999. Vegetation dynamics following trampling in rich fen at Solendet, central Norway; a 15 year study of recovery. Nordic Journal of Botany 19: 313327.
  • Arroniz-Crespo M, Gwynn-Jones D, Callaghan TV, Nunez-Olivera E, Martinez-Abaigar J, Horton P, Phoenix GK. 2011. Impacts of long-term enhanced UV-B radiation on bryophytes in two sub-Arctic heathland sites of contrasting water availability. Annals of Botany 108: 557565.
  • Astrom M, Dynesius M, Hylander K, Nilsson C. 2005. Effects of slash harvest on bryophytes and vascular plants in southern boreal forest clear-cuts. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 11941202.
  • Astrom M, Dynesius M, Hylander K, Nilsson C. 2007. Slope aspect modifies community responses to clear-cutting in boreal forests. Ecology 88: 749758.
  • Astrup R, Coates KD, Hall E. 2008. Recruitment limitation in forests: lessons from an unprecedented mountain pine beetle epidemic. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 17431750.
  • Baldwin LK, Bradfield GE. 2007. Bryophyte responses to fragmentation in temperate coastal rainforests: a functional group approach. Biological Conservation 136: 408422.
  • Baldwin LK, Bradfield GE. 2010. Resilience of bryophyte communities in regenerating matrix forests after logging in temperate rainforests of coastal British Columbia. Botany 88: 297314.
  • Basilier K. 1979. Moss-associated nitrogen-fixation in some mire and coniferous forest environments around Uppsala, Sweden. Lindbergia 5: 8488.
  • Belland RJ, Schofield WB. 1994. The ecology and phytogeography of the bryophytes of Cape-Breton Highlands National-Park, Canada. Nova Hedwigia 59: 275309.
  • Belyea LR, Baird AJ. 2006. The limits to peat bog growth: cross-scale feedback in peatland development. Ecological Monographs 76: 299322.
  • Benscoter BW, Thompson DK, Waddington JM, Flannigan MD, Wotton BM, de Groot WJ, Turetsky MR. 2011. Interactive effects of vegetation, soil moisture and bulk density on depth of burning of thick organic soils. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20: 418429.
  • Benscoter BW, Vitt DH. 2008. Spatial patterns and temporal trajectories of the bog ground layer along a post-fire chronosequence. Ecosystems 11: 10541064.
  • Benscoter BW, Wieder RK. 2003. Variability in organic matter lost by combustion in a boreal bog during the 2001 Chisholm fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 25092513.
  • Blok D, Heijmans MMPD, Schaepman-Strub G, van Ruijven J, Parmentier FJW, Maximov TC, Berendse F. 2011. The cooling capacity of mosses: controls on water and energy fluxes in a Siberian tundra site. Ecosystems 14: 10551065.
  • Bonan GB, Pollard D, Thompson SL. 1992. Effects of boreal forest vegetation on global climate. Nature 359: 716718.
  • Bond-Lamberty B, Gower ST, Ahl DE, Thornton PE. 2005. Reimplementation of the Biome-BGC model to simulate successional change. Tree Physiology 25: 413424.
  • Bond-Lamberty B, Peckham SD, Ahl DE, Gower ST. 2007. Fire as the dominant driver of central Canadian boreal forest carbon balance. Nature 450: 89.
  • Botting RS, Fredeen AL. 2006. Contrasting terrestrial lichen, liverwort, and moss diversity between old-growth and young second-growth forest on two soil textures in central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany 84: 120132.
  • Breeuwer A, Robroek BJM, Limpen J, Heijmans MMPD, Schouten MGC, Berendse F. 2009. Decreased summer water table depth affects peatland vegetation. Basic and Applied Ecology 10: 330339.
  • Bridgham SD, Pastor J, Janssens JA, Chapin C, Malterer TJ. 1996. Multiple limiting gradients in peatlands: a call for a new paradigm. Wetlands 16: 4565.
  • Brown CD, Johnstone JF. 2011. How does increased fire frequency affect carbon loss from fire? A case study in the northern boreal forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire 20: 829837.
  • Camill P, Chihara L, Adams B, Andreassi C, Barry A, Kalim S, Limmer J, Mandell M, Rafert G. 2010. Early life history transitions and recruitment of Picea mariana in thawed boreal permafrost peatlands. Ecology 91: 448459.
  • Chapin FS, Bret Harte MS, Hobbie SE, Zhong HL. 1996. Plant functional types as predictors of transient responses of arctic vegetation to global change. Journal of Vegetation Science 7: 347358.
  • Chapin FS III, Oechel WC, Van Cleve K, Lawrence W. 1987. The role of mosses in the phosphorus cycling of an Alaskan black spruce forest. Oecologia 74: 310315.
  • Chapin FS, Sala OE, Burke IC, Grime JP, Hooper DU, Lauenroth WK, Lombard A, Mooney HA, Mosier AR, Naeem S et al. 1998. Ecosystem consequences of changing biodiversity – experimental evidence and a research agenda for the future. BioScience 48: 4552.
  • Chapin FS, Shaver GR, Giblin AE, Nadelhoffer KJ, Laundre JA. 1995. Responses of Arctic tundra to experimental and observed changes in climate. Ecology 76: 694711.
  • Chapin FS, Walker LR, Fastie CL, Sharman LC. 1994. Mechanisms of primary succession following deglaciation at Glacier Bay, Alaska. Ecological Monographs 64: 149175.
  • Clymo RS, Hayward PM. 1982. The ecology of Sphagnum. In: Smith AJE, ed. Bryophyte ecology. New York, NY, USA: Chapman and Hall, 229288.
