Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 22;15(7):e0235928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235928

Life under quartz: Hypolithic mosses in the Mojave Desert

Jenna T B Ekwealor 1,*, Kirsten M Fisher 2
Editor: Matthew Germino3
PMCID: PMC7375520  PMID: 32697785

Abstract

Several species of dryland cyanobacteria are known to occur as hypoliths under semi-translucent rocks. In the Mojave Desert, these organisms find refuge from intense solar radiation under milky quartz where moisture persists for a longer period of time than in adjacent soil surface habitat. Desert mosses, which are extremely desiccation-tolerant, can also occur in these hypolithic spaces, though little is known about this unique moss microhabitat and how species composition compares to that of adjacent soil surface communities. To address this question, we deployed microclimate dataloggers and collected moss samples from under and adjacent to 18 milky quartz rocks (quartz mean center thickness 26 ± 15 mm) in a western high elevation Mojave Desert site. Light transmission through Mojave quartz rocks may be as low as 1.2%, and data from microclimate loggers deployed for five months support the hypothesis that quartz provides thermal buffering and higher relative humidity compared to the soil surface. Of the 53 samples collected from hypolith and surface microhabitats, 68% were Syntrichia caninervis, the dominant bryophyte of the Mojave Desert biological soil crust. Tortula inermis accounted for 28% of the samples and 4% were Bryum argenteum. In a comparison of moss community composition, we found that S. caninervis was more likely to be on the soil surface, though it was abundant in both microhabitats, while T. inermis was more restricted to hypoliths, perhaps due to protection from temperature extremes. In our study site, the differences between hypolithic and surface microhabitats enable niche partitioning between T. inermis and S. caninervis, enhancing alpha diversity. This work points to the need to thoroughly consider microhabitats when assessing bryophyte species diversity and modelling species distributions. This focus is particularly important in extreme environments, where mosses may find refuge from the prevailing macroclimatic conditions in microhabitats such as hypoliths.

Introduction

Competitive exclusion and habitat selection theory posit that differential habitat selection may permit organisms of similar phenotypes to coexist [13]. This phenomenon can be observed in spatial and temporal differentiation, both of which are well-documented in plants [4]. Similarly, soil microorganisms exhibit habitat differentiation and resource partitioning, promoting species coexistence due to spatial heterogeneity [5]. Cryptobiosis, or dormancy, is common among soil microorganisms and can be understood as a form of temporal habitat differentiation, where organisms “occur” at different times in the same space. Biological soil crusts (biocrusts), communities of bryophytes, lichens, fungi, cyanobacteria, and other microorganisms living on the surface of the soil in deserts and drylands, exhibit impressive cryptobiosis [6]. Temporal partitioning is a critical strategy for these organisms, which may be desiccated and dormant for several consecutive months of each year. While many mosses are found in cool, low light environments, several species are abundant in deserts and drylands as important members of these biocrust communities.

As poikilohydric organisms, mosses equilibrate rapidly to ambient water content. This means that in the desert, which often experiences low humidity and high potential evapotranspiration, mosses can lose virtually all of their cellular free water and still resume normal growth once rehydrated; a complex trait known as desiccation tolerance [7]. Some of the most desiccation tolerant plants are species in the genus Syntrichia, which represent dominant members of Mojave Desert biocrust communities. However, even within harsh macroclimates, desert mosses may find climate buffering and more temperate conditions in the microenvironments that they occupy. For example, mosses are effective dew collectors, an important water source in very arid climates [8].

Similarly, mosses occupy microhabitats that may experience dramatically different light environments than the macroenvironment might suggest. For instance, many desert mosses occur under the shade of larger vascular plants [9,10], where they can take advantage of variable light and brief sun flecks when hydrated. Still, mosses are often found in open, exposed spaces, experiencing intensity of sunlight far beyond their light saturation points [11]. Thus, during hot, dry summer months, exposed biocrust mosses experience intense solar radiation with no ability to actively repair damage caused by UV and excess photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Furthermore, while dry, these mosses are unable to use any PAR for photosynthesis. While quiescent, though, desiccated mosses do have passive avoidance strategies. Most mosses exhibit leaf-curling when dry, a mechanism that may reduce direct sunlight on leaf lamina [12,13]. Many desert mosses also have translucent leaf cells at the tips of their leaves, some even extending into long, hyaline awns, possibly reducing solar absorbance by increasing reflectance [1214]. Furthermore, some mosses accumulate pigments such as carotenoids, anthocyanins, and UV-absorbing compounds such as flavonoids that may act as passive sunscreens [1519].

Hypoliths are organisms that live under and on the belowground surface of translucent and opaque stones (typically quartz) that are embedded in the soil surface [20]. While they can occur anywhere suitable substrate is available, they are common in drylands [21], the largest terrestrial biome. Hypoliths experience enhanced water availability relative to surrounding soil organisms due lower evaporation, higher relative humidity (RH), and capture of water via fog condensation [21]. Nonetheless, dryland hypolithic habitats are still colonized by poikilohydric organisms that must withstand extended periods without water [22]. Cyanobacteria are the most common and dominant organisms in hypolithic communities [21], particularly taxa from the genus Chroococcidiopsis [23].

Moss can be observed growing adjacent to hypolithic cyanobacteria-harboring quartz rocks [20] and hypolithic communities may even be a necessary successional step for moss growth in some ecosystems [24,25]. Though less frequently, mosses also occur in hypolithic habitats, especially in extreme environments [20,2629]. For instance, a single patch of Tortula inermis was reported under a crystalline rock in Death Valley [30], and there are additional reports of temperate hypolithic mosses [31], including an endemic obligate hypolith from Kansas in the Great Plains of the United States [32]. Overall, studies including hypolithic mosses are limited and there are even fewer that aim to characterize the hypolithic moss community within a local area. This work serves as an important addition to this understudied topic, which has the potential to extend understanding of habitat partitioning and drivers of moss species diversity in arid environments. The main objective of this study was to compare hypolithic and soil surface moss communities in a western Mojave Desert wash. Specifically, we aimed to (1) compare relevant physical characteristics to determine whether microclimatic conditions differ significantly between hypolithic and adjacent soil surface microhabitats, and (2) test whether species composition or growth characteristics differ in hypolithic and adjacent soil surface microhabitats.

Methods

Site description & microclimate monitoring

The Sheep Creek Wash Mojave Desert site was visited and sampled in June of 2014. The site is at 1900 m elevation at the west end of the Mojave Desert and the northern base of the San Gabriel Mountains near Wrightwood, CA (34°22'33.85"N, 117°36'34.59"W). The average high and low annual temperatures are 16.3 °C and 1.6 °C, respectively, with an average annual precipitation of 49.4 cm (2005–2009, Wrightwood Weather Station, NOAA National Climatic Data Center). Soil mosses in this rocky wash grow in a semi-continuous carpet (Fig 1A and 1B).

Fig 1. Field site and habitat of soil surface and hypolithic mosses at Sheep Creek Wash, Mojave Desert, CA.

Fig 1

(A) Vegetation and environment in the study site. (B) Mosses growing in a rocky, semi-continuous carpet. Moss growing on the soil surface near a milky quartz rock (indicated with arrow). (C) Sampling sites for hypolithic (white arrow) and adjacent soil surface (black arrow) microhabitats.

In order to understand how the hypolithic microclimate compares to that of the surface, temperature and RH were measured with iButton hygrochrons (Maxim Integrated, San Jose, CA, USA) from September 2019 to February 2020. One iButton was deployed under a quartz rock that had moss growing under it and the other on a nearby soil surface moss (within 1 m of the quartz rock). Data were recorded once every hour and were summarized to find the high and low temperatures and relative humidities of each day. Mean daily highs and lows from each microhabitat type (soil surface and hypolithic) were compared using the paired Student’s T-test. The difference in temperature and RH between surface and hypolithic microhabitats was calculated for each hourly time point. Differences in RH were binned into 20% bins, which were then used to calculate the proportion of total time that the difference in RH between microhabitats was greater than 10%.

