Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 30;18(6):e0286722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286722

Diversity of lithophytic moss species in karst regions in response to elevation gradients

Yalin Jin 1, Xiurong Wang 1,*
Editor: Ying Ma2
PMCID: PMC10313082  PMID: 37390100

Abstract

The distribution pattern of species diversity along various elevation gradients reflects the biological and ecological characteristics of species, distribution status and adaptability to the environment. Altitude, a comprehensive ecological factor, affects the spatial distribution of species diversity in plant communities by causing integrated changes in light, temperature, water and soil factors. In Guiyang City, we studied the species diversity of lithophytic mosses and the relationships between species and environmental factors. The results showed that: (1) There were 52 species of bryophytes in 26 genera and 13 families within the study area. The dominant families were Brachytheciaceae, Hypnaceae and Thuidiaceae. The dominant genera were Brachythecium, Hypnum, Eurhynchium, Thuidium, Anomodon and Plagiomnium; The dominant species were Eurohypnum leptothallum, Brachythecium salebrosum, Brachythecium pendulum etc. The number of family species and dominant family genera increased first and then decreased with the increase of altitude, and their distribution in elevation gradient III (1334-1515m) was the largest, with 8 families, 13 genera and 21 species. The elevation gradient I (970-1151m) was the least species distributed, with 5 families, 10 genera and 14 species. The dominant species with the largest number in each elevational gradient were Eurohypnum leptothallum, Brachythecium pendulum, Brachythecium salebrosum and Entodon prorepens; (2) There were five kinds of life forms in different elevation gradients, including Wefts, Turfs, Mat, Pendants and Tail. Among them, wefts and turfs appeared in all elevations, while a small amount of Pendants appeared in the area of elevational gradient I (970-1151m), and the most abundant life form was found in the range of elevational gradient III (1334-1515m); (3) Patrick richness index and Shannon-Wiener diversity index were highly significantly (p<0.01) positively correlated, both of which increased and then decreased with elevation, reaching a maximum at elevation gradient III (1334-1515m); The Simpson dominance index had a highly significant (p<0.01) negative correlation with the Patrick richness index and the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, which showed a decreasing and then increasing trend with increasing altitude; Pielou evenness index showed no discernible trend; (4) β diversity study revealed that while the similarity coefficient tended to decrease with increasing altitude, the species composition of bryophytes increased. The elevation gradient II (1151-1332m) and elevation gradient I (970-1151m) shared the most similarities, whereas elevation gradient III (1515-1694m) and elevation gradient I shared the least similarities (970-1151m). The findings can enrich the theory of the distribution pattern of lithophytic moss species diversity at distinct elevation gradients in karst regions, and serve a scientific and reasonable reference for restoring rocky desertification and protecting biodiversity there.

1. Introduction

Research on biodiversity is crucial for the preservation of species [1]. Plant diversity research plays an important role in stabilizing natural ecosystems [2]. Low plant diversity can make vegetation system vulnerable to damage and affect the stability of ecosystem [3]. The higher the plant diversity, the higher the ecosystem stability [4]. Mosses are rich in species and second only to angiosperms among higher plants [5]. They are exceptionally drought-resistant and contribute significantly to the maintenance of biodiversity, water balance, allelopathic chemicals, soil and water conservation, ecological restoration and headwater conservation [611]. Lithophytic mosses, which swiftly absorb water and store a lot of it, are one of them. They formulate a biological microenvironment by releasing organic acids and other components that speed up the breakdown of the rock surface. This promotes the succession of vegetation, reduces the exposed area of the rock and improves the species diversity of lithophyte growing environment [1217]. Therefore, understanding the distribution and status of lithophytic moss plants is important for the conservation of lithophyte species diversity and sustainable improvement of ecological context.

Altitude affects the spatial distribution of species diversity in plant communities as a whole by causing integrated changes in light, temperature, water and soil factors [1820]. The relationship between plant species richness and altitude gradient is often hump-shaped, and the peak of plant diversity appears at the medium altitude, where the temperature and rainfall conditions are the best [21, 22]. Another common phenomenon is that species richness shows a monotonously decreasing trend with the increase of altitude, while there are few studies on species richness increasing monotonously with the increase of altitude or no obvious trend [23]. The pattern of species diversity distribution along various elevations reflects the biological and ecological traits of species, their distribution status and environmental suitability [2426]. Elevation has a substantial impact on changes in moss species diversity, biomass, and water-holding capacity [2729], The diversity of moss species increased significantly with altitude, especially at high altitudes [30]. The species diversity of lithophytic mosses in nature reserves, islands, lava flow, parks and steep mountains with wide variations in elevation gradients has received the majority of attention in previous research [3138], but urban areas received less attention.

Guiyang is a typical karst city in the world’s largest continuous karst belt with a potential rocky desertification and rocky desertification area that makes up 50.65% of the city’s total land area [39]. The dominant families of moss plants in karst rocky desertification area are Bryaceae, Pottiaceae, Brachytheciaceae, Hypnaceae, Thuidiaceae and Entodontaceae, and the dominant species are Bryum caespiticium, Eurohypnum leptothallum and Thuidium tamariscinum etc [35, 36, 40, 41]. Current study on moss species diversity in karst areas focuses on the quantity and distribution of moss plant species in urban areas, urban walls and roadside slopes [4244]. Huaxi district is where Guiyang city’s highest and lowest elevation is found (970m-1697m above sea level). There are many mosses in this district, such as common ones as the Eurhynchium and Pottia [45], etc. Strengthening the study of lithophytic mosses in Guiyang City can provide scientific support for the management of rocky desertification. Little research has been reported on the relationship between species diversity of lithophytic mosses and elevation in karst areas, therefore, this paper selects the Huaxi district as the study area, and studies the lithophytic moss communities at different elevation gradients in the region in order to explore the following questions:(1) Species composition, dominant family species and life type of bryophyte communities on distinct elevation gradients; (2) What is the pattern of moss species diversity distribution over the gradient of elevation? (3) What are the key factors affecting these distributions?

2. Study area and methods

2.1 Overview of the study area

Guiyang is situated in the midst of the mountain plain and hills, and is an important central city in southwest China, a typical karst area. Huaxi District of Guiyang City(26°11’~26°34’N, 106°27’~106°52’E) was chosen for this study, which has high topography in the southwest and low in the northeast, as well as a wide range of altitudes (970-1697m). It is a subtropical humid climate with an annual average temperature of 15.7°C, annual precipitation of 1215.7mm, annual sunshine hours of 1162.6h and frost-free period of 339d. The main forest vegetation types include moist evergreen oak forests, mixed evergreen–deciduous forests and masson pine forests, etc [46].

2.2 Data sources and processing

The geographic elevation data (DEM) of the research region was obtained from Geospatial Data Cloud (http://www.gscloud.cn/), and using ArcGIS 10.7 independently to extract the study area’s elevation. It could be seen that the Huaxi area’s elevation was between 970 and 1697 meters, and was divided it into four gradients based on equal elevation intervals: I (970–1151 meters), II (1152–1333 meters), III (1334–1515 meters), and IIII (1516–1697 meters). Three representative community areas were selected in each elevation gradient to set up sample plots, 12 sample plots in total, which were numbered according to the elevation gradient (Fig 1 and Table 1). Two 10m×10m sample squares were selected for investigation in each sample plot, with a total of 24 sample squares, each of which was again divided into three middle sample squares (2m×2m) to collect lithophytic mosses. According to the community minimum area method, within each medium sample square, five small sample squares (10cm×10cm) were identified using metal frames according to the 5-point sampling method in order to sample and record their cover, habitat, life type, collection number and collection time, and a total of 360 samples were collected. The 360 samples were morphologically observed and identified. The methods were as follows: The morphology of the specimens was observed by the classical morphological method with the help of HWG-1 dissecting microscope and XSZ-107TS optical microscope, and the morphological observation and identification of the specimens were carried out with reference to “the Species Catalogue of China”, “Volume 1 Plants”, “Volumes 1–8 of Flora Bryophytorum Sinicorum” and “Volumes 1–3 of Bryophyte Flora of Guizhou China”, etc. The specimens were stored in the bryophyte herbarium of the College of Forestry, Guizhou University. Statistics on the life types of bryophytes in different altitudinal gradients according to Magdefra’s concept and distinction system [47].

Fig 1. Schematic diagram and plot layout of Huaxi district.

Fig 1

Table 1. Basic information of the sample site.

P-N E S-S H A C-D (%) V-C (%) C-C(%) S-C(%) H-C(%)
I-1 1049.3 Qingyan Ancient Town Covered only with moss Semi-sunny slope 0.05 20 10 5 30
I-2 1103.2 Huaxi Park Moss covered with herbs, shrubs and trees Shady slope 0.85 95 95 20 30
I-3 1151.4 Xishan Yujing Community Moss covered with herbs, shrubs and trees Semi-shady slope 0.85 80 70 50 90
II-1 1201.2 Guizhou Normal University Moss covered with herbs, shrubs and trees Semi-sunny slope 0.65 70 60 80 40
II-2 1250.9 Guizhou University of Finance and Economics Moss covered with herbs, shrubs and trees Semi-sunny slope 0.5 60 40 30 80
II-3 1302.4 Tianhe Lake Moss covered with herbs, shrubs and trees Sunny slope 0.9 90 85 20 90
III-1 1351.3 Qiantao Canyon Moss covered with herbs, shrubs and trees Sunny slope 0.98 95 90 30 90
III-2 1401.5 Gusa Mountain Park Covered only with moss Semi-shady slope 0.02 60 0 0 20
III-3 1451.6 Gao Po Ethnic Middle School Mosses and shrubs and herbs Shady slope 0.66 95 45 70 80
IIII-1 1516.6 Yunding Skiing Grassland Mosses and shrubs and herbs Sunny slope 0.2 20 0 0 60
IIII-2 1551.8 Pingzhai Village Mosses and shrubs and herbs Shady slope 0.7 10 0 0 70
IIII-3 1602.4 Yunding Grassland Mosses and shrubs and herbs Semi-sunny slope 0.05 70 0 0 80

Note: P-N. Plot number; E. Elevation; S-S. sample site; H. Habitat; A. Aspect; C-D. Canopy density; V-C. Vegetation coverage; C-C. Canopy coverage; S-C. Shrub coverage; H-C. Herb coverage

2.3 Research methods

2.3.1 α diversity index

  1. Patrick richness index indicates the richness of the plant community [48] and is calculated as follows:
    D=S (1)
    where D is the diversity index, bryophyte species richness (S) = the number of species of lithophytic moss in different survey sample sites.
  2. Shannon-Wiener diversity index is a measure of the community diversity and extent of heterogeneity at the species level, which integrates the sum of community species richness and evenness [49], and is calculated as follows:

    H=i=1sPilnPi (2)
    Pi=Ni/N (3)
    Where N is replaced by the total cover of mosses, ni is replaced by the cover of the ith species, H is the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, Pi is the proportion of the ith species to the total.
  3. Pielou evenness index reflects the relative density of individual species in the community [50] and is calculated as follows:
    J=H/lnS (4)
    where H is the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, S is the number of species in the sample plot.
  4. Simpson dominance index reflects the concentration of species distribution [51] and is calculated as follows:
    λ=Σpi2 (5)
    where λ is the Simpson dominance index, Pi is the proportion of the ith species in the total.

2.3.2 β diversity index

β diversity index refers to the variability of species composition between different habitat communities along an environmental gradient or the turnover rate of species along an environmental gradient. The lower the number of common species among different communities or different points on an altitude gradient, the greater the β diversity [52]. The formula was calculated as follows:

βw=sma1 (6)

Where βw is β diversity index, S is the total number of species in the studied system, ma is the average number of species in each recipe or sample.

2.3.3 Bryophyte importance value

Importance value can indicate the roles and functions played by the species in the community, and the high importance value indicates the dominance of the species [53]. The formula is calculated as follows:

V=(C+F)/2 (7)

where V is the importance value, relative cover C = (the cover of a bryophyte within sample site or sum of cover of all bryophytes in the sample site) × 100%, relative frequency F = (frequency within a bryophyte sample site or sum of frequency of all bryophytes in the sample site) × 100%.

3. Results and analysis

3.1 Distribution and diversity characteristics of moss family species at different altitudes

There are 52 species of bryophytes in 26 genera and 13 families in the study area (Table 2). The number of family, genus and species gradually increased and then decreased as the altitude rose (Fig 2), and reached the maximum in elevation gradient III (1334-1515m), with 21 species in 8 families and 13 genera. The bryophyte families, genera and species below the altitude of 1152m were the least, with five families, ten genera, and fourteen species of moss.

Table 2. Species and genus proportion of bryophytes in Huaxi area.

Family name Genus name Species name Genus (Percentage of total genus /%) Species (percentage of total species /%)
Hypnaceae Eurohypnum, Homomalliu, Taxiphyllum, Pseudotaxiphyllum, Hypnum E.leptothallum, H.yunnanense, H.plagiongium, T.cuspidifolium, P.densum, P.pohliaecarpum, H.calcicolum, H.hamulosum, H.cupressiforme 5(19.23) 1(1.92), 2(3.85), 1(1.92), 2(3.85), 3(5.77)
Pottiaceae Hyophila, Didymodon, Tortella, Weissia H.involuta, D.ditrichoides, T.tortuosa, W.exserta 4(15.38) 1(1.92), 1(1.92), 1(1.92), 1(1.92)
Leucodontaceae Pterogoniadelphus P.esquirolii 1(3.85) 1(1.92)
Brachytheciaceae Brachythecium, Eurhynchium, Homalothecium, Rhynchostegium B.amnicolum, B.pendulum, B.garovaglioides, B.albicans, B.salebrosum, B.oedipodium, B.coreanum, B.populeum, B.helminthocladum, B.plumosum, B.kuroishicum, E.longirameum, E.angustirete, E. laxirete, H.leucodonticaule, R.ovalifolium 4(15.38) 11(21.15), 3(5.77), 1(1.92), 1(1.92)
Thuidiaceae Claopodium, Haplocladium, Thuidium C.aciculums, H.angustifolium, H.microphyllum, T.kanedae, T.delicatulum, T.minutulum 3(11.54) 1(1.92), 2(3.85), 3(5.77)
Anomodontaceae Anomodon, Herpetineuron A.perlingulatus, A.viticulosus, A.rugelii, H.toccoae 2(7.69) 3(5.77), 1(1.92)
Racopilaceae Racopilum R.cuspidigerum 1(3.85) 1(1.92)
Mniaceae Plagiomnium P.acutum, P.succulentum, P.maximoviczii 1(3.85) 3(5.77)
Meteoriaceae Meteorium M.subpolytrichum 1(3.85) 1(1.92)
Bryaceae Bryum B.dichotomum, B.calophyllum, B.pseudotriquetrum 1(3.85) 3(5.77)
Trachypodaceae Trachypus T.bicolor 1(3.85) 1(1.92)
Dicranaceae Campylopus C.gracilis, C.atrovirens 1(3.85) 2(3.85)
Entodontaceae Entodon E.prorepens 1(3.85) 1(1.92)

Fig 2. Distribution of species and dominant families at different elevation gradients.

Fig 2

The dominant families (Number of species contained ≥6 species) were Brachytheciaceae (4 genera and 17 species), Hypnaceae (5 genera and 9 species), and Thuidiaceae (3 genera and 6 species), with a total of 12 genera and 32 species in the three families, accounting for 61.54% of the total. Three families were distributed throughout the altitude study area (Fig 2), and the number of Brachytheciaceae and Hypnaceae increased and then decreased with increasing altitude, with the largest number of species distributed in elevation gradient III (1334-1515m), with 9 and 5 species, respectively. The distribution of Thuidiaceae was relatively uniform at all altitudes, and there were 2 species.

Six dominant genera (Number of species contained ≥3 species) were Brachythecium, Hypnum, Eurhynchium, Thuidium, Anomodon, and Plagiomnium, accounted for 51.93% of the total. The genus mainly distributed in elevation gradient III (1334-1515m) (Fig 3), and the distribution was the same as that of the dominant families. The number of species in the Brachythecium, Eurhynchium, Thuidium and Plagiomnium increased and then decreased with the increase of altitude, except for the Anomodon.

Fig 3. Vertical distribution of dominant bryophyte genera.

Fig 3

3.2 Important value of bryophyte communities at different altitudes

Among the 52 bryophytes, the top ten ranked by importance value were shown in Table 3. the largest importance value of 0.1906 (p<0.01) was found for Eurohypnum leptothallum, which was highly significant different from that of other bryophytes, and its frequency (18.33%) and cover (19.79%) were also the largest. The distribution of dominant species at different altitudes was shown in Fig 4. It could be seen that the Eurohypnum leptothallum was the main dominant species, reaching its highest and second highest peaks at elevation gradient I (970-1151m) and elevation gradient III (1334-1515m), respectively. The dominant species with the highest frequency in each elevation gradient were Eurohypnum leptothallum, Brachythecium pendulum, Brachythecium salebrosum and Entodon prorepens. Among them, the number of Entodon prorepens gradually increased with the elevation, while the frequency of other bryophytes was less distributed in the elevation IIII section.

Table 3. Ranking of important values of bryophytes.

serial number Genus name relative frequency relative coverage importance value
1 Eurohypnum leptothallum 18.33% 19.79% 0.1906
2 Brachythecium salebrosum 6.67% 7.61% 0.0714
3 Brachythecium pendulum 5.83% 5.26% 0.0555
4 Brachythecium amnicolum 5.00% 5.59% 0.0530
5 Hyophila involuta 5.56% 4.98% 0.0527
6 Entodon prorepens 5.56% 4.69% 0.0512
7 Brachythecium garovaglioides 3.61% 4.35% 0.0398
8 Thuidium delicatulum 3.33% 3.65% 0.0349
9 Brachythecium albicans 3.06% 2.67% 0.0286
10 Eurhynchium longirameum 3.06% 2.61% 0.0283

Fig 4. Vertical distribution of dominant bryophyte species.

Fig 4

3.3 Life form composition of moss plants at different altitudes

There were five life forms at different elevation gradients, such as wefts, turfs, mat, pendants and tail, among which the average percentage of Wefts were 73%, for example, Eurohypnum leptothallum, Brachythecium amnicolum, etc, followed by turfs, the average percentage were 15%, for example, Hyophila involuta, Didymodon ditrichoides, etc. Mat, Pendants and Tail were the least, with an average of 6%, 4% and 2%, respectively, such as Plagiomnium succulentum, Pterogoniadelphus esquirolii and Herpetineuron toccoae. The life forms of different elevation gradients also differed (Fig 5), with wefts and turfs occurred in all elevation gradients, but pendants occurred only in small amounts in the range of elevation gradient I (970-1151m), while at elevation gradient III (1334-1515m), the life types were the most abundant, including wefts, turfs, mat, pendants, and tail.

Fig 5. Life types of species at different altitudes.

Fig 5

3.4 Characteristics of bryophyte diversity at different elevation gradients

3.4.1 α diversity and its differences across elevation gradients

The α diversity index of bryophytes at various elevation gradients were shown in Fig 6. The trends of Patrick richness index and Shannon-Wiener diversity index were consistent, showing an increasing and then decreasing trend with elevation, as follows: elevation gradient III (33 species, 2.53) > elevation gradient IIII (29 species, 2.52) > elevation gradient II (25 species, 2.4) > elevation gradient I (22 species, 2.13). The trend of Simpson dominance index was opposite to the above two, that was, it first decreased and then increased with the elevation, specifically as follows: Elevation gradient I (0.18) > Elevation gradient II (0.13) > Elevation gradient IIIII (0.11) > Elevation gradient III (0.09). The variation pattern of Pielou evenness index was: elevation gradient II (0.87) > elevation gradient III (0.81) > elevation gradient III and elevation gradient I (0.75). There were significant differences (p<0.05) between the richness, diversity and dominance indices of elevation gradient III (1334-1515m) and the other three gradients.