  • Cornelissen HC, Lang SI, Soudzilovskaia NA, During HJ. 2007. Comparative cryptogam ecology: a review of bryophyte and lichen traits that drive biogeochemistry. Annals of Botany 99: 9871001.
  • Crowley KF, Bedford BL. 2011. Mosses influence phosphorus cycling in rich fens by driving redox conditions in shallow soils. Oecologia 167: 253264.
  • Darell P, Cronberg N. 2011. Bryophytes in black alder swamps in south Sweden: habitat classification, environmental factors and life-strategies. Lindbergia 34: 929.
  • DeLuca TH, Zackrisson O, Gentili F, Sellstedt A, Nilsson M-C. 2007. Ecosystem controls on nitrogen fixation in boreal feather moss communities. Oecologia 152: 121130.
  • Devi N, Hagedorn F, Moiseev P, Bugmann H, Shiyatov S, Mazepa V, Rigling A. 2008. Expanding forests and changing growth forms of Siberian larch at the Polar Urals treeline during the 20th century. Global Change Biology 14: 15811591.
  • Dorrepaal E, Aerts R, Cornelissen JHC, Callaghan TV, van Logtestijn RSP. 2004. Summer warming and increased winter snow cover affect Sphagnum fuscum growth, structure and production in a sub-arctic bog. Global Change Biology 10: 93104.
  • Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M. 2006. Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36: 22852299.
  • During HJ. 1992. Ecological classifications of bryophytes and lichens. In: Bates J, Farmer A, eds. Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Clarendon Press, 131.
  • Dynesius M, Hylander K. 2007. Resilience of bryophyte communities to clear-cutting of boreal stream-side forests. Biological Conservation 135: 423434.
  • Dynesius M, Hylander K, Nilsson C. 2009. High resilience of bryophyte assemblages in streamside compared to upland forests. Ecology 90: 10421054.
  • 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. Journal of Vegetation Science 22: 152164.
  • Euskirchen ES, McGuire AD, Chapin FS. 2007. Energy feedbacks of northern high-latitude ecosystems to the climate system due to reduced snow cover during 20th century warming. Global Change Biology 13: 24252438.
  • Euskirchen ES, McGuire AD, Chapin FS III, Yi S, Thompson CC. 2009. Changes in vegetation in northern Alaska under scenarios of climate change, 2003–2100: implications for climate feedbacks. Ecological Applications 19: 10221043.
  • Fenton NJ, Bergeron Y. 2006. Facilitative succession in a boreal bryophyte community driven by changes in available moisture and light. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 6576.
  • Foster DR. 1985. Vegetation development following fire in Picea mariana (Black Spruce)- Pleurozium forests of south-eastern Labrador, Canada. Journal of Ecology 73: 517534.
  • Frelich LE, Reich PB. 1999. Neighborhood effects, disturbance severity, and community stability in forests. Ecosystems 2: 151166.
  • Friedel MH, Bastin GN, Griffin GF. 1988. Range sssessment and monitoring in arid lands – the derivation of functional-groups to simplify vegetation data. Journal of Environmental Management 27: 8597.
  • Frisvoll AA, Presto T. 1997. Spruce forest bryophytes in central Norway and their relationship to environmental factors including modern forestry. Ecography 20: 318.
  • Frolking S, Roulet NT, Tuittila E, Bubier JL, Quillet A, Talbot J, Richard PJH. 2010. A new model of Holocene peatland net primary production, decomposition, water balance, and peat accumulation. Earth System Dynamics 1: 121.
  • Gerdol R, Petraglia A, Bragazza L, Iacumin P, Brancaleoni L. 2007. Nitrogen deposition interacts with climate in affecting production and decomposition rates in Sphagnum mosses. Global Change Biology 13: 18101821.
  • Gignac LD, Vitt DH. 1990. Habitat limitations of Sphagnum along climatic, chemical, and physical gradients in mires of western Canada. Bryologist 93: 722.
  • Glaser PH, Janssens JA, Siegel DI. 1990. The response of vegetation to chemical and hydrological gradients in the Lost River Peatland, Northern Minnesota. Journal of Ecology 78: 10211048.
  • Glenn-Lewin DC, Van Der Maarel E. 1992. Patterns and processes of vegetation dynamics. In: Glenn-Lewin DC, Peet RK, Veblen TT, eds. Population and community biology series; plant succession: theory and prediction. New York, NY, USA: Chapman & Hall, 1159.
  • Gordon C, Wynn JM, Woodin SJ. 2001. Impacts of increased nitrogen supply on high Arctic heath: the importance of bryophytes and phosphorus availability. New Phytologist 149: 461471.
  • Gornall JL, Jonsdottir IS, Woodin SJ, Van der Wal R. 2007. Arctic mosses govern below-ground environment and ecosystem processes. Oecologia 153: 931941.
  • Gornall JL, Woodin SJ, Jónsdóttir IS, van der Wal R. 2011. Balancing positive and negative plant interactions: how mosses structure vascular plant communities. Oecologia 166: 769782.
  • Graglia E, Jonasson S, Michelsen A, Schmidt IK, Havström M, Gustavsson L. 2001. Effects of environmental perturbations on abundance of subarctic plants after three, seven and ten years of treatments. Ecography 24: 512.
  • Grellmann D. 2002. Plant responses to fertilization and exclusion of grazers on an arctic tundra heath. Oikos 98: 190204.
  • Grime JP. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  • Grosse G, Harden J, Turetsky M, McGuire AD, Camill P, Tarnocai C, Frolking S, Schuur EAG, Jorgenson T, Marchenko S et al. 2011. Vulnerability of high-latitude soil organic carbon in North America to disturbance. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 116. G00K06, doi:10.1029/2010JG001507.
  • Gunderson LH. 2000. Ecological resilience – in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31: 425439.
  • Gunderson LH, Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
  • Gunnarsson U. 2005. Global patterns of Sphagnum productivity. Journal of Bryology 27: 269279.
  • 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 Phytologist 163: 349359.
  • Gunnarsson U, Rydin H. 2000. Nitrogen fertilization reduces Sphagnum production in bog communities. New Phytologist 147: 527537.
  • Haeussler S, Bartemucci P, Bedford L. 2004. Succession and resilience in boreal mixedwood plant communities 15–16 years after silvicultural site preparation. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 349370.
  • Haeussler S, Bedford L, Leduc A, Bergeron Y, Kranabetter JM. 2002. Silvicultural disturbance severity and plant communities of the southern Canadian boreal forest. Silva Fennica 36: 307327.
  • Hájek T, Ballance S, 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: 4557.
  • 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: 240250.
  • Harden JW, Manies KL, Turetsky MR, Neff JC. 2006. Effects of wildfire and permafrost on soil organic matter and soil climate in interior Alaska. Global Change Biology 12: 23912403.
  • Harley PC, Tenhunen JD, Murray KJ, Beyers J. 1989. Irradiance and temperature effects on photosynthesis of tussock tundra Sphagnum mosses from the foothills of the Philip Smith Mountains, Alaska. Oecologia 79: 251259.
  • Hedderson TA, Longton RE. 1996. Life history variation in mosses: water relations, size and phylogeny. Oikos 77: 3143.
  • Heijmans M, Klees H, Berendse F. 2002. Competition between Sphagnum magellanicum and Eriophorum angustifolium as affected by raised CO2 and increased N deposition. Oikos 97: 415425.
  • Heijmans M, Mauquoy D, van Geel B, Berendse F. 2008. Long-term effects of climate change on vegetation and carbon dynamics in peat bogs. Journal of Vegetation Science 19: 307320.
  • Higuera PE, Chipman ML, Barnes JL, Urban MA, Hu FS. 2011. Variability of tundra fire regimes in Arctic Alaska: millennial-scale patterns and ecological implications. Ecological Applications 21: 32113226.
  • Hill GB, Henry GHR. 2010. Responses of High Arctic wet sedge tundra to climate warming since 1980. Global Change Biology 17: 276287.
  • Hinzman LD, Bettez ND, Bolton WR, Chapin FS, Dyurgerov MB, Fastie CL, Griffith B, Hollister RD, Hope A, Huntington HP et al. 2005. Evidence and implications of recent climate change in northern Alaska and other arctic regions. Climatic Change 72: 251298.
  • Hobbie SE, Chapin FS. 1998. Response of tundra plant biomass, aboveground production, nitrogen, and CO2 flux to experimental warming. Ecology 79: 15261544.
  • Hobbie SE, Schimel JP, Trumbore SE, Randerson JR. 2000. Controls over carbon storage and turnover in high-latitude soils. Global Change Biology 6: 196210.
  • Hobbie SE, Shevtsova A, Chapin FS. 1999. Plant responses to species removal and experimental warming in Alaskan tussock tundra. Oikos 84: 417434.
  • Hodson J, Fortin D, LeBlanc M-L, Belanger L. 2010. An appraisal of the fitness consequences of forest disturbance for wildlife using habitat selection theory. Oecologia 164: 7386.
  • Hogg EH. 1993. Decay potential of hummock and hollow Sphagnum peats at different depths in a Swedish raised bog. Oikos 66: 269278.
  • Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 123.
  • Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs 75: 335.
  • Hotes S, Grootjans AP, Takahashi H, Ekschmitt K, Poschlod P. 2010. Resilience and alternative equilibria in a mire plant community after experimental disturbance by volcanic ash. Oikos 119: 952963.
  • Hu FS, Higuera PE, Walsh JE, Chapman WL, Duffy PA, Brubaker LB, Chipman ML. 2010. Tundra burning in Alaska: linkages to climatic change and sea ice retreat. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 115: G04002.
  • Hudson JMG, Henry GHR. 2009. Increased plant biomass in a High Arctic heath community from 1981 to 2008. Ecology 90: 26572663.
  • Hughes PDM, Barber KE. 2003. Mire development across the fen-bog transition on the Teifi floodplain at Tregaron Bog, Ceredigion, Wales, and a comparison with 13 other raised bogs. Journal of Ecology 91: 253264.
  • Hughes PDM, Dumayne-Peaty L. 2002. Testing theories of mire development using multiple successions at Crymlyn Bog, West Glamorgan, South Wales, UK. Journal of Ecology 90: 456471.
  • Hunt SL, Gordon AM, Morris DM. 2005. Aspects of ecological development in managed stands of jack pine and black spruce in northern Ontario: understory vegetation and nutrient relations. Forestry Chronicle 81: 6172.
  • Hylander K, Dynesius M. 2006. Causes of the large variation in bryophyte species richness and composition among boreal streamside forests. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 333346.
  • Hylander K, Johnson S. 2010. In situ survival of forest bryophytes in small-scale refugia after an intense forest fire. Journal of Vegetation Science 21: 10991109.
  • Ivanov KE. 1981. Water movement in mirelands. Translated from Russian by Thompson A, Ingram HAP, eds. London, UK: Academic Press.
  • Jagerbrand AK, Lindblad KEM, Bjork RG, Alatalo JM, Molau U. 2006. Bryophyte and lichen diversity under simulated environmental change compared with observed variation in unmanipulated alpine tundra. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 44534475.
  • Jandt R, Joly K, Meyers CR, Racine C. 2008. Slow recovery of lichen on burned caribou winter range in Alaska tundra: potential influences of climate warming and other disturbance factors. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 40: 8995.
  • Janssens JA, Hansen BCS, Glaser PH, Whitlock C. 1992. Development of a raised-bog complex. In: Wright HE Jr, Coffin BA, Aaseng NE, eds. The patterned peatlands of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 189221.
  • Jefferies RL, Jano AP, Abraham KF. 2006. A biotic agent promotes large-scale catastrophic change in the coastal marshes of Hudson Bay. Journal of Ecology 94: 234242.
  • Johnson LC, Damman AWH. 1991. Species-controlled Sphagnum decay on a south Swedish raised bog. Oikos 61: 234242.
  • Johnstone J, Chapin F. 2006. Effects of soil burn severity on post-fire tree recruitment in boreal forest. Ecosystems 9: 1431.
  • Johnstone JF. 2006. Response of boreal plant communities to variations in previous fire-free interval. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 497508.
  • Johnstone JF, Chapin FS III, Hollingsworth TN, Mack MC, Romanovsky V, Turetsky MR. 2010. Fire, climate change, and forest resilience in interior Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 13021312.
  • Jonasson S. 1992. Plant-responses to fertilization and species removal in tundra related to community structure and clonality. Oikos 63: 420429.
  • Jonasson S, Michelsen A, Schmidt IK, Nielsen EV. 1999. Responses in microbes and plants to changed temperature, nutrient, and light regimes in the arctic. Ecology 80: 18281843.
  • Jonsson BG, Soderstrom L. 1988. Growth and reproduction in the leafy hepatic Ptilidium Pulcherrimum (G. Web.) Vainio during a 4-year period. Journal of Bryology 15: 315325.
  • Jorgenson JC, Hoef JMV, Jorgenson MT. 2010. Long-term recovery patterns of arctic tundra after winter seismic exploration. Ecological Applications 20: 205221.
  • Jorgenson MT, Osterkamp TE. 2005. Response of boreal ecosystems to varying modes of permafrost degradation in Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 21002111.
  • Juutinen S, Bubier JL, Moore TR. 2010. Responses of vegetation and ecosystem CO2 exchange to 9 years of nutrient addition at Mer Bleue Bog. Ecosystems 13: 874887.
  • Kallio P, Heinonen S. 1975. Carbon dioxide exchange and growth of Rhacomitrium lanuginosum and Dicranum elongatum. In: Wielgolaski FE, ed. Fennoscandian Tundra Ecosystems. Part 1. Ecological Studies 16. New York, USA: Springer Verlag, 138148.
  • Karlsson JM, Bring A, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ, Destouni G. 2011. Opportunities and limitations to detect climate-related regime shifts in inland Arctic ecosystems through eco-hydrological monitoring. Environmental Research Letters 6: 014015.
  • Kattge J, Diaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice C, Leadley P, Boenisch G, Garnier E, Westoby M, Reich PB, Wright IJ et al. 2011. TRY – a global database of plant traits. Global Change Biology 17: 29052935.
  • Kelley AM, Epstein HE. 2009. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on plant communities of nonsorted circles in moist nonacidic Tundra, Northern Alaska. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 41: 119127.
  • Kemper JT, Macdonald SE. 2009. Effects of contemporary winter seismic exploration on low Arctic plant communities and permafrost. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 41: 228237.
  • Keuper F, Dorrepaal E, Van Bodegom PM, Aerts R, Van Logtestijn RSP, Callaghan TV, Cornelissen JHC. 2011. A race for space? How Sphagnum fuscum stabilizes vegetation composition during long-term climate manipulations. Global Change Biology 17: 21622171.
  • Kip N, Ouyang W, van Winden J, Raghoebarsing A, van Niftrik L, Pol A, Pan Y, Bodrossy L, van Donselaar EG, Reichart G-J et al. 2011. Detection, isolation, and characterization of acidophilic methanotrophs from Sphagnum mosses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 77: 56435654.
  • Kistler R, Kalnay E, Collins W, Saha S, White G, Woollen J, Chelliah M, Ebisuzaki W, Kanamitsu M, Kousky V, et al. 2001. The NCEP-NCAR 50-year reanalysis: monthly means CD-ROM and documentation. AMS Bulletin 82: 247267.
  • Korhola AA. 1992. Mire induction, ecosystem dynamics and lateral extension on raised bogs in the southern coastal area in Finland. Fennia 170: 2594.
  • Kreyling J, Schmiedinger A, Macdonald E, Beierkuhnlein C. 2008. Slow understory redevelopment after clearcutting in high mountain forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 23392355.
  • Kurz WA, Dymond CC, Stinson G, Rampley GJ, Neilson ET, Carroll AL, Ebata T, Safranyik L. 2008. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452: 987990.
  • Kuusinen M. 1996. Importance of spruce swamp-forests for epiphyte diversity and flora on Picea abies in southern and middle boreal Finland. Ecography 19: 4151.
  • Lang SI, Cornelissen JHC, Hoelzer A, ter Braak CJF, Ahrens M, Callaghan TV, Aerts R. 2009a. Determinants of cryptogam composition and diversity in Sphagnum-dominated peatlands: the importance of temporal, spatial and functional scales. Journal of Ecology 97: 299310.
  • Lang SI, Cornelissen JHC, Klahn T, van Logtestijn RSP, Broekman R, Schweikert W, Aerts R. 2009b. An experimental comparison of chemical traits and litter decomposition rates in a diverse range of subarctic bryophyte, lichen and vascular plant species. Journal of Ecology 97: 886900.
  • Lang SI, Cornelissen JHC, Shaver GR, Matthias A, Callaghan TV, Molau U, Ter Braak CJF, Holzer A, Aerts R. 2011. Arctic warming on two continents has consistent negative effects on lichen diversity and mixed effects on bryophyte diversity. Global Change Biology. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02570.x.
  • Lavorel S, Garnier E. 2002. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional Ecology 16: 545556.
  • Lawrence DM, Slater AG, Romanovsky VE, Nicolsky DJ. 2008. Sensitivity of a model projection of near-surface permafrost degradation to soil column depth and representation of soil organic matter. Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface 113: F02011.
  • Lindo Z, Gonzalez A. 2010. The bryosphere: an integral and influential component of the earth’s biosphere. Ecosystems 13: 612627.
  • Liston GE, Hiemstra CA. 2011. The changing cryosphere: Pan-Arctic snow trends (1979–2009). Journal of Climate 24: 56915712.
  • Longton RE. 1988. Adaptations and strategies of polar bryophytes. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 253268.
  • Mack MC, Bret-Harte MS, Hollingsworth TN, Jandt RR, Schuur EAG, Shaver GR, Verbyla DL. 2011. Carbon loss from an unprecedented Arctic tundra wildfire. Nature 475: 489492.
  • Mack MC, Treseder KK, Manies KL, Harden JW, Schuur EAG, Vogel JG, Randerson JT, Chapin FS. 2008. Recovery of aboveground plant biomass and productivity after fire in mesic and dry black spruce forests of interior Alaska. Ecosystems 11: 209225.
  • Maikawa E, Kershaw KA. 1976. Studies on lichen-dominated systems. XIX. The postfire recovery sequence of black spruce – lichen woodland in the Abitau Lake Region, NWT. Canadian Journal of Botany 54: 26792687.
  • Malmer N, Albinsson C, Svensson BM, Wallen B. 2003. Interferences between Sphagnum and vascular plants: effects on plant community structure and peat formation. Oikos 100: 469482.
  • Markham JH. 2009. Variation in moss-associated nitrogen fixation in boreal forest stands. Oecologia 161: 353359.
  • Marozas V, Racinskas J, Bartkevicius E. 2007. Dynamics of ground vegetation after surface fires in hemiboreal Pinus sylvestris forests. Forest Ecology and Management 250: 4755.
  • McCann KS. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405: 228233.
  • Michel P, Lee WG, During HJ, Cornelissen JHC. 2012. Species traits and their non-additive interactions control the water economy of bryophyte cushions. Journal of Ecology 100: 222231.
  • Mills SE, Macdonald SE. 2004. Predictors of moss and liverwort species diversity of microsites in conifer-dominated boreal forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 15: 189198.
  • Molau U, Alatalo JM. 1998. Responses of subarctic-alpine plant communities to simulated environmental change: biodiversity of bryophytes, lichens, and vascular plants. Ambio 27: 322329.
  • Mulder CPH, Bazeley-White E, Dimitrakopoulos PG, Hector A, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B. 2004. Species evenness and productivity in experimental plant communities. Oikos 107: 5063.
  • Muller SD, Richard PJH, Larouche AC. 2003. Holocene development of a peatland (southern Quebec): a spatio-temporal reconstruction based on pachymetry, sedimentology, microfossils and macrofossils. Holocene 13: 649664.
  • Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Stainforth DA. 2004. Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430: 768772.
  • Murray KJ, Tenhunen JD, Nowak RS. 1993. Photoinhibition as a control on photosynthesis and production of Sphagnum mosses. Oecologia 96: 200207.
  • Naeem S. 1998. Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Conservation Biology 12: 3945.
  • Nakicenovic N, Swart R. 2000. IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Newmaster SG, Bell FW. 2002. The effects of silvicultural disturbances on cryptogam diversity in the boreal-mixedwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 3851.
  • Newmaster SG, Bell FW, Vitt DH. 1999. The effects of glyphosate and triclopyr on common bryophytes and lichens in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 11011111.
  • Nilsson MC, Wardle DA. 2005. Understory vegetation as a forest ecosystem driver: evidence from the northern Swedish boreal forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 421428.
  • Nilsson MC, Wardle DA, Zackrisson O, Jaderlund A. 2002. Effects of alleviation of ecological stresses on an alpine tundra community over an eight-year period. Oikos 97: 317.
  • Nungesser M. 2003. Modelling microtopography in boreal peatlands: hummocks and hollows. Ecological Modelling 165: 175207.
  • Oechel WC, Sveinbjörnsson B. 1978. Primary production processes in arctic bryophytes at Barrow, Alaska. In: Tieszen LL, ed. Vegetation and production ecology of an Alaskan arctic tundra. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, 269298.
  • Okland RH. 1995. Population biology of the clonal moss Hylocomium splendens in Norwegian boreal spruce forests. I. Demography. Journal of Ecology 83: 697712.
  • Oreskes N, Shraderfrechette K, Belitz K. 1994. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical-models in the earth-sciences. Science 263: 641646.
  • Paine RT, Tegner MJ, Johnson EA. 1998. Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1: 535545.
  • Pastor J, Peckham B, Bridgham S, Weltzin J, Chen J. 2002. Plant community dynamics, nutrient cycling, and alternative stable equilibria in peatlands. The American Naturalist 160: 553568.
  • Pausas JG, Bradstock RA, Keith DA, Keeley JE. 2004. Plant functional traits in relation to fire in crown-fire ecosystems. Ecology 85: 10851100.
  • Payette S, Bhiry N, Delwaide A, Simard M. 2000. Origin of the lichen woodland at its southern range limit in eastern Canada: the catastrophic impact of insect defoliators and fire on the spruce-moss forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 288305.
  • Payette S, Delwaide A. 2003. Shift of conifer boreal forest to lichen–heath parkland caused by successive stand disturbances. Ecosystems 6: 540550.
  • Pharo EJ, Zartman CE. 2007. Bryophytes in a changing landscape: the hierarchical effects of habitat fragmentation on ecological and evolutionary processes. Biological Conservation 135: 315325.
  • Phoenix GK, Gwynn-Jones D, Callaghan TV, Sleep D, Lee JA. 2001. Effects of global change on a sub-Arctic heath: effects of enhanced UV-B radiation and increased summer precipitation. Journal of Ecology 89: 256267.
  • Potter JA, Press MC, Callaghan TV, Lee JA. 1995. Growth responses of Polytrichum commune and Hylocomium splendens to simulated environmental change in the sub-arctic. New Phytologist 131: 533541.
  • Prach K, Kosnar J, Klimesova J, Hais M. 2010. High Arctic vegetation after 70 years: a repeated analysis from Svalbard. Polar Biology 33: 635639.
  • Press MC, Potter JA, Burke MJW, Callaghan TV, Lee JA. 1998. Responses of a subarctic dwarf shrub heath community to simulated environmental change. Journal of Ecology 86: 315327.
  • Prins HHT. 1982. Why are mosses eaten in cold environments only? Oikos 38: 374380.
  • Proctor MCF, Tuba Z. 2002. Poikilohydry and homoihydry: antithesis or spectrum of possibilities? New Phytologist 156: 327349.
  • Racine C, Jandt R, Meyers C, Dennis J. 2004. Tundra fire and vegetation change along a hillslope on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36: 110.
  • Richardson SJ, Press MC, Parsons AN, Hartley SE. 2002. How do nutrients and warming impact on plant communities and their insect herbivores? A 9-year study from a sub-Arctic heath. Journal of Ecology 90: 544556.
  • Rietkerk M, Dekker SC, de Ruiter PC, van de Koppel J. 2004. Self-organized patchiness and catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Science 305: 19261929.
  • Riutta T, Laine J, Tuittila E-S. 2007. Sensitivity of CO2 exchange of fen ecosystem components to water level variation. Ecosystems 10: 718733.
  • Rixen C, Mulder CPH. 2005. Improved water retention links high species richness with increased productivity in arctic tundra moss communities. Oecologia 146: 287299.
  • Robinson AL, Vitt DH, Timoney KP. 1989. Patterns of community structure and morphology of bryophytes and lichens relative to edaphic gradients in the subarctic forest-tundra of northwestern Canada. The Bryologist 92: 495512.
  • Robinson CH, Wookey PA, Lee JA, Callaghan TV, Press MC. 1998. Plant community responses to simulated environmental change at a high arctic polar semi-desert. Ecology 79: 856866.
  • Romanovsky VE, Kholodov AL, Marchenko SS, Oberman NG, Drozdov DG, Malkova GV, Moskalenko NG, Vasiliev AA, Sergeev DO, Zheleznyak MN. 2008. Thermal state and fate of permafrost in Russia: first results of IPY. In: Kane DL, Hinkel EM, eds. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Permafrost. Fairbanks, AK, USA: Institute of Northern Engineering, 15111518.
  • Rudolphi J, Gustafsson L. 2011. Forests regenerating after clear-cutting function as habitat for bryophyte and lichen species of conservation concern. PLoS ONE 6: e18639.
  • Running SW, Hunt ERJ. 1993. Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME-BGC and an application for global-scale models. In: Ehleringer JR, Field CB, eds. Scaling physiological processes: leaf to globe. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press Inc, 141158.
  • Rydgren K, Okland RH, Hestmark G. 2004. Disturbance severity and community resilience in a boreal forest. Ecology 85: 19061915.
  • Rydin H. 1993. Mechanisms of interactions among Sphagnum species along water-level gradients. Advances in Bryology; Biology of Sphagnum, 5: 153185.
  • Rydin H, Sjörs H, Löfroth M. 1999. Mires. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 84: 92112.
  • Saarnio S, Jarviö S, Saarinen T, Vasander H, Silvola J. 2003. Minor changes in vegetation and carbon gas balance in a boreal mire under a raised CO2 or NH4NO3 supply. Ecosystems 6: 4660.
  • Sarkkola S, Alenius V, Hökkä H, Laiho R, Päivänen J, Penttilä T. 2003. Changes in structural inequality in Norway spruce stands on peatland sites after water-level drawdown. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 222231.
  • Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413: 591596.
  • Serreze MC, Walsh JE, Chapin FS, Osterkamp T, Dyurgerov M, Romanovsky V, Oechel WC, Morison J, Zhang T, Barry RG. 2000. Observational evidence of recent change in the northern high-latitude environment. Climatic Change 46: 159207.
  • Shaver GR, Bret-Harte SM, Jones MH, Johnstone J, Gough L, Laundre J, Chapin FS. 2001. Species composition interacts with fertilizer to control long-term change in tundra productivity. Ecology 82: 31633181.
  • Shetler G, Turetsky MR, Kane ES, Kasischke E. 2008. Sphagnum mosses limit total carbon consumption during fire in Alaskan black spruce forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 23282336.
  • Skre O, Oechel WC. 1981. Moss functioning in different taiga ecosystems in interior Alaska.1. Seasonal, phenotypic, and drought effects on photosynthesis and response patterns. Oecologia 48: 5059.
  • Slack NG. 1982. Bryophytes in relation to ecological niche theory. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory, 52: 199217.
  • Smith TM, Shugart HH, Woodward FI. 1997. Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystems properties and global change. IGBP Book Series No. 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Söderström L. 1988. The occurrence of epixylic bryophyte and lichen species in an old natural and a managed forest stand in northeast Sweden. Biological Conservation 45: 169178.
  • Soja AJ, Tchebakova NM, French NHF, Flannigan MD, Shugart HH, Stocks BJ, Sukhinin AI, Varfenova EI, Chapin FS, Stackhouse PW. 2007. Climate-induced boreal forest change: predictions versus current observations. Global and Planetary Change 56: 274296.
  • Sonesson M, Callaghan TV, Carlsson BA. 1996. Effects of enhanced ultraviolet radiation and carbon dioxide concentration on the moss Hylocomium splendens. Global Change Biology 2: 6773.
  • Sonesson M, Carlsson BÅ, Callaghan TV, Halling S, Björn LO, Bertgren M, Johanson U. 2002. Growth of two peat-forming mosses in subarctic mires: species interactions and effects of simulated climate change. Oikos 99: 151160.
  • Soudzilovskaia NA, Cornelissen JHC, During HJ, van Logtestijn RSP, Lang SI, Aerts R. 2010. Similar cation exchange capacities among bryophyte species refute a presumed mechanism of peatland acidification. Ecology 91: 27162726.
  • Soudzilovskaia NA, Graae BJ, Douma JC, Grau O, Milbau A, Shevtsova A, Wolters L, Cornelissen JHC. 2011. How do bryophytes govern generative recruitment of vascular plants? New Phytologist 190: 10191031.
  • Speed JDM, Cooper EJ, Jonsdottir IS, van der Wal R, Woodin SJ. 2010. Plant community properties predict vegetation resilience to herbivore disturbance in the Arctic. Journal of Ecology 98: 10021013.
  • Steijlen I, Nilsson MC, Zackrisson O. 1995. Seed regeneration of scots pine in boreal forest stands dominated by lichen and feather moss. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 713723.
  • Straková P, Anttila J, Spetz P, Kitunen V, Tapanila T, Laiho R. 2010. Litter quality and its response to water level drawdown in boreal peatlands at plant species and community level. Plant and Soil 335: 501520.
  • Sturm M, Racine C, Tape K. 2001. Increasing shrub abundance in the Arctic. Nature 411: 546547.
  • Suding KN, Lavorel S, Chapin FS III, Cornelissen JHC, Diaz S, Garnier E, Goldberg D, Hooper DU, Jackson ST, Navas M-L. 2008. Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Global Change Biology 14: 11251140.
  • Tahvanainen T. 2011. Abrupt ombrotrophication of a boreal aapa mire triggered by hydrological disturbance in the catchment. Journal of Ecology 99: 404415.
  • Tape K, Sturm M, Racine C. 2006. The evidence for shrub expansion in Northern Alaska and the Pan-Arctic. Global Change Biology 12: 686702.
  • Tape KD, Hallinger M, Welker JM, Ruess RW. 2012. Landscape heterogeneity of shrub expansion in arctic Alaska. Ecosystems 10.1007, doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9540-4.
  • Thornton PE. 1998. Regional ecosystem simulation: combining surface- and satellite-based observations to study linkages between terrestrial energy and mass budgets. PhD thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA.
  • Thornton PE, Law BC, Gholz HL, Clark KL, Falge E, Ellsworth DS, Goldstein AH, Monson RK, Hollinger D, Falk M et al. 2002. Modeling and measuring the effects of disturbance history and climate on carbon and water budgets in evergreen needleleaf forests. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 113: 185222.
  • Tilman D, Lehman CL, Thomson KT. 1997. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 94: 18571861.
  • Titus JE, Wagner DJ, Stephens MD. 1983. Contrasting water relations of photosynthesis for two Sphagnum mosses. Ecology 64: 11091115.
  • Tolonen K. 1971. On the regeneration of north European bogs Part 1 Klaukkalan Isosuo in Southern Finland. Suomen Maataloustieteellisen Seuran Julkaisuja 123: 143166.
  • Tuittila ES, 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. Journal of Vegetation Science 18: 891902.
  • Turetsky MR. 2003. The role of bryophytes in carbon and nitrogen cycling. Bryologist 106: 395409.
  • Turetsky MR, Crow SE, Evans RJ, Vitt DH, Wieder RK. 2008. Trade-offs in resource allocation among moss species control decomposition in boreal peatlands. Journal of Ecology 96: 12971305.
  • Turetsky MR, Kane ES, Harden JW, Ottmar RD, Manies KL, Hoy E, Kasischke ES. 2011. Recent acceleration of biomass burning and carbon losses in Alaskan forests and peatlands. Nature Geoscience 4: 2731.
  • Turetsky MR, Mack MC, Hollingsworth TN, Harden JW. 2010. The role of mosses in ecosystem succession and function in Alaska’s boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40: 12371264.
  • Turetsky MR, Wieder RK, Vitt DH, Evans RJ, Scott KD. 2007. The disappearance of relict permafrost in boreal north America: effects on peatland carbon storage and fluxes. Global Change Biology 13: 19221934.
  • Turner MG, Dale VH, Everham EH. 1997. Fires, hurricanes, and volcanoes: comparing large disturbances. BioScience 47: 758768.
  • Van Breemen N. 1995. Nutrient cycling strategies. In: Nilsson LO, Hüttl RF, Johansson UT, eds. Developments in plant and soil Sciences; nutrient uptake and cycling in forest ecosystems. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 321326.
  • Vitt DH. 1990. Growth and production dynamics of boreal mosses over climatic, chemical and topographic gradients. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 104: 3559.
  • Vitt DH, Glime JM. 1984. The structural adaptations of aquatic musci. Lindbergia 10: 95110.
  • Vitt DH, Pakarinen P. 1977. The bryophyte vegetation, production, and organic components of Truelove Lowland. In: Bliss LC, ed. Truelove Lowland, Devon Island, Canada: a High Arctic ecosystem. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta Press, 225244.
  • Vitt DH, Wieder K, Halsey LA, Turetsky M. 2003. Response of Sphagnum fuscum to nitrogen deposition: a case study of ombrogenous peatlands in Alberta, Canada. Bryologist 106: 235245.
  • 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 Phytologist 185: 156172.
  • Waite M, Sack L. 2011. Does global stoichiometric theory apply to bryophytes? Tests across an elevation × soil age ecosystem matrix on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Journal of Ecology 99: 122134.
  • van der Wal R. 2006. Do herbivores cause habitat degradation or vegetation state transition? Evidence from the tundra. Oikos 114: 177186.
  • van der Wal R, Brooker RW. 2004. Mosses mediate grazer impacts on grass abundance in arctic ecosystems. Functional Ecology 18: 7786.
  • van der Wal R, Pearce ISK, Brooker RW. 2005. Mosses and the struggle for light in a nitrogen-polluted world. Oecologia 142: 159168.
  • Walker B. 1995. Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem resilience. Conservation Biology 9: 747752.
  • Walker B, Kinzig A, Langridge J. 1999. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2: 95113.
  • Wang W, Ichii K, Hashimoto H, Michaelis AR, Thornton PE, Law BE, Nemani RR. 2009. A hierarchical analysis of terrestrial ecosystem model Biome-BGC: equilibrium analysis and model calibration. Ecological Modelling 220: 20092023.
  • Wania R, Ross I, Prentice IC. 2009. Integrating peatlands and permafrost into a dynamic global vegetation model: 1. Evaluation and sensitivity of physical land surface processes. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23: GB3014.
  • Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Barker GM, Yeates GW, Nicholson KS, Bardgett RD, Watson RN, Ghani A. 1999. Plant removals in perennial grassland: vegetation dynamics, decomposers, soil biodiversity, and ecosystem properties. Ecological Monographs 69: 535568.
  • Wardle DA, Lagerström A, Nilsson M-C. 2008. Context dependent effects of plant species and functional group loss on vegetation invasibility across an island area gradient. Journal of Ecology 96: 11741186.
  • Weltzin JF, Bridgham SD, Pastor J, Chen JQ, Harth C. 2003. Potential effects of warming and drying on peatland plant community composition. Global Change Biology 9: 141151.
  • Weltzin JF, Harth C, Bridgham SD, Pastor J, Vonderharr M. 2001. Production and microtopography of bog bryophytes: response to warming and water-table manipulations. Oecologia 128: 557565.
  • Weltzin JF, Pastor J, Harth C, Bridgham SD, Updegraff K, Chapin C. 2000. Response of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water-table manipulations. Ecology 81: 34643478.
  • White MA, Thornton PE, Running SW, Nemani RR. 2000. Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of the BIOME-BGC terrestrial ecosystem model: net primary production controls. Earth Interactions 4: 185.
  • Wiedermann MM, Nordin A, Gunnarsson U, Nilsson MB, Ericson L. 2007. Global change shifts vegetation and plant–parasite interactions in a boreal mire. Ecology 88: 454464.
  • Wielgolaski FE, Bliss LC, Svoboda J, Doyle G. 1981. Primary production of tundra. In: Bliss LC, Heal OW, Moore JJ, eds. Tundra ecosystems: a comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 187225.
  • Wisser D, Marchenkoa S, Talbot J, Treat C, Frolking S. 2011. Soil temperature response to 21st century global warming: the role of and some implications for peat carbon in thawing permafrost soils in North America. Earth System Dynamics 2: 161210.
  • Yachi S, Loreau M. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96: 14631468.
  • Yi S, McGuire AD, Harden J, Kasischke E, Manies K, Hinzman L, Liljedahl A, Randerson J, Liu H, Romanovsky V et al. 2009. Interactions between soil thermal and hydrological dynamics in the response of Alaska ecosystems to fire disturbance. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 114: G02015.
  • Yi SH, Woo MK, Arain MA. 2007. Impacts of peat and vegetation on permafrost degradation under climate warming. Geophysical Research Letters 34: L16504.
  • Yurova A, Wolf A, Sagerfors J, Nilsson M. 2007. Variations in net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide in a boreal mire: modeling mechanisms linked to water table position. Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 112: 113.
  • Zhuang Q, McGuire AD, O’Neill KP, Harden JW, Romanovsky VE, Yarie J. 2002. Modeling soil thermal and carbon dynamics of a fire chronosequence in interior Alaska. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 108: 8147.
  • Zhuang Q, Melillo JM, Sarofim MC, Kicklighter DW, McGuire AD, Felzer BS, Sokolov A, Prinn RG, Steudler PA, Hu S. 2006. CO2 and CH4 exchanges between land ecosystems and the atmosphere in northern high latitudes over the 21st century. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L17403.
  • Zoltai SC, Siltanen RM, Johnson RD. 2000. A wetland database for the western boreal, subarctic, and arctic regions of Canada, NORX-368. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. I. Mosses in the northern, high-latitude region
  4. II. The role of moss in ecological resilience
  5. III. Response of moss to disturbance
  6. IV. Future research needs
  7. V. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  10. Supporting Information

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office.

Table S1 Synthesis of moss community responses following boreal and arctic disturbances

nph4254_sm_TableS1.xlsx35KSupporting info item