Light transmittance

Average amount of 650 nm light transmittance through sampled quartz rocks was calculated with a Beer’s Law equation for Mojave Desert quartz pebbles [33]. These estimates were tested empirically with Onset HOBO Pendant temperature & light data loggers (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA) and two milky quartz rocks collected from the study site (approximately 10 mm and 25 mm thick at center) in a growth chamber and in outdoors in full sunlight.

Sample collection

Restriction of the hypolithic moss community to quartz rocks was first tested by pairing inspection under quartz rocks with inspection under non-quartz rocks of similar size within a 2 m x 2 m quadrat. To compare hypolithic and soil surface moss communities, samples were collected in approximately 0.5 cm clumps under and on the soil surface immediately adjacent to each quartz rock in a randomly selected 1 m x 1 m quadrat. Collection continued with sampling one quadrat every 3 m along two 15 m linear north-south (N-S) transects, 6 m apart from one another, for a total of 8 quadrats, 18 quartz rocks, and 53 moss samples. At the time of collection, quartz approximate thickness at center was measured to the nearest millimeter. Each sample was stored air-dried in a plastic box for subsequent species identification and shoot measurements. Samples were collected under a USDA US Forest Service permit to K. Fisher.

Species composition

Shoots from each field collection were dissected and observed under dissecting and compound microscopes in both desiccated and hydrated states to identify to species using characteristic shoot morphology and leaf cross-sections [3436]. Statistical difference between relative abundance of mosses in surface and hypolithic positions was tested with a 3 × 2 contingency table and Fisher’s exact test [37].

Shoot length & leaf density

Each of 349 Syntrichia caninervis shoots (nHYP = 50, nSUR = 299) was placed under a dissecting microscope to be measured digitally using a calibrated Motic microscope and software (Motic, Hong Kong, China). Only the length of shoot containing living tissue was measured. The boundaries of living tissue were determined by identifying leaves that had chlorophyllose tissue or other uniform pigmentation and that remained relatively closed when dry. Dead tissue, on the other hand, comprised open, damaged leaves with faded or blotchy pigmentation. Shoot lengths were first tested for normality with a Shapiro test [38] and then compared with a Wilcoxon test [39].

Leaf density was approximated on a subset of shoots. One shoot per remaining moss sample was selected at random and dead tissue was removed as above. Shoots were rehydrated and leaves were carefully removed and counted. Stem lengths were measured, and leaf density was calculated as number of leaves divided by stem length. Leaf density data were first tested for normality with a Shapiro test [38] and then compared with a Wilcoxon test [39].

Results

Microclimate

The mean daily high temperature on the soil surface was more than 2 °C warmer than in the hypolithic microhabitat under a quartz rock, while the mean daily low of the soil surface was almost 2 °C lower than the hypolithic space (P < 0.0001, Table 1). Over the microclimate monitoring period, soil surface temperatures were frequently warmer than the hypolithic microhabitat during the day and cooler at night (Fig 2). The quartz hypolithic microhabitat was slightly but consistently warmer during two periods of snow cover in November and December [4043]. The mean daily low RH also differed between the soil surface and the hypolithic microhabitat. The mean daily low RH on the soil surface was 32.5% while in the hypolithic microhabitat under a quartz rock it was 62.5% (P < 0.001, Table 1). There was no significant difference in the mean daily high RH between the soil surface and the hypolithic microhabitat. During the first two months of microclimate monitoring, differences in RH were smaller in magnitude (within about 25%), with a general pattern of higher RH in the hypolithic microhabitat during the day and lower RH at night (Fig 3). However, from mid-November to end of February, RH was almost always higher in the hypolithic microhabitat, even at night. The times where RH was not higher under the quarts mostly correspond to two snow-covered periods [4043] in which there was no difference in RH between the microhabitats. Over the monitoring period, 51.4% of the time RH was more than 10% higher in the hypolithic microhabitat compared to the soil surface. For 18.4% of the time, the hypolithic microhabitat was more than 10% lower in RH than on the soil surface, while 30.2% of the time the RH measurements in the two microhabitats were within 10% of each other.

Table 1. Microclimate in soil surface and hypolithic microhabitats from Sheep Creek Wash, Mojave Desert.

Surface Hypolithic P-value
Mean daily low temperature (°C) 5.65 ± 5.03 7.98 ± 5.35 < 0.001
Mean daily high temperature (°C) 21.6 ± 12.8 18.9 ± 11.6 < 0.001
Mean daily low relative humidity (%) 32.5 ± 31.2 63.9 ± 39.5 < 0.001
Mean daily high relative humidity (%) 71.7 ± 27.5 71.4 ± 34.9 ns

Paired Student’s T-test, n = 158. ns = not significant.

Fig 2. Difference in temperature (°C) between soil surface and hypolithic microhabitats in Sheep Creek Wash over five months.

Fig 2

The difference in temperature between Sheep Creek Wash soil surface and quartz hypolithic microhabitats measured hourly from September 2019 to February 2020. Temperature difference is calculated as surface temperature—hypolithic temperature. Light blue line indicates “day” hours, from 6 am– 6 pm PDT, while dark blue line indicates “night” (6 pm– 6 am PDT).

Fig 3. Difference in percent relative humidity between soil surface and hypolithic microhabitats in Sheep Creek Wash over five months.

Fig 3

The difference in relative humidity (RH) between Sheep Creek Wash soil surface and quartz hypolithic microhabitats measured hourly from September 2019 to February 2020. RH difference is calculated as hypolithic RH—surface RH. Light blue line indicates “day” hours, from 6 am– 6 pm DST, while dark blue line indicates “night” (6 pm– 6 am DST).

Quartz light transmittance

The average thickness of 18 quartz rocks that harbored hypolithic mosses in our study was approximately 26 ± 15 mm at the center, with rocks ranging from about 6 to 60 mm. According to the Beer’s law Eq (1) of the line for transmission of 650 nm light as a function of Mojave Desert quartz thickness [33], only 0.065% of 650-nm light is transmitted through a 26 mm Mojave Desert milky quartz rock.

ln(%T)=-0.261(t)+3.961 (1)

Average light transmittance for all 18 rocks that harbored hypolithic mosses in our study was found to be 1.2%, σ = 2.6% using Eq (1). According to our own measurements of light transmission through quartz collected from the study site, light intensity under a rock approximately 25 mm thick at center was 0.4% that of the exposed surface next to the rock. Under the 10 mm quartz rock, light was approximately 4% relative to surface intensity.

Quartz restriction of hypoliths

Eight of nine quartz rocks in a 2 m × 2 m quadrat harbored some hypolithic moss, while none of the nine similarly sized non-quartz rocks in the same quadrat had mosses growing underneath.

Moss community composition

Of the 53 hypolithic and surface samples, 36 (68%) were S. caninervis, 15 (28%) were T. inermis, and 2 (4%) were Bryum argenteum. Tortula inermis was significantly more likely to be found in hypolithic microenvironments, while S. caninervis was more abundant on adjacent soil surfaces (Table 2, P = 0.003). Specifically, 24/36 (67%) of S. caninervis samples were found in soil surface positions adjacent to quartz rocks, and 12/15 (80%) of T. inermis were in hypolithic microhabitats (Fig 4A and 4B). Both samples of B. argenteum, a cosmopolitan weedy moss species, were found in soil surface microhabitats.

Table 2. Species composition and microhabitat contingency table.

Occurrences of Syntrichia caninervis, Tortula inermis, and Bryum argenteum under milky quartz rocks and on adjacent soil surface.

S. caninervis T. inermis B. argenteum
Hypolithic 12 12 0
Surface 24 3 2

Fisher’s exact test; P = 0.003.

Fig 4. Moss species from soil surface and hypolithic microhabitats in Mojave Desert Sheep Creek Wash.

Fig 4

(A) Syntrichia caninervis growing in both soil surface and milky quartz hypolithic microhabitats. (B) Tortula inermis (white arrow) and S. caninervis (black arrow) growing in a milky quartz hypolithic microhabitat.

Habitat-dependent shoot length & leaf density

Hypolithic S. caninervis shoots were longer than soil surface shoots (P < 0.0001, Fig 5). The length of living shoots from the soil surface was 1.21 mm on average, while hypolithic shoots averaged 1.97, 62% longer than those collected from soil surface habitats. Hypolithic S. caninervis shoots had a lower leaf density than those from the soil surface (P = 0.0125, Fig 6). Shoots from hypolithic microhabitats had 16.5 leaves/mm on average, while soil surface shoots had 28.7 leaves/mm.

Fig 5. Differential shoot length in Syntrichia caninervis shoots from hypolithic and soil surface microhabitats.

Fig 5

(A) Box plot of hypolithic and soil surface S. caninervis shoot length. **** Wilcoxon test, P < 0.0001. MeanHYP = 2.0 mm, meanSUR = 1.2 mm; nHYP = 50, nSUR = 299. (B) An S. caninervis shoot from a soil surface microhabitat. (C) An S. caninervis shoot from a hypolithic microhabitat.

Fig 6. Differential leaf density in Syntrichia caninervis shoots from hypolithic and soil surface microhabitats.

Fig 6

Box plot of hypolithic and soil surface S. caninervis leaf density. * Wilcoxon test, P = 0.0125. MeanHYP = 16.5 leaves/mm, meanSUR = 28.7 leaves/mm; nHYP = 10, nSUR = 23.

Discussion

In this high elevation western Mojave Desert site, the living shoot tissue of S. caninervis was longer when growing in hypolithic microhabitats compared to the soil surface (Fig 3) and had lower leaf density (Fig 4), perhaps due to lower light [44]. Hypolithic mosses experience much lower light intensity than mosses on the soil surface, less than 4% of surface light intensity. Previous studies have found an average range of 50–99% of ambient PAR intensity reaching hypolithic spaces [25,28,45,46]. At the low end, Beer’s Law extrapolation from integrating sphere measurements of light transmittance through Mojave Desert quartz pebbles finds an average of just 1.18% light transmittance for all 18 quartz rocks that harbored hypolithic mosses in this study [33]. On the other hand, lower light intensity could also be a benefit, even to photosynthetic organisms such as mosses, by way of reduction of photobleaching and energy burden to dissipate excess light [47]. Light transmission through Mojave milky quartz is relatively constant across the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum but increases slightly from 390 nm wavelengths to 1090 nm wavelengths (approximately the upper limit of ultraviolet light to the upper limit of infrared light). This suggests the possibility that not only is the hypolithic space a refuge from overall high light intensity but that hypoliths also experience a smaller proportion of damaging UV light relative to photosynthetically active radiation [47]. In fact, there is evidence that nearly all UV-A and UV-B radiation is filtered out before reaching hypolithic communities [25,28]. Syntrichia caninervis develops a dark brown or black coloration in natural environments, a phenotypically plastic trait that does not occur in low-light laboratory conditions and may represent a UV sunscreen. This pigmentation was reduced or absent in quartz hypolithic microhabitats, possibly caused by the drastically different light environment. Interestingly, UV-B tolerance in mosses seems to correlate with desiccation tolerance [48] and S. caninervis, being one of the most desiccation-tolerant plants known, may also be expected to have high UV tolerance, too. Indeed, a close relative of this species, the also highly desiccation-tolerant S. ruralis, is not damaged by UV-B radiation, at least based on chlorophyll fluorescence [48].

Hypolithic S. caninervis plants may also be growing more, and thus have longer shoots, due to increased moisture retention resulting in an extended growing season relative to the adjacent soil surface [21] (Table 1). In this study, the area under quartz rocks was moist to the touch and the mosses were hydrated two weeks post-rain (assessed May 11, 2014; 0.51 mm rain at nearby Palmdale Airport on April 26, 2014; month-to-date rain: 10.9 mm). Microclimate monitoring found the soil surface to have a mean daily low RH much lower than in the adjacent hypolithic microhabitat (Table 1). Furthermore, we saw strong seasonal effects in RH differences between the microhabitats. In the warmer months, differences were smaller in magnitude and varied diurnally, with daytime having higher RH under quartz and night having higher RH on the soil surface. However, in winter the quartz hypolithic microhabitat almost always had higher RH than the soil surface. These data suggest the hypolithic spaces may act as a buffer to desiccation due to reduced evapotranspiration [27,49]. In contrast, desert soil surface mosses may desiccate within a day after a rainfall [50,51], even in as few as three hours [52]. The longest reported hydroperiod (time of complete hydration) for a Mojave Desert moss is 17 days, though most range between 1 and 4 days [52]. We found that nearly half of the monitoring period, the RH of hypolithic microhabitat was more than 10% higher than the soil surface, suggesting hypolithic mosses may be able take advantage of longer hydroperiods with more favorable RH. Indeed, hypolithic mosses receive very little light and would presumably need longer hydroperiods in order to take advantage of it. Longer hydroperiods not only allow mosses to remain photosynthetically active for a longer period of time, but overly brief periods of water availability may actually cause damage to desert mosses in the form of respiratory carbon deficit [53]. Similarly, soil moisture is higher under quartz in Antarctica [54], due in part to the tendency of meltwater draining around the edges of rocks and exposure of surface soil to wind drying [26].

Hypolithic microhabitats may also be providing refuge from extreme temperature fluctuations that are common in the Mojave Desert. Previous studies have reported hypolithic spaces to be up to 10 °C warmer than ambient air temperatures [33,54], even preventing freezing in winter. However, in at least one case, lower temperatures were reported under quartz rocks [26]. These apparently conflicting results may be due to thermal inertia of the rocks causing a lag in temperature changes [26]. In other words, after heating over the course of a day, quartz will cool off more slowly than the air, potentially preventing freezing in hypolithic spaces. Correspondingly, hypolithic spaces experience a slower rate of heating, potentially resulting in lower temperatures under rocks relative to adjacent surface or ambient air temperatures as temperatures rise. This thermal buffering results in less daily temperature variation in hypolithic habitats than in surrounding surface habitats, a phenomenon also seen in hypolithic microbial systems [27,46,55], which may also facilitate moss shoot growth under quartz. Microclimate monitoring in this study supports this hypothesis. As seen in Table 1, mean daily high temperatures were lower in hypolithic microhabitats while mean daily low temperatures were higher in hypolithic microhabitats. Furthermore, we found a strong diurnal effect on temperature differences between the two microhabitats. During the day, temperatures were higher on the soil surface but at night, it was frequently warmer under the quartz, further suggesting quartz provides buffering from temperature extremes.

Because they lack roots, mosses rely upon external deposition and subsequent absorption of essential nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus [56]. In hypolithic spaces, mosses might experience limited access to nutrients typically acquired via atmospheric deposition, especially in ecosystems with low soil fertility like deserts. In both cold and hot deserts, hypoliths typically harbor a suite of cyanobacteria, but these taxa lack significant nitrogen fixation capacity [57,58]. When diazotrophic activity is present in hypoliths, it is generally accomplished by Proteobacteria [57]. Thus, despite the negative relationship between moss presence and cyanobacterial abundance in hypoliths [59], mosses growing in hypolithic niches could potentially acquire nitrogen from non-cyanobacterial diazotrophs.