Fig 6. Effects of altitude α diversity index.

Fig 6

In summary, Patrick richness index was lowest at elevation gradient I (970-1151m) and increased with the elevation. The reason might be that at elevation gradient I (970–1151 m), the habitat of bryophytes had low canopy density because there were no mixed tree forests, low shrubs, or herbaceous plants. However, as elevation increased, the air humidity and canopy density increased significantly, Patrick richness index also increased. The differences of Pielou evenness index were not significant, indicating that different elevation gradient had little effect on the individual evenness of the species.

The correlation between α diversity index and environmental factors showed (Fig 7) that both Patrick richness index and Shannon-Wiener diversity index had highly significant (p<0.01) positive correlations with altitude and air humidity, and highly significant (p<0.01) negative correlations with air temperature. There was a highly significant (p<0.01) positive correlation between Simpson dominance index and air temperature with a correlation coefficient of 0.898, and a highly significant (p<0.01) negative correlation with altitude and air humidity with correlation coefficients of -0.799 and -0.792, respectively. Correlations between environmental factors of different elevation gradients showed a highly significant (p<0.01) positive correlation between altitude and air humidity and a highly significant (p<0.01) negative correlation with air temperature. There was a highly significant (p<0.01) positive correlation between slope orientation and light intensity, and a highly significant (p<0.01) negative correlation between canopy density and tree cover. It could be seen that the environmental factors affecting species diversity were mainly elevation, air humidity, air temperature, and slope direction affected the intensity of light, which led to the difference of air humidity and temperature.

Fig 7. Pearson correlation analysis of α diversity index and environmental factors.

Fig 7

Note;* p < 0.05**;P <0.01;E.Elevation;A.Aspect;V-C.Vegetation coverage; C-C. Canopy coverage; S-C. Shrub coverage; H-C. Herb coverage; L-I. Light intensity; A-H. Air humidity; A-T. Air temperature; C-D. Canopy density; R-E. Rock exposure; P. Patrick richness index; S-W. Shannon-Wiener diversity index; P’. Pielou evenness index; S. Simpson dominance index.

3.4.2 Trends in β diversity index at different elevation gradients

The similarity of species composition of moss communities across the elevation gradient was showed in Table 4. With the altitude increased, the similarity coefficient decreased and the difference of bryophyte species composition increased (11.76%-40%). Elevation gradients II (1152–1333 m) and I (970–1151 m) shared the highest similarity of 40%, indicating that they shared a large number of the same moss species. Elevation gradient IIII (1516-1697m) and elevation gradient I (970-1151m) had the lowest similarity coefficient of 11.76%. The reason might be that the air humidity increased as the altitude rose, and the air temperature and the temperature of moss-covered rocks decreased, which was conducive to the growth and variety of moss. However, above elevation gradient III (1334-1515m), the differences of moss species began to increase. The possible reason was that the sample land on gradient IIII(1516–1697) were located in artificial scenic areas, such as Genting Grassland, which had low canopy coverage, almost no tree and only a few shrubs. As a result, the moss plants lacked nutrient elements and favorable environmental conditions for growth, so the species decreased and the similarity coefficient reached the lowest.

Table 4. Differences of β diversity index at different elevation gradients (%).
Elevational gradient (m) I II III IIII
I 100 40.00 17.14 11.76
II 100 21.62 22.22
III 100 19.51
IIII 100

4. Discussion

4.1 Effects of different elevation gradients on the diversity of moss species

As an important component of biodiversity, species diversity primarily reflected the abundance of biological resources, and an increase in species diversity would enhance the stability and productivity of a community or ecosystem [54]. Previous research had demonstrated that the effects of elevation gradient on variables like temperature, light, soil, and moisture had a significant impact on the composition of species diversity [55, 56].

Firstly, elevation gradient significantly affected the composition and quantity of family and genus [57]. In the elevation gradient of 1400-2200m in the Jiufeng Mountain Nature Reserve, the percentage of bryophyte species increased with the elevation [58]. The number of bryophyte genera and species in Pingding Mountain, the main peak of the Lesser Khingan Mountains, showed two peaks within the elevation gradient 304-1429m [59]. The bryophyte species in the Daba Mountain National Nature Reserve showed a single peak value with the increase of altitude [60].By studying the distribution of lithophytic moss and the influence of environmental factors on it at different altitude gradients, we found that the number of species, genera and family increased first and then decreased with elevation, which were in line with those of earlier studies [32]. Most habitats in elevation gradient III (1334-1515m) were forest stony habitats with large canopy coverage and low human disturbance, and there were very abundant moss plant species. In contrast, in elevation gradient IIII (1516-1697m), the increase in light and radiation were not favorable for the growth of moss plants [61], so the number of family, genera and species was low. The innovation of this study was that we selected karst urban areas, where the habitat conditions changed greatly, with typical karst mountain features. However, the previous study objects were mostly bryophytes distributed in the outskirts of the mountain, belonging to the subalpine cold and temperate forests with rich environmental vegetation and large canopy [32]. Our results compensated for the diversity of moss in special habitats and provided a scientific basis for the control of rocky desertification.

Secondly, altitude altered the composition of life form in proportion and impacted its pattern of distribution [6264]. The Alpine area had a large altitude gradient, and its bryophyte life forms are related in different altitude gradients, namely plagiotropic, cushion-turf, dendroid and thallose forms [65]. Bryophyte species on different substrates were studied along the altitude gradients in Canary Islands. The results showed that bryophyte life forms were most abundant in the higher altitude gradients [66]. Studies on bryophyte life forms under different altitudinal gradients in the southern Appalachian Mountains showed that altitude had a significant effect on bryophyte life forms. Weft, threadlike, tall turf and short turf life forms were strongly correlated with high altitude sites [67]. This study carried out the effect of elevation gradient on life form. It was discovered that there were five different life forms in the study area, including wefts, turfs, mat, pendants and tail, which were gradually enrich as the elevation increased and most abundant in elevation gradient III (1332-1513m). Bryophytes of different life form could reveal the link between plants and the environment and reflect the vertical structure of the community. Their distribution patterns on the altitude gradient could give data to forecast changes in species diversity under climate change [6870].Wefts and Turfs occurred in all elevation gradients, which might be due to the fact that both of them could grow on the rock surface, which was consistent with the research results of Zeke Li et al. [71].

At last, elevation gradient was an important environmental factor affecting species α diversity and β diversity [72]. The α diversity index reflected the compositional characteristics, abundance and diversity of species within the community [7375]. According to earlier research, the α diversity index of bryophytes showed five trends with increasing elevation, such as increasing and then decreasing(bimodal curve), first decreasing followed by increasing, monotonically increasing, monotonically decreasing, increasing followed by decreasing [58, 59, 7678]. This study found that the Patrick richness and Shannon-Wiener diversity index increased first and then decreased with the increase of altitude. The reason might be that the bryophytes in elevation gradient I (970-1151m) were significantly disturbed by humans, which had an impact on their growth. Additionally, most of the sample sites were exposed habitats that suffered from sunlight exposure, which resulted in fewer bryophytes. With increasing elevation, the habitats of elevation gradient II (1152-1333m) and III (1332-1513m) were covered with a large amount of vegetation, air humidity, canopy coverage and so abundance also showed up as an increase. However, the light intensity at elevation gradient IIII (1516-1697m) increased, which was not conducive to the growth of moss. The β diversity index reflected the response of species composition and diversity among communities to environmental gradients [79]. The current studies on β diversity indices of bryophytes at various altitudinal gradients had mainly explored the altitudinal intervals with the fastest succession rates of bryophytes [80]. There was some uncertainty on the trend of the β diversity index along altitude. In this study, we found that increasing altitude contributed to the decrease of β diversity index of bryophytes and the increase of species composition differences and succession rate. The distribution pattern of moss species diversity along the elevation gradient of Guiyang city was first increasing and then decreasing (single-peaked curve), which was consistent with the results of one of the previous studies. This study intends to further investigate the effect of pollution on mosses distribution in urban areas based on further data collection.

4.2 Limitations and outlook

The study on the diversity of moss species at various elevation gradients in karst areas will clarify the relationship between species diversity and elevation, provide a theoretical source for understanding conditions of species to the altitude and a scientific basis for the conservation and management of rocky desertification, so as to strengthen the conservation of biodiversity in karst areas accordingly. However, this study still had the following limitations. First of all, in this study, portable instruments were used to record environmental factors such as air temperature and air humidity at the sample sites during field research, and only transient data were collected. However, air temperature and humidity are dynamic. Future recording of the dynamic processes of environmental factors will provide a clearer understanding of the factors affecting species diversity at elevation. Secondly, rainfall, solar radiation and canopy action also have a strong influence on abundance [8183], for example, high temperatures at low elevations can be cooled by high rainfall, and high solar radiation at high elevations can be mitigated by canopy. Although there were changes in light caused by solar radiation and depression from the action of the canopy, the influence of precipitation was not taken into account in the study area, and the specific internal factors affecting richness were not examined in greater detail. Future research taking into account rainfall and other factors will provide stronger evidence for changes in species diversity caused by elevation. Of course, bryophyte distribution in urban areas is not only affected by altitude, but also by heavy metal pollution, human disturbance, urban management, etc [84].

5. Conclusion

  1. There were 13 families, 26 genera, and 52 species of lithophytic mosses in different altitude gradients in Guiyang City. The number of family, genera, species and dominant family and genera gradually increased and then decreased with elevation, reached the maximum in gradient III (1334-1515m). The dominant families were Brachytheciaceae, Hypnaceae and Thuidiaceae, and the dominant genera were Brachythecium, Hypnum, Eurhynchium, Thuidium, Anomodon and Plagiomnium.

  2. There were five different life forms: wefts, turfs, mat, pendants and tail. Wefts and Turfs could be found in all gradients of altitude. Life type gradually became more diverse as altitude rises, and they were the most abundant in gradient altitude III (1334-1515m). There were only a small amount of pendants appeared at elevation gradient I(970-1151m).

  3. Both Patrick richness and Shannon-Wiener diversity index showed a trend of increasing and then decreasing with the altitude, reached a maximum at elevation gradient III (1334-1515m) and a minimum at elevation gradient I (1334-1515m). The change of Simpson dominance index was generally opposite to the change of the above two indices, showing a decreasing trend followed by an increasing trend, and the difference of Pielou uniformity index was not significant.

  4. The distribution pattern of moss species diversity along the elevation gradient in Guiyang City was first increasing and then decreasing (single-peaked curve).

Data Availability

All minimal data files are available from the figshare database (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22430557.)

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Tordoni E, Napolitano R, Nimis P, Castello M, Altobelli A, Daniele D, et al. Diversity patterns of alien and native plant species in Trieste port area: exploring the role of urban habitats in biodiversity conservation. Urban Ecosystems. 2017; 20: 1151–1160. doi: 10.1007/s11252-017-0667-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Corlett RT. Plant diversity in a changing world: Status, trends, and conservation needs. Plant Diversity. 2016; 38(1): 10–16. doi: 10.1016/j.pld.2016.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Valentin N, Andrey A, Alexander A, Alexander B. Taxonomic and functional patterns of macrobenthic communities on a high Arctic shelf: A case study from the East Siberian Sea. Journal of Sea Research. 2021; 174: 1385–1101. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2021.102078 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops JM. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature. 2006; 441(7093): 629–632. doi: 10.1038/nature04742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Patiño J, Vanderpoorten A. Bryophyte Biogeography. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2018; 37(2–3): 175–209. doi: 10.1080/07352689.2018.1482444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cong C, Liu T, Zhang X. Influence of Drought Stress and Rehydration on Moisture and Photosynthetic Physiological Changes in Three Epilithic Moss Species in Areas of Karst Rocky Desertification. Journal of Chemistry. 2021;4944012: 12. doi: 10.1155/2021/4944012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zuo S, An H, Wang Z. Survey of moss plants and pollution indication study of Karin-type gold mine in Gaofeng Village, Guizhou Province. Environmental Monitoring in China. 2019; 035(005); 127–134. doi: 10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2019.05.16 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hong L, Wu L, Mu L. Species and systematics of mosses in Mulinzi National Nature Reserve. Plant Science Journal. 2020; 38(1): 68–76. CNKI:SUN:WZXY.0.2020-01-008. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Muamar A, Anggraito Y, Retnoningsih A. The diversity of moss in the Cemoro Kandang hiking trail, Mount Lawu and the Baturraden botanical gardens, Central Java. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021; 1918: 052039. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1918/5/052039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Meng W, Dai Q, Ren Q, Tu N, Leng T. Ecological stoichiometric characteristics of soil-moss C, N, and P in restoration stages of karst rocky desertification. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(6): e0252838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Whitehead J, Wittemann M, Cronberg N. Allelopathy in bryophytes-a review. BioOne. 2018; 41(1): 01097. doi: 10.25227/linbg.01097 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tu N, Yan Y, Dai Q, Ren Q, Meng W, Zhu L, et al. Water-holding role of sphagnum mosses in typical habitats of karstic rock desertification areas. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2021; 41(15): 6203–6214. doi: 10.5846/stxb202006111520 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang X, Liu T., Cong C. Study on soil formation and conservation ecological function of five karst Mosses in Guizhou Province. Carsologica Sinica. 2018; 37(5): 708–713. doi: 10.11932/karst2018y18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhang P, Ding Z, Hou Y, Bai H, Ren X, Zhao P. Taibai rock moss carbon isotopic distribution characteristics and their environmental implications. Arid Zone Research. 2016; 5: 1046–1056. doi: 10.13866/j.azr.2016.05.19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liu T, Cong C, Hu D, Wang S, Zhang X. Carbonic anhydrase activity of six karst lithophytic plants and their soils in Puding, Guizhou Province. Carsologica Sinica. 2017; 36(2): 187–192. CNKI:SUN:ZGYR.0.2017-02-005. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Islam M, Alam J, Fiaz M. Checklist of Lithophytic Mosses of Kaghan Valley, Mansehra-Pakistan. Plant Science Today. 2016; 3(2): 220–225. doi: 10.14719/pst.2016.3.2.213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bojacá G, Azevedo D, Araújo C, Fantecelle L, Silva A. Bryophyte reproduction on ironstone outcrops: Delicate plants in harsh environments. FLORA. 2018; 238: 155–161. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2017.02.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Li M, He Z, Jiang L, Gu X, Jin M, Chen B, et al. Altitudinal patterns and driving factors of species diversity and phylogenetic diversity in Daiyunshan. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2021; 41(3): 1148–1157. doi: 10.5846/stxb201910082091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rahman I, Hart R, Ijaz F, Afzal A, Iqbal Z, Calixto E, et al. Environmental variables drive plant species composition and distribution in the moist temperate forests of Northwestern Himalaya, Pakistan. PLOS ONE. 2022; 17(2): e0260687. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yang Y, Zhang L, Li H, He H, Wei Y, Luo J, et al. Soil physicochemical properties and vegetation structure along an elevation gradient and implications for the response of alpine plant development to climate change on the northern slopes of the Qilian Mountains. Journal of Mountain Science. 2018; 15(5): 1006–1019. doi: 10.1007/s11629-017-4637-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rahbek C. The role of spatial scale and the perception of large-scale species-richness patterns. ECOLOGY LETTERS. 2005; 8(2): 224–239. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00701.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sciandrello S, Minissale P, Galdo G. Vascular plant species diversity of Mt. Etna (Sicily): endemicity, insularity and spatial patterns along the altitudinal gradient of the highest active volcano in Europe. PeerJ. 2020; 8(e9875). doi: 10.7717/peerj.9875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang W, Huang D, Wang R, et al. Altitudinal Patterns of Species Diversity and Phylogenetic Diversity across Temperate Mountain Forests of Northern China. Plos One. 2016; 11(7):e0159995. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhao M, Wang M, Zhao Y, Hu N, Wang G, Jiang M. Variations in microbial carbon metabolic activities in sedge peatlands along an altitudinal gradient in the Changbai Mountain, China. Catena. 2023; 220: 0341–8162. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106722 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Camilo R, Meléndez M, Meléndez N, López D, Ríos M. Tropical tree community composition and diversity variation along a volcanic elevation gradient. Journal of Mountain Science. 2022; 19: 3475–3486. doi: 10.1007/s11629-021-7034-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Haq S, Calixto E, Rashid I, Srivastava G, Khuroo A. Tree diversity, distribution and regeneration in major forest types along an extensive elevational gradient in Indian Himalaya: Implications for sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 2021; 506: 0378–1127. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119968 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Eyvar E, Quiel R, Leiva G, Bader M. Elevational patterns of bryophyte and lichen biomass differ among substrates in the tropical montane forest of Baru Volcano, Panama. Journal of Bryology. 2019; 41(2): 95–106. doi: 10.1080/03736687.2019.1584433 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Oishi Y. Evaluation of the Water-Storage Capacity of Bryophytes along an Altitudinal Gradient from Temperate Forests to the Alpine Zone. Forests. 2018; 9(7): 433. doi: 10.3390/f9070433 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bergamini A, Peintinger M, Schmid B, Urmi E. Effects of management and altitude on bryophyte species diversity and composition in montane calcareous fens. Flora. 2001; 196(3): 180–193. doi: 10.1016/s0367-2530(17)30040-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Araújo F, Costa L, Souza J, Batista W, Silva M. Altitudinal gradient drives regional and local diversity and composition patterns of epiphyllous bryophytes in ecological refuges. Plant Biology. 2021; 24: 292–301. doi: 10.1111/plb.13365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Liu Y, Zheng Y, A, Y. Ecological niches and interspecific associations of dominant species of bryophytes in different growing substrates. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2019; 39(1): 8. doi: 10.5846/stxb201711162042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ma H, Zheng W, Shi Y, Dong Z. A preliminary study on vertical distribution characteristics of bryophytes in Sejila Mountain, southeast Tibet. Journal of Northwest A & F University(Natural Science Edition). 2019; 47(5): 102–109. doi: 10.13207/j.cnki.jnwafu.2019.05.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Coelho M, Gabriel R, Hespanhol H, Borges P, Peng C. Bryophyte Diversity along an Elevational Gradient on Pico Island (Azores, Portugal). Diversity. 2021; 13: 162. doi: 10.3390/d13040162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Grytnes J, Heegaard E, Ihlen P. Species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens along an altitudinal gradient in western Norway. Acta Oecologica. 2006; 29(3): 241–246. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2005.10.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Peng C, Petiot M, Julien B, Bardat J, Stamenoff P, Dominique S. Bryophyte diversity and distribution along an altitudinal gradient on a lava flow in La Réunion. Diversity and Distributions. 2007; 13(5): 654–662. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00393.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Chen Y, Feng J, Niu S, Xu N, Han J, Ye Y, et al. Quantitative classification, ranking and vertical pattern of bryophyte diversity in Xiaoqinling Nature Reserve. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2017; 37(8): 2653–2664. doi: 10.5846/stxb201512242568 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.da Costa D, dos Santos N, de Rezende M, Buck W, Schäfer-Verwimp A. Bryoflora of the Itatiaia National Park along an elevation gradient: diversity and conservation. Biodivers Conserv. 2015; 24: 2199–2212. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0979-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bruun H, Moen J, Virtanen R, Grytnes J, Oksanen L, Angerbjörn A. Effects of altitude and topography on species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens in alpine communities. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2006; 17(1): 37–46. doi: 10.1658/1100-9233(2006)017[0037:eoaato]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jia S, Zhang Z. Moss plant diversity and soil and water conservation in karst urban rocky deserts. Research of Soil and Water Conservation. 2014; 21(2): 100–105. doi: 10.13869/j.cnki.rswc.2014.02.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cong C, Liu T, Kong X, Zhang X. Study on sphagnum moss flora and species diversity of damaged karst ecosystem in Puding, Guizhou. Carsologica Sinica. 2017; 36(2): 179–186. doi: 10.11932/karst20170204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Li J, Jia S, Wang Z, Zhang Z. Diversity and distribution of moss plants and environmental relationships during karst rock desertification. Ecological Science. 2015; 34(1): 68–73. doi: 10.14108/j.cnki.1008-8873.2015.01.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dai L, Yi W, Zan T, Peng, Tang J. Variation of bryophyte species diversity in karst desertification. Subtropical Plant Science. 2021; 50(4): 301–308. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7791.2021.04.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wang W, Wang D, Wang Z, Zhang Z. Species diversity of moss plants in karst city walls of Guiyang. Journal of Tropical and Subtropical Botany. 2018; 26(5): 473–480. doi: 10.11926/jtsb.3890 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jia S, Li J, Wang Z. Ecological functions of mosses on stone desertification slopes of karst mountain roads. Chinese Journal of Ecology. 2014; 33(7): 7. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.20140502.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Li Y, Wang X. Study on the structure of moss plant community and its relationship with environment in Guiyang Mountain Park. Guangdong Landscape Architecture. 2021; 43(5): 91–96. doi: 10.12233/j.gdyl.2021.05.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hu F. Survey of forest germplasm resources in Huaxi District, Guiyang. Guizhou Forestry Science and Technology. 2021; 38(4): 36–39. CNKI:SUN:GZLY.0.2010-04-012. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pang J, Wang Z, Zhang Z. Study on the characteristics and succession patterns of mossy plant communities under different habitat conditions in karst dolomite desertification areas. Ecological Science. 2018; 37(3): 59–66. doi: 10.14108/j.cnki.1008-8873.2018.03.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu S, Zhu L, Jiang W, Qin J, Lee H. Research on the effects of soil Petroleum pollution concentration on the diversity of natural plant communities along the coastline of Jiaozhou Bay. Environmental Research, 2021; 197: 111127. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jawuoro S, Koech O, Karuku G, Mbau J. Plant species composition and diversity depending on piospheres and seasonality in the southern rangelands of Kenya. Ecol Process. 2017; 6: 16. doi: 10.1186/s13717-017-0083-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Peng Y. Comparison of vegetation community characteristics and carbon stocks formed by fallow afforestation and abandoned cultivation and abandoned land. Chinese Academy of Forestry. 2017; CNKI:CDMD:2.1017.270625. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Song L, Li B, Chen X, Kou G. Species diversity of white sheepgrass communities under different site conditions. Journal of Cangzhou Normal University. 2021; 37(1): 97–101. doi: 10.13834/j.cnki.czsfxyxb.2021.01.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Xie D, Huang Q, Yi Q, Zhu Z, Zhou G, Tian L, et al. Changes in plant gradients on the continental beach of Poyang Lake wetlands. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2019; 39(11): 4070–4079. doi: 10.5846/stxb201803060439 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jiang Y, Zhang X, Hu R, Zhao J, Fan M, Shaaban M, et al. Urban Atmospheric Environment Quality Assessment by Naturally Growing Bryophytes in Central China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(12): 4537. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Liu M, Nan X, Zhang G, Li B, Xu L, Mu R, et al. Relationship between species diversity and functional diversity of plant communities on different slope orientations in alpine meadows. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2021; 41(13): 5398–5407. doi: q10.5846/stxb202003250690 [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Qi Q, Yan J, Zhang Q, Jiang W, Zhao J, Xu X. Species diversity of indigo lonicera communities on the northern slopes of Changbai Mountain with elevation gradient. Journal of Northeast Forestry University. 2022; 50(3): 35–41. doi: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2022.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Moreira B, Villa P, Alvez-Valles C, Carvalho F. Species composition and diversity of woody communities along an elevational gradient in tropical Dwarf Cloud Forest. Journal of Mountain Science. 2021; 18: 1489–1503. doi: 10.1007/s11629-020-6055-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Muche M, Molla E, Rewald B, Tsegay B. Diversity and composition of farm plantation tree/shrub species along altitudinal gradients in North-eastern Ethiopia: implication for conservation. Heliyon. 2022; 8(3): e09048. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Yan N, Xu J. Study on the species diversity of moss plants in Jiufeng Mountain, Inner Mongolia. Journal of Green Science and Technology. 2017; (11): 84–86+89. doi: 10.16663/j.cnki.lskj.2017.11.034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wu Z, Xin M, Liu Y, Xu D, Wang C. Study on the diversity and vertical distribution of moss plants in Pingdingshan, the main peak of Xiaoxinganling. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Natural Science). 2020; 35(2): 309–317. doi: 10.12101/j.issn.1004-390X(n).201906020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Yan L, ChunYan P, Shang T. Bryophyte diversity in Daba Mountain National Nature Reserve, Chongqing. Biodiversity Science. 2016; 24(2):4. CNKI:SUN:SWDY.0.2016-02-014. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Raabe S, Müller J, Manthey M, Dürhammer O, Teuber U, Göttlein A, et al. Drivers of bryophyte diversity allow implications for forest management with a focus on climate change. Forest Ecology and Management. 2010; 260(11): 1956–1964. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Yuan C, Chen G, Dai X, Yu D, Long H, Yang B, et al. Community structure and diversity characteristics of Yunjin Rhododendron in Leigongshan Reserve. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences. 2021; 49(11): 125–133. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3601.2021.11.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Luo F, Xin Z, Gao J, Li Y, Dong X, Duan R, et al. Plant life patterns and their altitudinal gradient characteristics in Dunhuang and Mahaishan areas. Scientia Silvae Sinicae. 2022; 58(3): 31–39. doi: 10.11707/j.1001-7488.20220304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Cirimwami L, Doumenge C, Kahindo J, Amani C. Tropical Ecology The effect of elevation on species richness in tropical forests depends on the considered lifeform: results from an East African mountain forest. Tropical Ecology. 2019; 60: 473–484. doi: 10.1007/s42965-019-00050-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Spitale D, Mair P, Nascimbene J. Patterns of bryophyte life-forms are predictable across land cover types. Ecological Indicators. 2020; 109:105799. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105799 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.González-Mancebo JM, Hernández-García CD. Bryophyte life strategies along an altitudinal gradient in El Canal y Los Tiles (La Palma, Canary Islands). Journal of Bryology. 1996; 19(2): 243–255. doi: 10.1179/jbr.1996.19.2.243 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Stehn SE, Webster CR, Glime JM, Jenkins MA. Elevational gradients of bryophyte diversity, life forms, and community assemblage in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2010; 40(11): 2164–2174. doi: 10.1139/X10-156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Pei F, Song L, Liu W, Huang J, Shi X, Yao Y, et al. Variation characteristics of epiphytic moss biomass along latitudinal and altitudinal gradients in Yunnan. Subtropical Plant Science. 2017; 46(1): 30–37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-7791.2017.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Huang X, Yao L, Wang J, Zhu Q, Wu M, Liu Y. Effects of soil nutrients on leaf functional traits of different life types of plants. Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica. 2018; 38(12): 2293–2302. doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-4025.2018.12.2293 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Nie P, Zhang C, Long X, Li Y, Xiao W. Elevational distribution pattern of plant species diversity in Baima Xueshan Nature Reserve. Journal of Sichuan Forestry Science and Technology. 2022; 43(2): 95–100. doi: 10.12172/202107160001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Li Z, Wu Q, Wang Z, Zhang Z. Distribution of bryophyte diversity and its ecological characteristics in the peak bush of Guiyang in the context of karst cities. Bulletin of Botanical Research. 2018; 38(3): 433–443. doi: 10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2018.03.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Nunes C, Braga R, Figueira J, Neves F, Fernandes G. Dung Beetles along a Tropical Altitudinal Gradient: Environmental Filtering on Taxonomic and Functional Diversity. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11(6): e0157442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Wang Z, Ruan Y, Wang W, Chen J, Zhao W, Chen H, et al. Effects of different gradients of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium application on the structure and diversity of soil bacterial communities of tobacco plantation in Yunnan. Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2022; 35(4): 764–771. doi: 10.16213/j.cnki.scjas.2022.4.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zhang X, Zhou J, Cai W, Guan T, Gao N, Du H, et al. Diversity characteristics of desert plant communities in the Heihe River Basin under water gradient. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2017; 37(14): 4627–4635. doi: 10.5846/stxb201604080643 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Dar A, Jamal K, Alhazmi A, El-Sharnouby M, Salah M, Sayed S. Moth diversity, species composition, and distributional pattern in Aravalli Hill Range of Rajasthan, India. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2021; 28(9): 4884–4890. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.06.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Li F, Wang Y, Liu L, Yang S. Species diversity of moss plants in West Tianmu Mountain, Zhejiang. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology. 2006; (02): 192–196. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2006.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Guo Y, Lei P, Yan Y, Yuan R, Wu S, Li J. Changes in plant species diversity along an altitudinal gradient in the northwest slope of Huanggang Mountain, Wuyi Mountain, Jiangxi. Chinese Journal of Ecology. 2015; 34(11): 3002–3008. doi: 10.13292/j.1000-4890.2015.0290 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Hernández-Hernández R, Kluge J, Ah-Peng C, González-Mancebo J. Natural and human-impacted diversity of bryophytes along an elevational gradient on an oceanic island (La Palma, Canarias). Plos One. 2019; 14(4): e0213823. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213823 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Zhou X, Wen Y, Wang L, Sun D, Ming A, Jia H, et al. Changes in understory vegetation and plant diversity in different restored forest stands in karst stone desertification. Guangxi Sciences. 2022; 29(01): 71–87. doi: 10.13656/j.cnki.gxkx.20220311.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Ma H, Zheng W, Shao X, Wang Y, Shi Y. Preliminary study on the diversity of terrestrial bryophytes in the Sedi La Mountains (Eastern Slope), Tibet. Journal of Yunnan Agricultural University (Natural Science). 2018; 33(2): 184–190. doi: 10.12101/j.issn.1004-390X(n).201704033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Quilodrán C, Sandvig E, Aguirre F, Aguilar J, Barroso O, Vásquez R, et al. The extreme rainfall gradient of the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve and its impact on forest bird richness. Biodivers Conserv. 2022; 31: 613–627. doi: 10.1007/s10531-022-02353-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Härdtle W, Oheimb G, Westphal C. The effects of light and soil conditions on the species richness of the ground vegetation of deciduous forests in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein). Forest Ecology and Management. 2003; 182(1–3): 327–338. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1127(03)00091-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Peres C, Tonetto A, Garey M, Branco C. Canopy cover as the key factor for occurrence and species richness of subtropical stream green algae (Chlorophyta). Aquatic Botany. 2017; 137: 24–29. doi: 10.1016/j.aquabot.2016.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.References: Oishi Y, Hiura T. Bryophytes as bioindicators of the atmospheric environment in urban-forest landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2017; 167: 348–355. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.07.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ying Ma

21 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-35414Diversity of lithophytic moss species in karst regions in response to elevation gradientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"The authors are grateful for the financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (31960328)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

I has now commented on manuscript, entitled “Diversity of lithophytic moss species in karst regions in response to

elevation gradients”.

The paper falls within the general scope of the journal. The title reflects the content, and it is recommended that keywords are not in the title. Please, in the introduction more effort should be put into explaining the main reasons for the study.

In general the description of methods is good.

The discussion is good? And what is the future perspective of this research?

Language overall is good for non-native speakers, but the writing could be improved with a quick revision by a native English speaker.

I would recommend minor revision for the paper for it to be considered further for publication.

Sincerely

Reviewer #2: The work is quite well written, it is interesting and it gives a contribution on the altitudinal distribution of bryophytes, however I would like to make some criticisms: 1) the altitudinal gradient is not very marked, just over 700 meters of altitudinal range, although the authors manage to highlight significant differences on the gradient. 2) another aspect to be developed a little more is the relationship and the influence of the urban environment on the muscinal species 3) the references should in many cases be strengthened and I have reported it in the attached pdf

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-35414 due 220223.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 30;18(6):e0286722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286722.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 May 2023

Dear reviewers:

Thank you very much for your suggestion of modification. Each of these points responds as follows:

Questions about Financial Disclosure: Funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (31960328)( https://www.nsfc.gov.cn/publish/portal0/default.htm). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Questions about Data Availability statements: All minimal data files are available from the figshare database (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22430557.)

Ethics Statement: N/A.

The methods section does not require permission, as a brief statement:The research methods are cited in the literature and no permission is required.

Copyright required for Figure 1: The map in Figure 1 is available for public. download by relevant departments in China.

Sincerely looking forward to your reply

Yalin Jin

April 5th, 2023

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ying Ma

22 May 2023

Diversity of lithophytic moss species in karst regions in response to elevation gradients

PONE-D-22-35414R1

Dear Dr. Jin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the work done by the authors who have improved the manuscript according to the indications of the reviewers, increasing the bibliographic references and developing the missing parts, now we have a better discussion. On this second version I point out that the name of a family of mosses which appears 15 times always in the Latin singular form "Brachytheciacea" must be corrected; it must be corrected with an extra e at the end : "Brachytheciaceae". I missed this detail in my first review. Moreover, in the last sentence at the end of the Discussion it would be appropriate to specify that the authors, on the basis of further data to be collected, intend to deeply investigate the effects of pollution in the urban area on the distribution of mosses.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Ying Ma

21 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-35414R1

Diversity of lithophytic moss species in karst regions in response to elevation gradients

Dear Dr. Jin:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ying Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-35414 due 220223.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All minimal data files are available from the figshare database (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.22430557.)


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES