| 1. |
- Lett, Signe, et al.
(author)
-
Can bryophyte groups increase functional resolution in tundra ecosystems?
- 2022
-
In: Arctic Science. - Ottawa : Canadian Science Publishing. - 2368-7460. ; 8:3, s. 609-637
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The relative contribution of bryophytes to plant diversity, primary productivity, and ecosystem functioning increases towards colder climates. Bryophytes respond to environmental changes at the species level, but because bryophyte species are relatively difficult to identify, they are often lumped into one functional group. Consequently, bryophyte function remains poorly resolved. Here, we explore how higher resolution of bryophyte functional diversity can be encouraged and implemented in tundra ecological studies. We briefly review previous bryophyte functional classifications and the roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems and their susceptibility to environmental change. Based on shoot morphology and colony organization, we then propose twelve easily distinguishable bryophyte functional groups. To illustrate how bryophyte functional groups can help elucidate variation in bryophyte effects and responses, we compiled existing data on water holding capacity, a key bryophyte trait. Although plant functional groups can mask potentially high interspecific and intraspecific variability, we found better separation of bryophyte functional group means compared with previous grouping systems regarding water holding capacity. This suggests that our bryophyte functional groups truly represent variation in the functional roles of bryophytes in tundra ecosystems. Lastly, we provide recommendations to improve the monitoring of bryophyte community changes in tundra study sites.
|
|
| 2. |
- Tiusanen, Mikko, et al.
(author)
-
Distinct communities and differing dispersal routes in bacteria and fungi of honey bees, honey, and flowers
- 2024
-
In: Microbial Ecology. - : Springer Nature. - 0095-3628 .- 1432-184X. ; 87:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Microbiota, the communities of microbes on and in organisms or organic matter, are essential for the functioning of ecosystems. How microbes are shared and transmitted delineates the formation of a microbiota. As pollinators forage, they offer a route to transfer microbes among the flowering plants, themselves, and their nests. To assess how the two components of the microbiota, bacteria and fungi, in pollination communities are shared and transferred, we focused on the honey bee Apis mellifera and collected honey bee, honey (representing the hive microbiota), and flower samples three times during the summer in Finland. We identified the bacteria and fungi by DNA metabarcoding. To determine the impact of honey bees’ flower choices on the honey bee and hive microbiota, we identified also plant DNA in honey. The bacterial communities of honey bees, honey, and flowers all differ greatly from each other, while the fungal communities of honey bees and honey are very similar, yet different from flowers. The time of the summer and the sampling area influence all these microbiota. For flowers, the plant identity impacts both bacterial and fungal communities’ composition the most. For the dispersal pathways of bacteria to honey bees, they are acquired directly from the honey and indirectly from flowers through the honey, while fungi are directly transmitted to honey bees from flowers. Overall, the distinctiveness of the microbiota of honey bees, honey, and the surrounding flowers suggests the sharing of microbes among them occurs but plays a minor role for the established microbiota.
|
|