Hypolithic moss species composition was distinct from soil surface species composition, with a higher prevalence of T. inermis. Tortula inermis typically occurs at lower elevations of the Mojave Desert than S. caninervis, which suggests that this species is adapted to hotter and drier conditions than S. caninervis [50]. In our study, T. inermis was much more likely to occupy protected hypolithic spaces than exposed surface conditions (Table 2). This finding, while initially counterintuitive, may highlight the importance of interactions between both temperature stress and moisture availability in controlling the distribution of this species. Dryland mosses are photosynthetically efficient at low light levels, which tend to prevail in winter months when populations are hydrated [60] and overcast conditions are ideal for growth [61]. At the elevation of our study site, these periods when mosses are metabolically active are also accompanied by extreme low temperatures and significant snowfall events. Two such events occurred during our microenvironmental monitoring (Nov. 27, 2019 for 8 days and Dec. 25, 2019 for 10 days). These periods when snow covered the soil surface are evidenced by a constant difference in the temperature and RH readings from hypoliths and the soil surface, with hypoliths maintaining the same RH and a slightly warmer temperature than the surface (Figs 2 and 3). Thus, at our study site, T. inermis, which is typically found at lower (i.e., warmer) elevations, may benefit from the thermal protection that hypolithic spaces provide during the growing season, and its prevalence in hypoliths may reflect lower levels of cold stress tolerance compared to S. caninervis. Although specific composition differed in the soil surface and quartz hypolithic microhabitats, S. caninervis was abundant in both. This pattern of distinct but overlapping communities in soil surface and hypolithic microhabitats has been found in other studies of hypolithic microbial systems [55,62]. Syntrichia caninervis grows as a semi-continuous carpet in this Mojave Desert site and frequently occurs in fully exposed microsites, as well as under the shade of shrubs [63,64]. This suggests that S. caninervis is perhaps more tolerant and physiologically plastic while T. inermis is may be restricted to hypolithic microhabitats in this high elevation site at the limits of its niche.

This study demonstrates that the desert hypolithic microenvironment provides conditions that support a different moss species composition and different growth patterns than the prevailing surface conditions. Our findings parallel those of prior work on microbial hypoliths that has also shown a community composition distinct from surrounding soils in terms of taxonomic abundance, but filtered from the regional pool of soil taxa by conditions unique to the hypolithic niche [24,62]. Furthermore, this work expands upon our understanding of habitat partitioning and drivers of moss species diversity in desert environments. Our data suggest that in the western high elevation Mojave Desert, lower light, thermal buffering, and longer hydroperiods contribute to a higher representation of Tortula inermis and increased growth for the dominant moss Syntrichia caninervis in hypolithic microhabitats than on the soil surface. Although the hypolithic moss habitat is relatively understudied, the concept of microenvironment for mosses is not a new one [10,6567]. Even desert soil surface mosses tend to occupy specific microenvironments, such as in the shade of a shrub or on the north side of a boulder, where prevailing temperature and moisture conditions are buffered from those of the overall macroenvironment. Yet, the scale at which mosses experience their environment is probably as proportionate to their body size as the macroclimate is to macroorganisms. Landscape features such as mountain ranges are broadly appreciated for their influence on physical environmental conditions and associated species distributions; here we have shown that for smaller organisms, analogous microenvironmental features are not trivial, and can likewise influence community composition. In sum, this study reinforces the need to consider microenvironmental conditions and their variation in the characterization, prediction, and conservation of bryophyte communities.

Supporting information

S1 Video

(MOV)

Acknowledgments

We thank the students from Cal State LA and Berkeley High School who have contributed to this project.

Data Availability

Data and analysis code have been deposited into github and made publicly available at: https://github.com/jenna-tb-ekwealor/hypolithic-moss.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the California State University, Los Angeles, Department of Biological Sciences Faculty-Student Achievement Fund to K.M.F.; the University of California, Berkeley, Department of Integrative Biology Graduate Research Fund to J.T.B.E.; the NIH-NIGMS Minority Biomedical Research Support-Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement program (GM61331) to J.T.B.E.; and the NSF Dimensions of Biodiversity award (DEB-1638996 and DEB-1638956) to K.M.F. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Publication made possible in part by support from the Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII) sponsored by the UC Berkeley Library.

References

  • 1.Rosenzweig ML. A theory of habitat selection. Ecology. 1981;62: 327–335. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gause GF. The Struggle for Existence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Williams and Wilkins Company; 1934. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Darwin CR. On the origins of species by means of natural selection. 6th ed London, UK: John Murray; 1859. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Goldberg DE, Barton AM. Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities: A review of field experiments with plants. Am Nat. 2017;139: 771–801. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ettema CH, Wardle DA. Spatial soil ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17: 177–183. 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02496-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Belnap J, Hawkes C V, Firestone MK. Boundaries in miniature: Two examples from soil. Bioscience. 2003;53: 739–749. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Proctor MCF, Oliver MJ, Wood AJ, Alpert P, Stark LR, Cleavitt NL, et al. Desiccation-tolerance in bryophytes: a review. Bryologist. 2007;110: 595–621. 10.1639/0007-2745(2007)110[595:DIBAR]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhang J, ming Zhang Y, Downing A, hui Cheng J, bing Zhou X, chang Zhang B. The influence of biological soil crusts on dew deposition in Gurbantunggut Desert, Northwestern China. J Hydrol. 2009;379: 220–228. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.053 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bowker MA, Stark LR, McLetchie DN, Mishler BD. Sex expression, skewed sex ratios, and microhabitat distribution in the dioecious desert moss Syntrichia caninervis (Pottiaceae). Am J Bot. 2000;87: 517–526. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Herrnstadt I, Kidron GJ. Reproductive strategies of Bryum dunense in three microhabitats in the Negev Desert. Bryologist. 2005;108: 101–109. 10.1639/0007-2745(2005)108[101:RSOBDI]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marschall M, Proctor MCF. Are bryophytes shade plants? Photosynthetic light responses and proportions of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total carotenoids. Ann Bot. 2004;94: 593–603. 10.1093/aob/mch178 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu N, Zhang YM, Downing A, Aanderud ZT, Tao Y, Williams S. Rapid adjustment of leaf angle explains how the desert moss, syntrichia caninervis, copes with multiple resource limitations during rehydration. Funct Plant Biol. 2014. 10.1071/FP13054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zheng Y, Xu M, Zhao J, Zhang B, Bei S, Hao L. Morphological adaptations to drought and reproductive strategy of the moss Syntrichia caninervis in the Gurbantunggut Desert, China. Arid L Res Manag. 2011. 10.1080/15324982.2011.554956 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Koch K, Bhushan B, Barthlott W. Diversity of structure, morphology and wetting of plant surfaces. Soft Matter. 2008. 10.1039/b804854a [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dunn JL, Robinson SA. Ultraviolet B screening potential is higher in two cosmopolitan moss species than in a co-occurring Antarctic endemic moss: Implications of continuing ozone depletion. Glob Chang Biol. 2006;12: 2282–2296. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01283.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Robinson SA, Turnbull JD, Lovelock CE. Impact of changes in natural ultraviolet radiation on pigment composition, physiological and morphological characteristics of the Antarctic moss, Grimmia antarctici. Glob Chang Biol. 2005;11: 476–489. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00911.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Núñez-Olivera E, Arróniz-Crespo M, Martínez-Abaigar J, Tomás R, Beaucourt N. Assessing the UV-B tolerance of sun and shade samples of two aquatic bryophytes using short-term tests. Bryologist. 2005;108: 435–448. 10.1639/0007-2745(2005)108[0435:ATUTOS]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wynn-Williams DD. Potential effects of ultraviolet radiation on Antarctic primary terrestrial colonizers: cyanobacteria, algae, and cryptogams. Ultrav Radiat Antarct Meas Biol Eff. 1994;62: 243–257. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Robinson SA, Waterman MJ. Sunsafe bryophytes: Photoprotection from excess and damaging solar radiation In: Hanson DT, Rice SK, editors. Photosynthesis in Bryophytes and Early Land Plants. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014. pp. 113–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chan Y, Lacap DC, Lau MCY, Ha KY, Warren-Rhodes KA, Cockell CS, et al. Hypolithic microbial communities: Between a rock and a hard place. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14: 2272–2282. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02821.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pointing SB. Hypolithic Communities. Biological Soil Crusts: An Organizing Principle in Drylands. 2016. pp. 199–213. 10.1007/978-3-319-30214-0_11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pointing SB, Belnap J. Microbial colonization and controls in dryland systems. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10: 654 10.1038/nrmicro2831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bahl J, Lau MCY, Smith GJD, Vijaykrishna D, Cary SC, Lacap DC, et al. Ancient origins determine global biogeography of hot and cold desert cyanobacteria. Nat Commun. 2011;2: 163 10.1038/ncomms1167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Makhalanyane TP, Valverde A, Birkeland N-K, Cary SC, Marla Tuffin I, Cowan DA. Evidence for successional development in Antarctic hypolithic bacterial communities. ISME J. 2013;7: 2080–2090. 10.1038/ismej.2013.94 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wong FKY, Lacap DC, Lau MCY, Aitchison JC, Cowan DA, Pointing SB. Hypolithic microbial community of quartz pavement in the high-altitude tundra of central Tibet. Microb Ecol. 2010;60: 730–739. 10.1007/s00248-010-9653-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cockell CS, Stokes MD. Hypolithic colonization of opaque rocks in the Arctic and Antarctic polar desert. Arctic, Antarct Alp Res. 2006;38: 335–342. 10.1657/1523-0430(2006)38[335:HCOORI]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cowan DA, Khan N, Pointing SB, Cary SC. Diverse hypolithic refuge communities in the McMurdo Dry Valleys. Antarct Sci. 2010;22: 714–720. 10.1017/S0954102010000507 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cowan DA, Sohm JA, Makhalanyane TP, Capone DG, Green TGA, Cary SC, et al. Hypolithic communities: Important nitrogen sources in Antarctic desert soils. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2011;3: 581–586. 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2011.00266.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.de los Ríos A, Cary C, Cowan D. The spatial structures of hypolithic communities in the Dry Valleys of East Antarctica. Polar Biol. 2014;37: 1823–1833. 10.1007/s00300-014-1564-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Werger MJA, During HJ. A subterranean moss greenhouse in the Californian desert. Bryologist. 1989;92: 411–412. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Müller G. Hypolithic plants from Carruthers Peak, Snowy Mountains, New South Wales, Australia. Geogr Res. 2009;47: 449–453. 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00591.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cridland AA. The habitat of Aschisma kansanum. Bryologist. 1959;62: 132–135. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3240032 [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schlesinger WH, Pippen JS, Wallenstein MD, Hofmockel KS, Klepeis DM, Mahall BE. Community composition and photosynthesis by photoautotrophs under quartz pebbles, southern Mojave Desert. Ecology. 2003;84: 3222–3231. 10.1890/02-0549 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mishler BD. Syntrichia In: Committee F of NAE, editor. Flora of North America North of Mexico, vol 27 Oxford, England, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 618–627. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Malcolm B, Malcolm N, Shevock J, Norris D. California Mosses. Nelson, New Zealand: Micro-Optics Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Norris DH, Shevock JR. Contributions toward a bryoflora of California: II. A key to the mosses. Madrono. 2004;51: 133–269. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41425542 [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fisher R. Statistical methods for research workers 5th ed Oliver Boyd, editors. Biological monographs and manuals. Edinburgh: Genesis Publishing; 1934. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965. 10.2307/2333709 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wilcoxon F. Wilcoxon ranking test for unpaired measurements. Biometrics Bull. 1945;1: 80. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Saucedo C, Wolfe C. Winter storm delivers a white Christmas in SoCal mountains. KTLA5. 23 Dec 2019.
  • 41.Von Quednow C. Storm dumps 3 feet of snow in 24 hours at Mountain High in Wrightwood, prompting closure. KTLA5. 26 Dec 2019.
  • 42.Wigglesworth A, Lin R-G II. Atmospheric river bringing new storm with rain and snow to California. The Los Angeles Times. 29 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lin R-G II, Fry H. Rain and snow likely to break California’s most enduring Thanksgiving tradition: Perfect weather. The Los Angeles Times. 26 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cove DJ, Schild A, Ashton NW, Hartmann E. Genetic and physiological studies of the effect of light on the development of the moss, Physcomitrella patens. Photochem Photobiol. 1978. 10.1111/j.1751-1097.1978.tb07596.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tracy CR, Streten-Joyce C, Dalton R, Nussear KE, Gibb KS, Christian KA. Microclimate and limits to photosynthesis in a diverse community of hypolithic cyanobacteria in northern Australia. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12: 592–607. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02098.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Weber B, Wessels DC, Deutschewitz K, Dojani S, Reichenberger H, Büdel B. Ecological characterization of soil-inhabiting and hypolithic soil crusts within the Knersvlakte, South Africa. Ecol Process. 2013;2: 8 10.1186/2192-1709-2-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cockell CS, McKay CP, Warren-Rhodes K, Horneck G. Ultraviolet radiation-induced limitation to epilithic microbial growth in arid deserts—Dosimetric experiments in the hyperarid core of the Atacama Desert. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol. 2008. 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2007.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Takács Z, Csintalan Z, Sass L, Laitat E, Vass I, Tuba Z. UV-B tolerance of bryophyte species with different degrees of desiccation tolerance. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 1999. pp. 210–215. 10.1016/S1011-1344(99)00029-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Warren-Rhodes KA, Rhodes KL, Pointing SB, Ewing SA, Lacap DC, Gómez-Silva B, et al. Hypolithic cyanobacteria, dry limit of photosynthesis, and microbial ecology in the hyperarid Atacama Desert. Microb Ecol. 2006. 10.1007/s00248-006-9055-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Stark LR. Phenology and reproductive biology of Syntrichia inermis (Bryopsida, Pottiaceae) in the Mojave Desert. Bryologist. 1997;100: 13–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Alpert P. Desiccation of desert mosses following a summer rainstorm. Bryologist. 2017;82: 65–71. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3241969 [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Stark LR. Phenology of patch hydration, patch temperature and sexual reproductive output over a four-year period in the desert moss Crossidium crassinerve. J Bryol. 2005;27: 231–240. 10.1179/174328205X69977 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Coe KK, Belnap J, Sparks JP. Precipitation-driven carbon balance controls survivorship of desert biocrust mosses. Ecology. 2012;93: 1626–1636. 10.1890/11-2247.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Smith MC, Bowman JP, Scott FJ, Line MA. Sublithic bacteria associated with Antarctic quartz stones. Antarct Sci. 2000;12: 177–184. 10.1017/S0954102000000237 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wei STS, Lacap-Bugler DC, Lau MCY, Caruso T, Rao S, de los Rios A, et al. Taxonomic and functional diversity of soil and hypolithic microbial communities in Miers Valley, McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica. Front Microbiol. 2016. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bates JW. Mineral nutrient acquisition and retention by bryophytes. J Bryol. 1992. 10.1179/jbr.1992.17.2.223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lacap-Bugler DC, Lee KK, Archer S, Gillman LN, Lau MCY, Leuzinger S, et al. Global diversity of desert hypolithic cyanobacteria. Front Microbiol. 2017. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Vikram S, Guerrero LD, Makhalanyane TP, Le PT, Seely M, Cowan DA. Metagenomic analysis provides insights into functional capacity in a hyperarid desert soil niche community. Environ Microbiol. 2016. 10.1111/1462-2920.13088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Fisher K, Jefferson JS, Vaishampayan P. Bacterial Communities of Mojave Desert Biological Soil Crusts Are Shaped by Dominant Photoautotrophs and the Presence of Hypolithic Niches. Front Ecol Evol. 2020. 10.3389/fevo.2019.00518 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Alpert P, Oechel WC. Comparative patterns of net photosynthesis in an assemblage of mosses with contrasting microdistributions. Am J Bot. 1987;74: 1787–1796. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Alpert P, Oechel WC. Carbon balance limits the microdistribution of Grimmia laevigata, a desiccation-tolerant plant. Ecol Soc Am. 1985;66: 660–669. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Stomeo F, Valverde A, Pointing SB, McKay CP, Warren-Rhodes KA, Tuffin MI, et al. Hypolithic and soil microbial community assembly along an aridity gradient in the Namib Desert. Extremophiles. 2013. 10.1007/s00792-013-0519-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Baughman JT, Payton AC, Paasch AE, Fisher KM, McDaniel SF. Multiple factors influence population sex ratios in the Mojave Desert moss Syntrichia caninervis. Am J Bot. 2017. 10.3732/ajb.1700045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Paasch AE, Mishler BD, Nosratinia S, Stark LR, Fisher KM. Decoupling of sexual reproduction and genetic diversity in the female-biased Mojave Desert moss Syntrichia caninervis (Pottiaceae). Int J Plant Sci. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mills SE, Macdonald SE. Factors influencing bryophyte assemblage at different scales in the Western Canadian boreal forest. Bryologist. 2005;108: 86–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hamerlynck EP, Csintalan Z, Nagy Z, Tuba Z, Goodin D, Henebry GM. Ecophysiological consequences of contrasting microenvironments on the desiccation tolerant moss Tortula ruralis. Oecologia. 2002;131: 498–505. 10.1007/s00442-002-0925-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Mishler BD. The biology of bryophytes: Bryophytes aren’t just small tracheophytes. Am J Bot. 2001;88: 2129–2131. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Matthew Germino

29 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-08918

Life under quartz: Hypolithic mosses in the Mojave Desert

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. Ekwealor,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Matthew Germino, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

We were able to obtain two thoughtful and useful reviews for your paper. Both reviewers and I think you have a nice contribution to the literature, and all of the reviewer comments should prove valuable in some minor touch ups to the MS. Please note that PLoS One does little to no editing for style, grammar, and typos...as reviewer 1 notes, the mixing of citation styles should be addressed. Congratulations on a nice study and paper.

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have specified a link for the minimal data set however the link address given brings an error message; the data cannot 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.

[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: Yes

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: This is a nice little MS examining desert moss community structure and plant growth under quartz rocks, a subject of perennial interest, especially in dryland ecosystems. The current MS is well-written, addressing a straightforward reseach question and goal with a basic, but adequate, data set and analysis, and I have no problems with any of the conclusions the authors come to regarding the advantages of the hypolithic environment for supporting moss persistence (and applaud them for expanding the denizens of such habitats to include multi-cellular plants) . I do have some changes that I think the authors could make to strengthen what is already a pretty robust effort:

1) There is enough information in the literature to formulate a true testable hypothesis regarding community composition and growth characteristics between inter- and under-rock micro-environments. For instance, one of the MS cited (Hamerlynck et al. 2002) showed that desiccation-tolerant mosses in shaded and exposed microenvironments in many ways "flipped" typical sun-plant and shade-plant attributes in vascular plants, and attributed this to the length of time out of the desiccated state. One could make a good case that, even with the dramatic attenuation of maximum PPFD intensity under quartz, enhanced moisture trapping and amelioration of temperature extremes such rocks provide could indeed favor much more prolonged periods of plant activity compared to the "boom-bust" on the surface.

2) I think referring to hypolithic mosses as "etiolated" in any way is unwarranted. Etiolation is an induced behavior of light seeking which combines excessive cellular elongation and is associated with a lack of pigment production and pigment degradation. If these mosses were in a microhabitat that resulted in etiolation, well, they just wouldn't be there long enough to establish in the first place. These are not etiolated plants, they are well-adjusted and fully adapted to the conditions they have established and persist in, and your structural data clearly support this assertion.

3) In light of #1 (above), mean relative humidity and temperature, though indicative of the broad differences between these habitats, are not what these plants are responding to, and you would be better served to fully present such differences. Rather, it is the differences in the cumulative period of favorable moisture and associated temperatures that are important. The authors have the detailed data, and can do more with it. A few suggestions: (a) generate probability density function for bins of humidity differences between surface and hypolithic microenvironments (a basic ecohydrological approach used frequently in inter-canopy vs under-canopy comparisons in dryland ecosystems - delve into Russell L. Scott's work (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3QI1SOMAAAAJ&hl=en), he uses them. He uses them a lot.) (b) quantify the average periods of time for bins of humidity and temperature differences between hypolithic and surface locations. The critical thing to establish is how much more frequent and how much longer conditions are favorable for hypolithic mosses, which is the critical feature that allows them to effectively utilize what are very low PPFD. This has been done for these mosses in more typical microhabitats, but not for this unique setting. There may be other creative ways to present data to reflect this, so ponder it a bit, and come up with a way to do so!

4) These mosses are not alone under there, as previous work by Schlesinger et al. (2004) show. Sharing space with blue-green algae and other photosynthetic prokaryotes, which are critical lynch-pins in dryland nutrient dynamics (especially nitrogen, and not just in the Antarctic, BTW), is likely going to help hypolithic mosses as well, especially in nutrient availability and subsequent photosynthetic pigment/enzyme production. Desiccation-tolerant mosses get pretty much everything via atmospheric deposition, which tends to be dry deposition in desert systems. Being under a rock is not going to be all that great a place to get much dry deposition (though it could be mobilized and accumulate following rain), but proximity to N-fixers over longer and more frequent humidity conditions would increase the overall ability of these mosses to get those limiting resources. Just a point to consider for your results, and future research directions.

5) Minor annoyed gruffing: keep your citation format in the text body consistent; there are several occasions where you shift from reference number to full citations (i.e. Whozits et al. 1883, rather than [1]).

6) From the "If This Were a Perfect World" files: if you at all retained the plant samples you used, getting an estimate of individual plant mass would be invaluable. Having plant mass alone would be of interest in and of itself (hello biomass!), but you could also estimate specific length (g dry mass m-1 of shoot length) of each plant, which, though not as informative as specific mass (g dry mass m-2 surface area), would provide information on total C-acquisition capacity between surface and hypolithic plants. If you don't, well, I'll be content to live with the study you did, not the one you didn't.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript, “Life under quartz: hypolithic mosses in the Mojave Desert” is concise & well-written. The study’s main objective was to identify the taxonomic diversity of mosses beneath hypolithic quartz rocks and to compare it to that of adjacent soil surface communities. The authors rightly point out that little is known about the unique moss habitat compared to adjacent moss living freely on the bare soil surface. These microbial communities are integral to an understanding of ecosystem services in desert environments, and an understanding of their biodiversity is also critical as a baseline in observing changes to the Mojave Desert as climate change progresses.

The study’s main findings found 1) data from microclimate loggers support the hypothesis that quartz provides microclimate buffering compared to the soil surface; 2) environmental differences enable niche partitioning, with T. inermis much more likely to occupy low light hypolithic spaces and S. caninervis more prevalent in hotter and drier exposed surface conditions, enhancing alpha diversity; 3) the hypolithic environment is buffered compared to bare soil surface microhabitat, particularly with respect to a more clement moisture regime that does not subject the community to as severe desiccation as the bare surface; 4) none of the similarly-sized non-quartz rocks supported hypolithic moss communities and 5) hypolithic moss species composition is distinct from soil surface species composition- i.e., hypolithic habitat supports both different moss species and different growth patterns than prevailing surface conditions. These findings will be of interest to the general microbial and specific desert ecology fields, along with those studying Mars analog extreme environments.

The results and discussion sections were clear and interesting, with some fascinating points. I really enjoyed reading the paper- well done!

I recommend publication after addressing the following minor comments.

1. Fig 1 C. In this picture you see the green hypolithic moss below the quartz rock and the dark black moss community on the periphery surrounding the quartz pebble. Are they different species or the same (I am assuming only one S. caninervis given the figure legend) species with different pigments? Is the dark black in the picture the moss you are referring to in the text as “on the bare soil surface”? In other words, I am a bit confused as to what exactly you are comparing, ie, did you put the ibutton in the green moss pictured here under the quartz and then under? the black moss directly adjacent shown here? Or was the moss you were comparing to the hypolithic one located some distance away on a bare surface nearby? Please clarify.

2. In light of #1, for your conclusions (line 242-244), T. inermis much more likely to occupy low light hypolithic spaces and S. caninervis more prevalent in hotter and drier exposed surface conditions. But, if there is also the same species in both the hypolithic and adjacent soil surface as well as in either/or it would also seem to me that S. caninervis is perhaps more hardy and adaptable (generalist?) to either the hypolithic or the bare surface microhabitat—ie it doesn’t really care which microhabitat it is in (high elevation, low elevation, open soil or hypolithic habitat) whereas the T. inermis is more finicky and/or less adaptable (as you reference in terms of its restriction to cooler, moister conditions). This also means that S. caninervis is less sensitive to high UV/light conditions as well, since it is pretty much in most available micro-habitats in your study area compared to the other species?

3. I would suggest that with your results in Table 1 it is (clearly and mostly) the higher % RH in terms of the low that controls this niche partitioning situation. Would you agree and if so, please also emphasize this. Very interesting.

4. Line 79-80. No active repair but obviously avoidance strategies including pigmentation—if so, please add a line or two on this in that same paragraph. Line 262-264—they are also clearly using pigmentation so please also mention that here as well. If you have any info on the differences in pigmentation, please include it.

5. For figure 1 can you please also add a picture of the other two types of moss in your study for those of us not very familiar with desert mosses.

6. Line 235-236: hypolithic moss species composition is distinct from soil surface species composition. But they also overlap as well, with both S. caninervis and T. inermis being found in both the hypolithic and the open surface as well. Please also mention this and that this has also been found for other hypoliths versus bare surface soil (e.g, Namib Desert, see Stomeo et al. 2013 and other more recent refs and also Antarctica).

7. The discussion is a bit light. Can you add a paragraph to put your findings in greater context for both mosses and for other hypolithic microbial systems and in comparison to BSC in the Mojave and perhaps with other deserts (e.g., Namib Desert hypoliths vs bare surface soil communities, Stomeo et al. 2013) such as Sonoran. You have done a good job mentioning other studies via the refs but I think this warrants a separate paragraph to elaborate upon. Also, one ref to consider including is Mogul et al. 2017. Please also extend the discussion a bit more to summarize on how your results expand our understanding of habitat partitioning (line 99 and 298).

8. Line 199-201: was there moss growing only on the surface in those quadrats— ie not associated with any quartz rocks and just by itself? If so, please elaborate on the implications of this, depending on if one or all three mosses are found on bare soil surface (or nearby under shade plants). This would point to the key advantage of the quartz being the increased moisture under the rocks if they are also out in open bare surface soil or if they are also only found under shade plants.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 22;15(7):e0235928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235928.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Jun 2020

Reviewer #1: This is a nice little MS examining desert moss community structure and plant growth under quartz rocks, a subject of perennial interest, especially in dryland ecosystems. The current MS is well-written, addressing a straightforward reseach question and goal with a basic, but adequate, data set and analysis, and I have no problems with any of the conclusions the authors come to regarding the advantages of the hypolithic environment for supporting moss persistence (and applaud them for expanding the denizens of such habitats to include multi-cellular plants) . I do have some changes that I think the authors could make to strengthen what is already a pretty robust effort:

1) There is enough information in the literature to formulate a true testable hypothesis regarding community composition and growth characteristics between inter- and under-rock micro-environments. For instance, one of the MS cited (Hamerlynck et al. 2002) showed that desiccation-tolerant mosses in shaded and exposed microenvironments in many ways "flipped" typical sun-plant and shade-plant attributes in vascular plants, and attributed this to the length of time out of the desiccated state. One could make a good case that, even with the dramatic attenuation of maximum PPFD intensity under quartz, enhanced moisture trapping and amelioration of temperature extremes such rocks provide could indeed favor much more prolonged periods of plant activity compared to the "boom-bust" on the surface.

- We thank the reviewer for this comment. While we agree this would be interesting and insightful to compare to other systems, unfortunately we don’t believe it is possible within this study. Within bryology, and especially desert bryology, we are still learning basic ecology and natural history of many species. At present, the authors do not feel they have enough understanding of the ecology of T. inermis to make stronger predictions or conclusions than those we have. However, we have added more discussion about the possible niche of T. inermis and how that relates to this study (Lines 361-374).

2) I think referring to hypolithic mosses as "etiolated" in any way is unwarranted. Etiolation is an induced behavior of light seeking which combines excessive cellular elongation and is associated with a lack of pigment production and pigment degradation. If these mosses were in a microhabitat that resulted in etiolation, well, they just wouldn't be there long enough to establish in the first place. These are not etiolated plants, they are well-adjusted and fully adapted to the conditions they have established and persist in, and your structural data clearly support this assertion.

- Thank you for this insight. We have removed the lines about etiolation.

3) In light of #1 (above), mean relative humidity and temperature, though indicative of the broad differences between these habitats, are not what these plants are responding to, and you would be better served to fully present such differences. Rather, it is the differences in the cumulative period of favorable moisture and associated temperatures that are important. The authors have the detailed data, and can do more with it. A few suggestions: (a) generate probability density function for bins of humidity differences between surface and hypolithic microenvironments (a basic ecohydrological approach used frequently in inter-canopy vs under-canopy comparisons in dryland ecosystems - delve into Russell L. Scott's work (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3QI1SOMAAAAJ&hl=en), he uses them. He uses them a lot.) (b) quantify the average periods of time for bins of humidity and temperature differences between hypolithic and surface locations. The critical thing to establish is how much more frequent and how much longer conditions are favorable for hypolithic mosses, which is the critical feature that allows them to effectively utilize what are very low PPFD. This has been done for these mosses in more typical microhabitats, but not for this unique setting. There may be other creative ways to present data to reflect this, so ponder it a bit, and come up with a way to do so!

- Thanks for the clear and apt suggestions. We have created histograms of differences between the two habitats in temperature and relative humidity (RH) at every time point (once every hour) for the whole 5 months of monitoring. We used these histograms to summarize the amount of time that RH is more favorable (defined as >10% higher), less favorable (>10% lower), and not different (+-10%) in the two habitats. We have included these new methods in lines 137-140, and results are included in lines 188-191 and 196-205. We also created two new plots to visualize the differences in temperature and RH over the 5 months in Fig 2 and Fig 3. We believe these figures show striking patterns in the microclimate differences, on both a diurnal and seasonal scale.

4) These mosses are not alone under there, as previous work by Schlesinger et al. (2004) show. Sharing space with blue-green algae and other photosynthetic prokaryotes, which are critical lynch-pins in dryland nutrient dynamics (especially nitrogen, and not just in the Antarctic, BTW), is likely going to help hypolithic mosses as well, especially in nutrient availability and subsequent photosynthetic pigment/enzyme production. Desiccation-tolerant mosses get pretty much everything via atmospheric deposition, which tends to be dry deposition in desert systems. Being under a rock is not going to be all that great a place to get much dry deposition (though it could be mobilized and accumulate following rain), but proximity to N-fixers over longer and more frequent humidity conditions would increase the overall ability of these mosses to get those limiting resources. Just a point to consider for your results, and future research directions.

- We appreciate this advice and have incorporated microbial community into the discussion (lines 348-356).

5) Minor annoyed gruffing: keep your citation format in the text body consistent; there are several occasions where you shift from reference number to full citations (i.e. Whozits et al. 1883, rather than [1]).

- We have corrected these, thank you. Sincere apologies for the annoyance!

6) From the "If This Were a Perfect World" files: if you at all retained the plant samples you used, getting an estimate of individual plant mass would be invaluable. Having plant mass alone would be of interest in and of itself (hello biomass!), but you could also estimate specific length (g dry mass m-1 of shoot length) of each plant, which, though not as informative as specific mass (g dry mass m-2 surface area), would provide information on total C-acquisition capacity between surface and hypolithic plants. If you don't, well, I'll be content to live with the study you did, not the one you didn't.

- This is an interesting suggestion and we appreciate it. Unfortunately between tissue limitation (we sampled very conservatively the first time and several samples have no un-dissected stems left), and ongoing shelter-in-place orders in the area preventing us from even reaching the samples, these additional measurements will not be possible for this study at this time. However we do thank the reviewer for the suggestion as it may help us design better future studies.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript, “Life under quartz: hypolithic mosses in the Mojave Desert” is concise & well-written. The study’s main objective was to identify the taxonomic diversity of mosses beneath hypolithic quartz rocks and to compare it to that of adjacent soil surface communities. The authors rightly point out that little is known about the unique moss habitat compared to adjacent moss living freely on the bare soil surface. These microbial communities are integral to an understanding of ecosystem services in desert environments, and an understanding of their biodiversity is also critical as a baseline in observing changes to the Mojave Desert as climate change progresses.

The study’s main findings found 1) data from microclimate loggers support the hypothesis that quartz provides microclimate buffering compared to the soil surface; 2) environmental differences enable niche partitioning, with T. inermis much more likely to occupy low light hypolithic spaces and S. caninervis more prevalent in hotter and drier exposed surface conditions, enhancing alpha diversity; 3) the hypolithic environment is buffered compared to bare soil surface microhabitat, particularly with respect to a more clement moisture regime that does not subject the community to as severe desiccation as the bare surface; 4) none of the similarly-sized non-quartz rocks supported hypolithic moss communities and 5) hypolithic moss species composition is distinct from soil surface species composition- i.e., hypolithic habitat supports both different moss species and different growth patterns than prevailing surface conditions. These findings will be of interest to the general microbial and specific desert ecology fields, along with those studying Mars analog extreme environments.

The results and discussion sections were clear and interesting, with some fascinating points. I really enjoyed reading the paper- well done!

I recommend publication after addressing the following minor comments.

1. Fig 1 C. In this picture you see the green hypolithic moss below the quartz rock and the dark black moss community on the periphery surrounding the quartz pebble. Are they different species or the same (I am assuming only one S. caninervis given the figure legend) species with different pigments? Is the dark black in the picture the moss you are referring to in the text as “on the bare soil surface”? In other words, I am a bit confused as to what exactly you are comparing, ie, did you put the ibutton in the green moss pictured here under the quartz and then under? the black moss directly adjacent shown here? Or was the moss you were comparing to the hypolithic one located some distance away on a bare surface nearby? Please clarify.

- Thank you for pointing out the ambiguities in how we presented these methods and this figure. We have added details to the methods (lines 153-155), added arrows to figures 1B and 1C, and have added more details to figure 1C legend. We have also added an additional figure, Figure 4, to more clearly demonstrate growth forms of these mosses in the different microhabitats. Finally, we added microscopic images of S. caninervis stems as an examplar of shoot length and pigmentation differences.

2. In light of #1, for your conclusions (line 242-244), T. inermis much more likely to occupy low light hypolithic spaces and S. caninervis more prevalent in hotter and drier exposed surface conditions. But, if there is also the same species in both the hypolithic and adjacent soil surface as well as in either/or it would also seem to me that S. caninervis is perhaps more hardy and adaptable (generalist?) to either the hypolithic or the bare surface microhabitat—ie it doesn’t really care which microhabitat it is in (high elevation, low elevation, open soil or hypolithic habitat) whereas the T. inermis is more finicky and/or less adaptable (as you reference in terms of its restriction to cooler, moister conditions). This also means that S. caninervis is less sensitive to high UV/light conditions as well, since it is pretty much in most available micro-habitats in your study area compared to the other species?

- Yes, thanks for these questions and comments. We have changed the discussion to incorporate these points (lines 297-305 and 374-382).

3. I would suggest that with your results in Table 1 it is (clearly and mostly) the higher % RH in terms of the low that controls this niche partitioning situation. Would you agree and if so, please also emphasize this. Very interesting.

- We have included new RH analyses (lines, Figure, lines 137-140 and 196-205), and have added emphasis of the importance of RH differences in the discussion (lines 312-324).

4. Line 79-80. No active repair but obviously avoidance strategies including pigmentation—if so, please add a line or two on this in that same paragraph. Line 262-264—they are also clearly using pigmentation so please also mention that here as well. If you have any info on the differences in pigmentation, please include it.

- Thank you for the suggestion. We have included discussion of passive avoidance strategies such as leaf curling and pigmentation possibilities in the introduction and in the discussion (lines 312-324).

5. For figure 1 can you please also add a picture of the other two types of moss in your study for those of us not very familiar with desert mosses.

- We have added photos of the different species of hypolithic mosses to Figures 4 and 5.

6. Line 235-236: hypolithic moss species composition is distinct from soil surface species composition. But they also overlap as well, with both S. caninervis and T. inermis being found in both the hypolithic and the open surface as well. Please also mention this and that this has also been found for other hypoliths versus bare surface soil (e.g, Namib Desert, see Stomeo et al. 2013 and other more recent refs and also Antarctica).

- We have added this point to the discussion (lines 374-382 and 385-388).

7. The discussion is a bit light. Can you add a paragraph to put your findings in greater context for both mosses and for other hypolithic microbial systems and in comparison to BSC in the Mojave and perhaps with other deserts (e.g., Namib Desert hypoliths vs bare surface soil communities, Stomeo et al. 2013) such as Sonoran. You have done a good job mentioning other studies via the refs but I think this warrants a separate paragraph to elaborate upon. Also, one ref to consider including is Mogul et al. 2017. Please also extend the discussion a bit more to summarize on how your results expand our understanding of habitat partitioning (line 99 and 298).

- We have added more discussion about hypolithic microbial systems (lines 348-356 and 385-388) and habitat partitioning (lines 380-382).

8. Line 199-201: was there moss growing only on the surface in those quadrats— ie not associated with any quartz rocks and just by itself? If so, please elaborate on the implications of this, depending on if one or all three mosses are found on bare soil surface (or nearby under shade plants). This would point to the key advantage of the quartz being the increased moisture under the rocks if they are also out in open bare surface soil or if they are also only found under shade plants.

- Yes, mosses at this site grow in a semi-continuous carpet between shrubs and possibly not associated with any quartz rocks. Although our surface sampling for this study focused on collecting immediately adjacent to quartz rocks, previous studies at this site have found similar composition to our surface community composition (Baughman et al., 2017 and unpublished data). We have added more discussion on this point (lines 378-382), thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Matthew Germino

25 Jun 2020

Life under quartz: Hypolithic mosses in the Mojave Desert

PONE-D-20-08918R1

Dear Dr. Ekwealor,

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,

Matthew Germino, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revision looks great, except that the two new graphs done in excell have very small fonts and are not really formatted in a way that will work with standard typesetting. Note that PLoS One does not copyedit after acceptance.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Matthew Germino

29 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-08918R1

Life under quartz: Hypolithic mosses in the Mojave Desert

Dear Dr. Ekwealor:

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. Matthew Germino

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Video

    (MOV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data and analysis code have been deposited into github and made publicly available at: https://github.com/jenna-tb-ekwealor/hypolithic-moss.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES