Longitudinal Survey of Mosses and a Couple of Friends

(LoSoMaaCoF)

(Updated 2021-09-04)

Updates after 26^th February 2021 notifying new data availability will be each made in separate blog posts. These will all link back here. I will keep this page updated with information about my kit and such.
While the longitudinal survey continues, it has moved in several different directions than I anticipated it would, based upon learning how to do it better and under guidance of advising bryologists. Accordingly, this blog post is no longer consistent with the project. Describing the project well now would take a much longer statement, something I may someday do in a series of new blog posts. (I have a monograph I use to record details about it that is 120 pages long.) I don’t want to rewrite this particular post, since that’s not in the spirit of a blog.

On 29^th November 2020, I began and committed to a long term longitudinal survey of four botanical sites near my home, a survey of some bryophytes, lichens, and a few individuals of Lycopodium obscurum. The purpose is to record the life cycle of these patches and individuals at a relatively frequent rate, roughly a week apart, and to begin a compendium of observations which may serve for phenological study.

I welcome comments and questions from students, experts, and fellow bryophyte enthusiasts!

While mosses and lichens are not typically chosen as subjects for phenology, e.g., the National Phenology Network hasn’t any bryophytes or lichens among its index subjects, this is precisely why beginning such a project is attractive. Moreover, there is supporting literature, e.g.,

Gignac, L. Dennis. "Bryophytes as indicators of climate change." The bryologist 104, no. 3 (2001): 410-420.

Tuba, Zoltán, Nancy G. Slack, and Lloyd R. Stark, eds. Bryophyte ecology and climate change. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

I am also collaborating with the U.S. National Phenology Network leaders’ community of practice.

The sites themselves are depicted on this map:

There are 5 subsites or patches at Site 1, 4 subsites at Site 2, 5 subsites at Site 3, and 4 subsites at Site 4. Sites 1, 3, and 4 are wet environs, with Site 3 actually being a running stream. Site 2 is a bank adjacent to a building. Three of the Sites are within the Hale Reservation. While the Sites are excellent and interesting, weather and programming at Hale may constrain sampling during certain seasons. Site 3 can flood. All Sites could be snow-covered. Hale Reservation serves as a children’s Summer camp from June-September and, so, imposes understandable restrictions on outsider visits. These are standard problems for field surveys.

I am working to obtain written permissions from Hale, but, before I do, I want to amass a corpus of data to establish commitment and minimal expertise.

I’m writing to Hale Reservation to share this information shortly.

Great thanks to Hale Reservation and to their Director of Operations, Tyler Simpson, for giving permission on 2021-01-15 to continue the field survey year ’round.

In general, bryophytes and lichens demand microscopic examination to permit keying to species level, so physical samples are required at the outset. However, thereafter, the means of survey is photographic, primarily through macrophotography using a Google Pixel 2 and the Manual Camera DSLR Pro software app, V1.11 (12) made by Lenses Inc. The maximum photo resolution on the Google Pixel 2 is 12.2 megapixels, 4032×3024. The video resolution is 3840×2160 (4K). I typically use it in Macro Focus mode. I operate strictly under the PRO settings. My skills at capturing macrophotos of mosses in the field with this camera and app are improving, but they are inconsistent in production. Hope to use the (new) photo-logging software mentioned below to help.

In general, bryophytes and lichens demand microscopic examination to permit keying to species level, so physical samples are required at the outset. However, thereafter, the means of survey is photographic, primarily through macrophotography. Initially I was using a Google Pixel 2 and the Manual Camera DSLR Pro software app. However, both because I was getting unreliable results at the limits of macro focus, and because of recommendations from an experienced bryologist, I am changing my primary macro camera to an Olympus TG-6. I need to be able to image details of moss capsules, such as calyptra, operculums, peristomes, and other features like gemmae, archegonia, and antheridia, and I need to do this reliably. In addition, I’m interested in mosses as artistic subjects, so the image stacking capability of the Olympus is important. The Olympus product overview is here.

I have three Bausch & Lomb Hastings Triplets, a 10X, a 14X, and a 20X. (I’ve had the 10X since my Botany course in 1973!) These are useful both in field work and at home. From recommendations by other bryologists, I have added an Iwamoto Achromatic 20X Triplet hand lens. The Iwamoto is 15 mm in diameter and has a wide field of view compared with the Hastings Triplet design, one which is almost distortion free.

I have learned that for field work, a bright light source is crucial, so carry a Fenix HM50R head-mountable lamp powered by a Li-On rechargeable battery.

I also use two microscopes:

• Steindorff Shop Scope Portable Microscope, with 20X and 100X front magnifiers, the Steindorff standard 10X eyepiece and a fine wide field Meiji MA409 DIN20X
• Carson MP-250 MicroFlip, 100x – 250x LED and UV Lighted Pocket Microscope with Flip Down Slide Base

I also use two camera adapters for these:

• Smartphone Adapter Clip for the Carson MP-250
• Snapzoom Universal Digiscoping Adapter

I previously tried a Carson HookUpz 2.0 Smartphone Optics Adapter, but I wasn’t happy with the results it produced. It was difficult to keep the camera aligned with the boresight of the microscope. (And, frankly, the Snapzoom isn’t that great either.)

There is a Mecan NY-TGV microscope adapter for the Olympus TG-6 but it costs US$900.

The primary records are photographs of specimens kept in Google Photos Albums. Accompanying these is a spreadsheet chronicling visits to sites and recording specific photos of specimens and subjects, as well as timestamps and metadata describing the encounters. For example, snow cover doesn’t inhibit a survey visit, but is documented with a photograph of the area, and a timestamp recording the visit. There is also a “snow covered” attribute. There is also a “flooded” attribute.

Note that the spreadsheet is in the Apache OpenOffice ods format, not a Microsoft xlsx format.

As of 22^nd February 2021 I have transferred the contents of the Apache OpenOffice spreadsheet to a Google Sheets version, primarily because Google Sheets now permits the inserting of an image in a cell. So rather than having the awkward mechanism of noting the image reference and going to find it in the albums, one or two images documenting the observation from any given day is included in the spreadsheet itself. The size of the image can be adjusted by adjusting the size of the containing cell. References to image names in the albums are still good, as are the album links. That’s useful because not all the images I record for each site are noted in the spreadsheet, particularly microphotographs or macro-photographs relating to classification and other purposes.

As of 24^th February 2021, I am using EpiCollect 5 to log all photographs taken effective with the observations on 24^th February 2021. See below for more.

The Google Sheets spreadsheet link also permits commenting on the spreadsheet, so if you have any thoughts about the observations, please do.

Backing the photographs and spreadsheet up with notes and organization is a handwritten notebook, a hardcover medium (145 mm by 210 mm) Leuchtturm1917 lined notebook. Whereas it is my intent to place the spreadsheet and photographs as open as I can, I don’t know what I’m going to do with the notebook. I have augmented my tools for collecting data by adding the EpiCollect 5 app for my Google Pixel 2. My first form is a log of each and every picture I have taken. I found this recommendation in the “Record Keeping” section of Chapter 1, “Field Taxonomy and Collection Methods”, Volume 3, “Methods”, in the book by Janice Glime, et al, Bryophyte Ecology. Photos collected beginning 24^th February 2021 will be collected in the project’s PhotoLog table, accessible for viewing by the public.

Indeed, eventually, I hope to be able to put the survey in a database form where it can be accessed by date, site, and genus of specimen, and all information and materials pertaining to these made public. Right now, the photographs are still in publicly accessible Google Photo Albums (see below) and the spreadsheet is separate. I may be able to adapt the EpiCollect 5 application for this purpose.

Many of the genus and species classification slots are still empty. I’m determined to classify mosses to the species, and doing so can be difficult without microscopic examination, e.g., of alar cells. In addition, and in full transparency, I haven’t done moss classification since I took Botany in college, and, even then, mosses were not the primary subjects of interest. Accordingly, my classification productivity is low. Yet having proper classification is essential to the project.

Classifications are done, except that I failed to snag a sample of one of the mosses at Site 1, Sample B. Accordingly, I have designated the Sphagnum Sample B1 and updated the spreadsheet accordingly, and will designate the dominate moss this photo B2:

I have added another specimen on the same log as Site 1, sample A, yet to be classified. What was previously Site 1, sample A is now designated Site 1, sample A1 and the new specimen is Site 1, sample A2.

Site 4 now has a Site 4, sample E which is Dicranum montanum Atrichum angustatum [MacKnight, Rohrer, McKnight-Ward, Perdrizet (2013), 66-67:

The spreadsheet linked above is updated.

The last classification, a Sphagnum at Site 3, sample C I called Sphagnum papillosum based upon 100x examination of a leaf, and comparison with Professor Ralf Wagner’s atlas. But Emerita Professor Janice Glime says that is wrong. So I’m looking again.

My photomicrograph of the leaf:

This is taken at 100X with the Steindorff, using a Google Pixel 2 through the lens.

My only concern is that the cells from this specimen seem too large compared with Prof Wagner’s. I need to recheck the calibration of my in field vernier.

The sizes are comparable to those recorded at Professor Wagner’s site.

This is taken at 100X with the Steindorff, using a Google Pixel 2 through the lens.

My primary references and keys are:

Pope, Ralph. Mosses, Liverworts, and Hornworts: A Field Guide to Common Bryophytes of the Northeast. Comstock Publishing Associates, a division of Cornell University Press, 2016.

Jenkins, Jerry. Mosses of the Northern Forest: A Photographic Guide. Comstock Publishing Associates, a division of Cornell University Press, 2020.

McKnight, Karl B., Joseph R. Roherer, Kirsten McKnight Ward, and Warren J. Perdrizet. Common Mosses of the Northeast and Appalachians. Princeton University Press, 2013.

McMullin, Troy, and Frances Anderson. Common Lichens of Northeastern North America: A Field Guide. New York Botanical Press, 2014.

Marshall, Nina Lovering. Mosses and lichens: a popular guide to the identification and study of our commoner mosses and lichens, their uses, and methods of preserving. Vol. 14. Doubleday, Page, 1919.

Go Botany Native Plant Trust, specifically, Dendrolycopodium obscurum (L.) A. Haines.

Glime, Janice, Heinjo During, Irene Bisang, S. Robbert Gradstein, J. Lissner, W. J. Boelema, and D. H. Wagner, Bryophyte Ecology, ebook, 2017, but frequently updated.

Kokko, Hanna. Modelling for field biologists and other interesting people. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Tuba, Zoltán, Nancy G. Slack, and Lloyd R. Stark, eds. Bryophyte ecology and climate change. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Yodzis, Peter. Competition for space and the structure of ecological communities. Vol. 25. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1978.

Matthiopoulos, Jason. How to be a quantitative ecologist: the 'A to R' of green mathematics and statistics. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

I added McKnight, Rohrer, McKnight-Ward, and Perdrizet on 11^th March 2021 because I needed a heftier keying tool.

In addition there are online guides at:

• eFloras.org
• “Bryophytes“, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
• Online digital atlas and companion to Mosses of the Northern Forest
• Bryophyte flora of North America
• Consortium of North American Bryophyte Herbaria
• Google searches by genus, as this example
• Glosary of Botanical Terms

I’m trying my best to classify. But as the experts in these keys suggest, many of the categories of moss, particularly Sphagnum, are plastic, and variations among instances of a species make it sometimes difficult to distinguish. See in particular Ralph Pope’s comments in the introductory sections of his book.

The albums are organized by Site, and the metadata accompanying each photograph gives the date and time of capture, and the location. Also, in most instances, the location geographic coordinates and the compass heading of the photo capture are stamped on the image itself. Occasionally when GPS is not available, such locations are absent.

Here is: the link to the spreadsheet.

Here is: the link to the photos taken beginning 24^th February 2021.

Here are the links to the Albums:

1. Site 1
2. Site 2
3. Site 3
4. Site 4

And here are the subsites or patches, depicted as photos:

Site 1

Site 1, subsite A, featuring specimens A1 and A2

Site 1, subsite B, featuring specimens B1 and B2

Site 1, subsite C

Site 1, subsite D

Site 1, subsite E

Site 2

Site 2, subsite A

Site 2, subsite B

Site 2, subsite C

Site 2, subsite D

Site 3

Site 3, subsite A

Site 3, subsite B

Site 3, subsite C

Site 3, subsite D

Site 3, subsite E

Site 4

Site 4, subsite A

Site 4,subsite B

Site 4, subsite C

Site 4, subsite D

Site 4, subsite E