Next Article in Journal
Honokiol and Magnolol: Insights into Their Antidermatophytic Effects
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of the Phytochemical Composition of Pomegranate Fruit Juices, Peels and Kernels: A Comparative Study on Four Cultivars Grown in Southern Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/plants10112523
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimising Artificial Moss Growth for Environmental Studies in the Mediterranean Area

by
Zulema Varela
1,2,*,
Carlos Real
3,
Cristina Branquinho
2,
Teresa Afonso do Paço
4 and
Ricardo Cruz de Carvalho
2,5
1
CRETUS, Ecology Unit, Department Functional Biology, Facultade de Bioloxía, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
2
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculdade de Ciências, University of Lisbon, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
3
Ecology Unit, Department Functional Biology, Escola Politécnica Superior de Enxeñaría (EPSE), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Rúa Benigno Ledo, Campus Terra, 27002 Lugo, Spain
4
LEAF—Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food—Research Center, Associated Laboratory TERRA, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
5
Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre (MARE), Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, Edifício C2, Piso 5, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(11), 2523; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112523
Submission received: 29 September 2021 / Revised: 26 October 2021 / Accepted: 17 November 2021 / Published: 19 November 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bryophytes are poikilohydric organisms that play a key role in ecosystems, while some of them are also resistant to drought and environmental disturbances but present a slow growth rate. Moss culture in the laboratory can be a very useful tool for ecological restoration or the development of urban green spaces (roof and wall) in the Mediterranean region. Therefore, we aim to: (i) determine the optimal culture conditions for the growth of four moss species present in the Mediterranean climate, such as Bryum argenteum, Hypnum cupressiforme, Tortella nitida, and Tortella squarrosa; (ii) study the optimal growth conditions of the invasive moss Campylopus introflexus to find out if it can be a threat to native species. Photoperiod does not seem to cause any recognisable pattern in moss growth. However, temperature produces more linear but slower growth at 15 °C than at 20 and 25 °C. In addition, the lower temperature produced faster maximum cover values within 5–8 weeks, with at least 60% of the culture area covered. The study concludes that the culture of moss artificially in the organic gardening substrate without fertilisers is feasible and could be of great help for further use in environmental projects to restore degraded ecosystems or to facilitate urban green spaces in the Mediterranean area. Moreover, this study concludes that C. introflexus could successfully occupy the niche of other native moss species, especially in degraded areas, in a future global change scenario.

1. Introduction

Mosses play an important role in ecosystems. They help improve soil stability, fix basic nutrients like nitrogen (N) and carbon (C), and increase the organic matter content in soils, facilitating other plants to grow roots and serving as a habitat for other organisms [1]. They are also susceptible to rapid dehydration under low relative humidity and quickly resume metabolic activity upon rehydration [2,3,4]. Furthermore, mosses can recover quickly after an environmental perturbation, being one of the earlier colonizers among biological soil crust (BSC) components [5]. Moreover, they are totipotent, i.e., any vegetative moss tissue can be a propagule from which grows a new plant [6]. In addition, due to their poikilohydric nature, they have a great ability to capture and retain atmospheric pollutants and, therefore, are widely used to monitor air quality [7,8].
All these characteristics make mosses the ideal organisms for ecological restoration projects in disturbed ecosystems [9,10] or even for use on roofs and green walls in urban environments [11]. However, is to not acceptable to harvest mosses in the field and transplant them elsewhere, as their growth rate in the natural environment is very slow. For example, Giquan et al. [12] report that moss Bryum argenteum is able to cover 70% of 10 × 10 cm squares in 3–4 years in desert dunes, so another source of mosses is needed, which is why laboratory cultures were started. Studies aimed at restoring or rehabilitating dryland areas have been artificially growing moss for years [10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. The procedure followed by most of these works is practically the same: they collect bryophytes of BSCs from the study area and grow them in greenhouses or growing chambers inside plastic containers using autoclaved sand from such areas as a substrate and adding culture medium to speed up their growth. However, these moss culture methods have been poorly described and no information is available concerning their performance. It is unknown which photoperiod or temperature they use to cultivate the different species or if the moss samples were irrigated for most studies. It is only noted that high rates of moss growth are reached in two and six months.
However, there is scarce previous experience of artificial moss culture in non-arid environments in Europe, unlike in North America or Asia for gardening and even moss graffiti [22,23]. Although there are many arid areas in the Mediterranean area, plenty of other areas have a temperate climate and, therefore, other types of ecosystems and other moss species adapted to these conditions. According to Proctor [24], the main growth period for most bryophytes in temperate climates with uniform rainfall throughout the year tends to be in autumn. In winter, growth is limited by low temperatures and in summer by lack of water [25,26]. Furnes and Grime [27] noted that the optimum temperature for the growth of most species is between 15 and 25 °C. Glime [28] conjectures that temperature may control when and where species germinate and thus limit their distribution. However, this author reported that each moss species will grow at a certain rate and that this will be determined by factors other than temperature, such as the photoperiod and its intensity, the species’ morphology, and its growth or life form. For example, in the moss Ceratodon purpureus, long days stimulate protonema elongation, while short days result in protonema branching. Meanwhile, in Bryum pseudotriquetrum, days of ten or more hours are necessary for protonema germination and growth. Therefore, there is undoubtedly a need to optimise the specific technique for the species of interest for cultivation.
This study aims to: (i) determine the optimal culture conditions for the following four moss species commonly found in the Mediterranean (dry summer) climate zones as a tool to facilitate ecological restoration or green roofs/walls projects: Bryum argenteum, Hypnum cupressiforme, Tortella nitida, and Tortella squarrosa. On one hand, B. argenteum, T. nitida, and T. squarrosa are acrocarpic moss species very common in the Mediterranean and quite tolerant to desiccation [29]. An example of pleurocarpic moss is H. cupressiforme, a cosmopolitan species which is present in every continent (except Antarctica) and spread over a wide range of habitats and climatic areas [29]. Our second aim is to (ii) study the optimal growth conditions of the invasive moss Campylopus introflexus to find out if it can be a threat to native species. This species is considered one of the 100 worst alien species in Europe [30]. Moreover, this moss is native to the southern hemisphere and was introduced to Europe in the 1940s [31], and its spread has been increasing with climate change.

2. Results

Table 1 shows the average of the initial, final, and maximum cover, and the time it took to reach this maximum cover. The variability within all treatment combinations was large (standard deviation up to 29%), even though the initial conditions were the same for all replicates. At 15 °C, the maximum cover was reached towards the end of the experiment (eight weeks) in most cases, while at 20 and 25 °C the maximum cover was usually reached between weeks 4 and 6, decreasing afterwards. It should also be noted that, except for C. introflexus, species reached the maximum cover at 15 °C, decreasing slightly at 20 °C and more at 25 °C.
The adjusted GAM curves (Figure 1) showed a linear growth pattern at 15 °C and parabolic growth patterns at 20 °C and 25 °C, in line with the results of the maximum coverage. The determination coefficients (r2) for all curves were significant (p < 0.05), with the higher values being mostly at 15 °C (e.g., T. nitida with a photoperiod of 12 h, r2 = 0.96), except for H. cupressiforme which is at 20 °C, with a photoperiod of 20/4 h (r2 = 0.45) and with slightly lower adjusting values.
On the other hand, a significant response of moss growth to the studied variables was not always found (see F-value in Figure 1). Thus, while C. introflexus, H. cupressiforme, and T. nitida showed a significant response to temperature and photoperiod, B. argenteum showed it to photoperiod only and T. squarrosa is independent of both.

3. Discussion

3.1. Moss Species Growth

The culture of different moss species in growth chambers was very satisfactory. Growth was observed for all species and all treatments, in some cases covering almost 80% of the culture area. High variability was also found, which could be caused by working with fragments of live mosses as some can grow larger than others. Nevertheless, this variability, which is impossible to predict, would not limit the moss growth technique for use in environmental studies.
According to the literature, the optimum growth for most moss species is between 15 and 25 °C [27]. In general, we observed a lower growth rate at 15 °C with a linear pattern that reached maximum coverage towards the end of the experiment (Table 1 and Figure 1). In contrast, at 20 and 25 °C, we observed that the maximum rate of growth for species is reached towards the middle of the experiment, as if they were reaching their optimal growth and from then they start to die and the cover decreases. Higher temperatures will favour higher photosynthesis and therefore a higher rate of growth [25], but due to some unidentified stress (maybe competition between different moss fragments) the mosses under these conditions start to die midway through the experiment. Regarding photoperiod, it could be expected that more hours of light would favour growth [28] and despite finding significant relations between photoperiod and the rate of growth of B. argenteum, C. introflexus, H. cupressiforme, and T. nitida (see Figure 1), the maximum cover was achieved in any of the three photoperiods without any apparent pattern. In vascular plants, the temperature is one of the key factors determining their metabolism, growth, and distribution, so it could be assumed that temperature is more limiting than photoperiod for moss growth [32].
It would be expected that acrocarpous species, such as B. argenteum, T. nitida, and T. squarrosa, would grow more at higher temperatures and with longer photoperiods. These smaller species with cushion life forms can equilibrate more slowly with the relative humidity of their environment and therefore resist desiccation better [4,33]. However, this was only observed for T. nitida where the growth achieved at 20 °C and with a 20/4 h photoperiod was much higher than for other temperatures. Although these species are resistant to desiccation, with the increase in temperature there may have been a decrease in water availability and therefore a change in growing conditions that has affected them.
In contrast, the only pleurocarpous moss in the study, Hypnum cupressiforme, does not seem to reach the cover levels of the acrocarpous mosses and shows more growth at lower temperatures (15 °C), except at certain times of the 20/4 h photoperiod. H. cuppresiforme is cosmopolitan and its life form is mats, which are more commonly found in humid and shady sites [34]. Therefore, temperatures generally above 20 °C could be limiting their growth, as observed in the pleurocarpous moss Hylocomium splendens whose photosynthetic activities and growth rates decreased in warming winters in subarctic areas [35].
As expected, for most species except T. squarrosa, temperature and photoperiod influenced their growth. In general, to achieve high coverage in a short time, growing the mosses at 20 °C and with a 12/12 h photoperiod will allow to reach high cover in five weeks. If, on the other hand, the objective is to achieve maximum cover but at a slower rate, it is better to grow at 15 °C. Consequently, the next step would be to transplant this cultured moss to degraded ecosystems, arid areas, or urban green spaces in the Mediterranean area to confirm that the moss can grow in these conditions to aid restoration.

3.2. Alien Invasive Species

Campylopus introflexus is an invasive acrocarpic moss from the Southern Hemisphere that is widespread in Europe thanks to its high ecological tolerance [36] and ability to resist in environments with limited water availability [37]. There are no plans to use this exotic species in future restoration projects. However, our results showed that C. introflexus could interfere with the growth of other species when these are transplanted to the field [38]. The results show that it tends to grow more at higher temperatures, e.g., with a 12/12 h photoperiod it grows more at 20 °C and 25 °C than at 15 °C and with a 20/4 h photoperiod it grows more at 25 °C (Figure 1). This means that in a possible future scenario of global change with increasing temperatures and increasing periods of drought, C. introflexus could successfully occupy the habitat of other native moss species, especially in degraded areas where it occurs frequently [28].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Moss Processing and Experimental Design

Moss species were collected from roadsides, full sun-exposed walls in dry sub-humid (Alegrete, Parque Natural de São Mamede; Barreiro, Setúbal, Portugal) to semiarid (Zebreira, Beira Baixa; Estremoz, Alto Alentejo, Portugal), from natural to urban locations (Table 2).
Samples were collected dry and stored in paper bags until use. Once in the laboratory, they were cleaned from plant remains, epiphytes, adhering soil particles, etc. and dried at room temperature (circa 20 °C). Once dried, the moss shoots were cut into smaller pieces with scissors to be used as propagules. The experiment was carried out in growth chambers (Aralab, Portugal). We filled 750 mL capacity plastic containers (length = 13.8 cm, width: 11.8 cm and height: 5.0 cm) with 150 g of the organic soil substrate commonly used for gardening (N: 150 mg/kg; P: 150 mg/kg; K: 205 mg/kg; CaCO3: 6.34 mg/kg; organic matter: 50% ± 10%; pH: 6 ± 1; Auchan) that we irrigated with 200 mL of water until all the substrate was humidified. Subsequently, we weighed different amounts of propagule according to the moss species and spread them by hand in the different containers considering 3 replicates per species and treatment. Once prepared, we maintained them under different controlled conditions of temperature (15, 20 and 25 °C) and photoperiod (12/12 h, 16/8 h, and 20/4 h, day/night). As each species has its optimum temperature and light, we decided to test between the minimum (15 °C and 12 h) and maximum range (25 °C and 20 h) that the literature reports for mosses’ growth, to establish their temperature and light preferences [24]. The humidity remained constant at 50% throughout the experiment and the samples were irrigated each week with 200 mL of tap water. The experiment was intended to last until the mosses attained a 100% cover, but after 8 weeks there was an intense growth of fungi and algae in the samples, so the experiment was terminated. No fertilisers, antifungals, etc. were added during the time of the experiment. Photos of H. cupressiforme at 25 °C were not included in the analysis as we were unable to differentiate the green moss pixels from the green algae that grew on these samples from the beginning of the experiment.

4.2. Moss Growth Measurement

To estimate the growth of the mosses in a non-destructive way, we measured their cover weekly for the eight weeks of the experiment. To do this, we took digital RGB images (Nikon D5100 camera) of each container (1134 images = 4 species ×3 replicates ×3 temperature treatments ×3 light treatments ×9 weeks + H. cupressiforme species ×3 replicates ×2 temperature treatments ×3 light treatments ×9 weeks). All images were taken in a well-lit area close to a window in the laboratory but avoiding direct sunlight, and with the camera set in automatic mode.
The colour differences between the substrate (dark brown/black) and the moss (various shades of green) allowed for the classification of the pixels of the images as substrate or moss, and the calculation of the percentage cover of the moss. To do this, the first step was to isolate the substrate area by colouring the other pixels in red (see Figure 2). We did this manually, using the masking routines in the Gimp Image Editor software (Berkeley, CA, USA). The second step was to classify the pixels. This was done using the functions in the R package pixelclasser [39], which allow the user to define classification rules using a set of test images containing examples of the categories to recognize. The import function of pixelclasser transforms the original RGB values into proportions (the so-called rgb colour space) which eliminates colour differences due to the intensity of illumination and simplifies the analysis of the image into a two-dimensional problem. The pixels are then plotted in the plane defined by two of the r, g, or b variables, and the user can trace one or more straight lines that serve as classifying rules for the pixels. This is a simplified, manual variant of the technique known as support vector machine [40,41]. Figure 2 illustrates the procedure in a series of three images.

4.3. Statistical Analysis

To characterize the growth of the different moss species and their response to temperature and photoperiod, we fitted generalized additive models (GAM) to the percentage cover data for each combination of treatments using the “gam” function of the “mgcv” R package [42] and “ggplot2” package [43] to plot them. The statistical analysis was performed in version R 3.4.3 [44].

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study demonstrate that it is possible to grow moss artificially in plastic containers with organic gardening substrate without fertilisers, achieving an average coverage of the culture area of more than 60% in 5–8 weeks. The growth of all species except T. nitida is linear and sustained at 15 °C. At other temperatures (20 °C and 25 °C), regardless of the photoperiod, growth stops, and the moss dies after some weeks. This would confirm that moss culture in the laboratory could be of great help for further use in environmental projects. Finally, in a future of global change with higher temperatures and more periods of drought, C. introflexus could successfully occupy the niche of other native moss species, especially in degraded areas.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.V., C.B. and R.C.d.C.; methodology, Z.V., R.C.d.C. and T.A.d.P.; software, C.R.; validation, C.B. and T.A.d.P.; formal analysis, Z.V. and C.R.; investigation, Z.V. and R.C.d.C.; resources, C.B., T.A.d.P. and R.C.d.C.; data curation, Z.V., C.R. and R.C.d.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.V. and C.R.; writing—review and editing, all authors.; visualization, Z.V. and C.R.; supervision, C.B.; project administration, R.C.d.C.; funding acquisition, R.C.d.C. and C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the project MedMossRoofs (PTDC/ATPARP/5826/2014) funded by the “Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology”, Portugal.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Z. Varela was supported by a postdoctoral research grant awarded by the Autonomous Government of Galicia (Xunta de Galicia, Spain). The support of the “Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology”, I.P., Portugal, through the grant attributed to the research unit LEAF (UID/AGR/04129/2020) is also acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. DeFalco, L.A.; Detling, J.K.; Tracy, C.R.; Warren, S.D. Physiological variation among native and exotic winter annual plants associated with microbiotic crusts in the Mojave Desert. Plant Soil 2001, 234, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alpert, P.; Oliver, M.J. Drying without dying. In Desiccation and Survival in Plants; Black, M., Pritchard, H.W., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 3–43. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cruz de Carvalho, R.; Catalá, M.; Branquinho, C.; Marques da Silva, J.; Barreno, E. Dehydration rate determines the degree of membrane damage and desiccation tolerance in bryophytes. Physiol. Plant. 2017, 159, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cruz de Carvalho, R.; Maurício, A.; Pereira, M.F.; Marques da Silva, J.; Branquinho, C. All for One: The Role of Colony Morphology in Bryophyte Desiccation Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hilty, J.H.; Eldridge, D.J.; Rosentreter, R.; Wicklow-Howard, M.C.; Pellant, M. Recovery of biological soil crusts following wildfire in Idaho. J. Range Manag. 2004, 57, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Memon, M.K.C.; Lal, M. Problems of development in mosses and moss allies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1981, B47, 115–152. [Google Scholar]
  7. Varela, Z.; Roiloa, S.R.; Fernández, J.A.; Retuerto, R.; Carballeira, A.; Aboal, J.R. Physiological and growth responses of transplants of the moss Pseudoscleropodium purum to atmospheric pollutants. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2013, 224, 1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ares, A.; Varela, Z.; Aboal, J.R.; Carballeira, A.; Fernández, J.A. Active biomonitoring with the moss Pseudoscleropodium purum: Comparison between different types of transplants and bulk deposition. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 120, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bowker, M.A.; Belnap, J. A simple classification of soil types as habitats of biological soil crusts on the Colorado Plateau, USA. J. Veg. Sci. 2008, 19, 831–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cruz de Carvalho, R.; dos Santos, P.; Branquinho, C. Production of moss-dominated biocrusts to enhance the stability and function of the margins of artificial water bodies. Restor. Ecol. 2018, 26, 419–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Garabito, D.; Vallejo, R.; Montero, E.; Garabito, J.; Martínez-Abaigar, J. Green buildings envelopes with bryophytes. A review of the state of the art. Boletín Soc. Española Briología 2017, 48–49. Available online: https://docplayer.es/111392867-Boletin-de-la-sociedad-espanola-de-briologia-2017-contenidos.html (accessed on 29 August 2021).
  12. Tian, G.Q.; Bai, X.L.; Xu, J.; Wang, X.D. Experimental Studies on the Natural Restoration and the Artificial Culture of the Moss Crusts on Fixed Dunes in the Tengger Desert, China. Front. Biol. China 2006, 1, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bai, X.L.; Wang, Y.; Xu, J.; Li, X.R.; Zhang, J.G. Characteristics of reproduction and growth of mosses in the soil crust of fixed dunes in Shapotou area. Chin. J. Desert Res. 2003, 23, 172–176. [Google Scholar]
  14. Xu, S.; Yin, C.; He, M.; Wang, Y. A technology for rapid reconstruction of moss-dominated soil crusts. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2008, 25, 1129–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Y.Q.; Zhao, Y.G.; Ran, M.Y. Experimental research on artificial culture method of moss crust in Hilly Loess Plateau region. Acta Bot. Boreali-Occident. Sin. 2009, 29, 586–592. [Google Scholar]
  16. Xiao, B.; Wang, Q.H.; Zhao, Y.G.; Shao, M.A. Artificial culture of biological soil crusts and its effects on overland flow and infiltration under simulated rainfall. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 48, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xiao, B.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, Q.; Li, C. Development of artificial moss-dominated biological soil crusts and their effects on runoff and soil water content in a semi-arid environment. J. Arid. Environ. 2015, 117, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bu, C.F.; Yang, J.Z.; Zhang, X.C. Cultivation experiment of moss plants from biological soil crusts in Mu Us sandy land. Chin. J. Desert Res. 2011, 31, 937–941. [Google Scholar]
  19. Doherty, K.D.; Antoninka, A.J.; Bowker, M.A.; Ayuso, S.V.; Johnson, N.C. A novel approach to cultivate biocrusts for restoration and experimentation. Ecol. Restor. 2015, 33, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Antoninka, A.; Bowker, M.A.; Reed, S.C.; Doherty, K. Production of greenhouse-grown biocrust mosses and associated cyanobacteria to rehabilitate dryland soil function. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 24, 324–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Zhao, Y.; Bowker, M.A.; Zhang, Y.; Zaady, E. Enhanced recovery of biological soil crusts after disturbance. In Biological Soil Crusts: An Organizing Principle in Drylands; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 499–523. [Google Scholar]
  22. Martin, A. The Magical World of Moss Gardening; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Schenk, G. Moss Gardening: Including Lichens, Liverworts, and Other Miniatures; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  24. Proctor, M.C.F. Physiological ecology. Bryophyt. Biol. 2000, 2, 237–268. [Google Scholar]
  25. Proctor, M.C.F. The physiological basis of bryophyte production. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 1990, 104, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zotz, G.; Rottenberger, S. Seasonal changes in diel CO2 exchange of three Central European moss species: A one-year field study. Plant Biol. 2001, 3, 661–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Furness, S.B.; Grime, J.P. Growth rate and temperature responses in bryophytes: II. A comparative study of species of contrasted ecology. J. Ecol. 1982, 70, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Glime, J.M. Ecophysiology of Development: Protonemata. In Bryophyte Ecology. Physiological Ecology; Michigan Technological University; International Association of Bryologists, 2017; Volume 1, Chapter 5-3; Available online: http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/ (accessed on 16 April 2021).
  29. Ros, R.M.; Mazimpaka, V.; Abou-Salama, U.; Aleffi, M.; Blockeel, T.L.; Brugués, M.; Cros, R.M.; Dia, M.G.; Dirkse, G.M.; Draper, I.; et al. Mosses of the Mediterranean, an Annotated Checklist. Cryptogam. Bryol. 2013, 34, 99–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe. Available online: http://www.europealiens.org/ (accessed on 20 August 2021).
  31. Sérgio, C.; Garcia, C.A.; Stow, S.; Martins, A.; Vieira, C.; Hespanhol, H.; Sim-Sim, M. How are anthropogenic pressures facilitating the invasion of Campylopus introflexus (dicranaceae, Bryopsida) in mainland Portugal? Cryptogam. Bryol. 2018, 39, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. He, X.; He, K.S.; Hyvönen, J. Will bryophytes survive in a warming world? Perspect. Plant. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2016, 19, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Proctor, M.C.F.; Oliver, M.J.; Wood, A.J.; Alpert, P.; Stark, L.R.; Cleavitt, N.L.; Mishler, B.D. Desiccation tolerance in bryophytes: A review. Bryologist 2007, 110, 595–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Frahm, J.P. A Preliminary Study of The Infraspecific Taxa of Hypnum Cupressiforme in Europe; Univ.-Bibliothek, 2009; ISSN 0945-3466. Available online: http://www.frahmia.de/downloads/archive_of_bryology/Archive%2040.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  35. Bjerke, J.W.; Bokhorst, S.; Zielke, M.; Callaghan, T.V.; Bowles, F.W.; Phoenix, G.K. Contrasting sensitivity to extreme winter warming events of dominant sub-Arctic heathland bryophyte and lichen species. J. Ecol. 2011, 99, 1481–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hugonnot, V. Comparative investigations of niche, growth rates and reproduction between the native moss Campylopus pilifer and the invasive C. introflexus. J. Bryol. 2017, 39, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Munzi, S.; Varela, Z.; Paoli, L. Is the length of the drying period critical for photosynthesis reactivation in lichen and moss components of biological soil crusts? J. Arid Environ. 2019, 166, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Essl, F.; Steinbauer, K.; Dullinger, S.; Mang, T.; Moser, D. Little, but increasing evidence of impacts by alien bryophytes. Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 1175–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Real, C. The Pixelclasser Package. R Package Version 1.0. 2020. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pixelclasser/index.html (accessed on 22 October 2021).
  40. Bennet, K.P.; Campbell, C. Support vector machines: Hype or Hallelujah. ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 2000, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cortes, C.; Vapnik, V. Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 1995, 20, 273–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Available online: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org (accessed on 20 July 2021).
  43. Wood, S.N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall/CRC: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Plants 10 02523 g001 550
Figure 1. Tendency of a generalized additive model (GAM) for the coverage of the different moss species and the photoperiods and the different temperatures (Solid lines: blue = 15 °C, green = 20 °C and red = 25 °C), adjusted r2, F-value (F) for both variables and p-value (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Tendency of a generalized additive model (GAM) for the coverage of the different moss species and the photoperiods and the different temperatures (Solid lines: blue = 15 °C, green = 20 °C and red = 25 °C), adjusted r2, F-value (F) for both variables and p-value (*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05).
Plants 10 02523 g001
Plants 10 02523 g002 550
Figure 2. Images of Tortella nitida at time 0 (T0), 5 (T5) and 8 (T8) weeks and their corresponding pixel coverage analysis.
Figure 2. Images of Tortella nitida at time 0 (T0), 5 (T5) and 8 (T8) weeks and their corresponding pixel coverage analysis.
Plants 10 02523 g002
Table
Table 1. Mean of the initial, final, and maximum coverage (%) and the standard deviation of the different moss species for the different variables and time (weeks) to cover it.
Table 1. Mean of the initial, final, and maximum coverage (%) and the standard deviation of the different moss species for the different variables and time (weeks) to cover it.
SpeciesT (°C)Photoperiod
(Hours)		Initial Cover
(%)		Final Cover
(%)		Max. Cover (%)Time to Max. Cover
(Weeks)
Bryum
argenteum		1512 h8.63 ± 2.1558.10 ± 10.9558.10 ± 10.958
16 h23.60 ± 7.81 69.01 ± 11.40 69.01 ± 11.408
20 h25.77 ± 5.8964.54 ± 13.3164.54 ± 13.318
2012 h21.87 ± 6.7322.78 ± 6.03 54.82 ± 12.735
16 h16.53 ± 9.05 35.43 ± 3.8150.26 ± 18.745
20 h10.37 ± 4.6746.38 ± 9.86 60.87 ± 21.076
2512 h22.27± 8.4539.13 ± 10.8855.96 ± 12.696
16 h31.63 ± 4.3339.95 ± 6.8849.93 ± 7.134
20 h26.93 ± 0.4440.92 ± 4.2446.17 ± 10.874
Campylopus
introflexus		1512 h17.09 ± 2.4956.43 ± 31.6256.43 ± 31.628
16 h21.24 ± 2.9973.98 ± 3.3273.98 ± 3.328
20 h27.56 ± 2.2662.23 ±13.9062.23 ±13.908
2012 h22.04 ± 5.4541.89 ± 24.6574.12 ± 8.476
16 h19.68 ± 4.1844.15 ± 35.2169.33 ± 7.626
20 h22.40 ± 8.7041.40 ± 12.5652.28 ± 2.287
2512 h18.61 ± 7.5349.81 ± 11.6855.47 ± 19.455
16 h24.24 ± 5.9056.80 ± 18.4664.48 ± 17.687
20 h21.16 ± 1.0872.00 ± 3.2072.47 ± 0.447
Hypnum cupressiforme1512 h11.35 ± 2.1249.24 ± 11.8749.24 ± 11.878
16 h24.53 ± 8.1160.46 ± 8.79 60.46 ± 8.798
20 h23.71 ± 7.3352.40 ± 33.1053.33 ± 9.224
2012 h12.03 ± 4.4522.44 ± 5.7941.5 ±23.665
16 h6.86 ± 1.2347.92 ± 12.2732.93 ± 17.735
20 h4.49 ± 2.0634.51 ± 20.3464.08 ± 25.554
Tortella nitida1512 h4.88 ± 0.7577.89 ± 5.6177.89 ± 5.618
16 h5.32 ± 1.9974.30 ± 11.6770.87 ± 17.746
20 h3.92 ± 0.3561.46 ± 24.9968.53 ± 13.235
2012 h2.71 ± 0.6546.38 ± 20.8354.85 ± 6.266
16 h2.69 ± 2.1418.05 ± 8.5861.40 ± 12.935
20 h2.56 ± 0.8550.78 ± 12.5473.26 ± 2.655
2512 h3.10 ± 1.9047.40 ± 18.0656.54 ± 7.575
16 h2.00 ± 0.7132.10 ± 19.3133.36 ± 16.235
20 h3.16 ± 0.4743.02 ± 29.5643.02 ± 29.568
Tortella squarrosa1512 h15.68 ± 3.4340.30 ± 27.2443.52 ± 18.146
16 h15.88 ± 2.36 67.09 ± 16.2767.09 ± 16.278
20 h14.99 ± 4.9069.15 ± 5.0669.15 ± 5.068
2012 h17.21 ± 6.1934.65 ± 20.5964.21 ± 25.265
16 h18.03 ± 10.4635.67 ± 17.8349. 63 ± 26.865
20 h19.29 ± 5.1336.49 ±10.8647.48 ± 28.055
2512 h20.87 ± 2.5343.20 ± 2.8243.20 ± 2.828
16 h15.54 ± 3.6552.76 ± 3.0052.76 ± 3.008
20 h20.14 ± 6.3044.64 ± 6.6648.15 ± 3.565
Table
Table 2. Bryophyte species collected in the present study (clade, growth form, location, aridity index (1980–2010) (A.I.), natural (N), or urban (U) site, coordinates).
Table 2. Bryophyte species collected in the present study (clade, growth form, location, aridity index (1980–2010) (A.I.), natural (N), or urban (U) site, coordinates).
SpeciesPlant CladeGrowth FormLocationA.I. *N/UCoordinates
Bryum argenteum Hedw.Bryophyta (mosses)AcrocarpousZebreiraSemi-aridU39°51′06.9′′ N 7°04′22.9′′ W
Campylopus introflexus (Hedw.) Brid.Bryophyta (mosses)AcrocarpousBarreiroDry sub-humidN38°36′50.5′′ N 9°02′31.9′′ W
Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw.Bryophyta (mosses)PleurocarpousAlegrete (Parque Natural de São Mamede)Dry sub-humidN39°15′14.6′′ N 7°18′05.0′′ W
Tortella nitida (Lindb.) Broth.Bryophyta (mosses)AcrocarpousEstremozSemi-aridU38°48′01.8′′ N 7°39′41.9′′ W
Tortella squarrosa (Brid.) Lindb.Bryophyta (mosses)AcrocarpousZebreiraSemi-aridU39°51′06.9′′ N 7°04′22.9′′ W
* Aridity Index (1980–2010) according to Kurz-Besson et al. (2016).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Varela, Z.; Real, C.; Branquinho, C.; do Paço, T.A.; Cruz de Carvalho, R. Optimising Artificial Moss Growth for Environmental Studies in the Mediterranean Area. Plants 2021, 10, 2523. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112523

AMA Style

Varela Z, Real C, Branquinho C, do Paço TA, Cruz de Carvalho R. Optimising Artificial Moss Growth for Environmental Studies in the Mediterranean Area. Plants. 2021; 10(11):2523. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112523

Chicago/Turabian Style

Varela, Zulema, Carlos Real, Cristina Branquinho, Teresa Afonso do Paço, and Ricardo Cruz de Carvalho. 2021. "Optimising Artificial Moss Growth for Environmental Studies in the Mediterranean Area" Plants 10, no. 11: 2523. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112523

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop