1. Land use (wetland  crop fields/meadow) Commercial use (peat-mining) + global warming Open water after peat-mining Miner Cool temperate regions, including Hokkaido Lost function

2. Soil type Organism Environment Environment (Soil) S = f(Cl, O, r, p, t, ···) S: soil Cl: climate O: organisms r: relic p: parent material t: time

3. Soil formation processes Weathering Mechanical weathering Chemical weathering Biological weathering Migration / Transportation Sedimentation Particle sedimentation Organic-matter accumulation Leaf Litter Duff Soil

4. Based on geographical characteristics and water status, this type is subdivided into BA, BB, BC, BD, BD(d), BE, and BF from dry to wet sites. BD (mesic brown forest soil) is a representative. Soil profile observed in Fagus crenata forest on the mid-slope of Mt. Hidehiko with 1075 m in altitude, Fukuoka Pref., Kyushu, Japan. (Sept. 18, 1997) F-H A 1 A 2 A-B B B 2 Acidic brown forest soil: Widely distributed in temperate-warm montane zones

5. Biei Town, Kamikawa District Common type in the forests of Japan, including Hokkaido A layer B layer Fine-textured acidic brown forest soil

6. Andosol: origin = volcanic deposits, rich in humus (Left: Akasaka, Hakodate City, Crop field, 1991. Right: Shibetsu Town, Nemuro District, 1994; multi-layer volcanic deposits) Physical properties are fine, but phosphorus fixation is strong. This means minute nutrients are often deficient. This type is common at Nemuro and Kushiro Districts in Hokkaido. loamy humus volcanic ash (35000-45000 yr) Ten layers of volcanic deposits Top: 500-1900 yr Bottom: 6500-7200 yr

7. Pseudo-gley soil Forest in Takikawa City, Sorachi District (1990) > 125 cm: gley layer (Lowland) Gley soil is often located close to peatlands Namporo Town, Sorachi District (1989) This photo indicates a typical gley soil

8. Podozol In Japan, podozol is distributed only in northern Hokkaido. Profile the typical soils of coniferous, or boreal forests, and also of eucalypt forests and heathland characterized by the ash-colored layer, developed by bleaching nutrient-poor

9. Distribution of soil types Brown forest soil Andosol Gley soil Peat soil River Water movement  Soil conservation Protection of land degradation Erosion control

10. Disturbance Fig. 4.2 Biomass decreases with disturbance. The disturbances are fire (annual burning), herbivory (mainly grazing by nutria), and a single or double application of herbicide (Keddy et al. 2007) Disturbance type Control Fire Herbivory Single Double 750 500 250 0 Biomass (g/m 2 ) Four properties Duration Intensity (magnitude) Frequency (interval) Scale (area)

11. Flooding Stabilizing water levels compress wetlands from four zones (left) to two zones (right) (Keddy 1991) aquatic shrub aquatic wet meadow marsh Amplitude of long- term water level fluctuations Disturbance-maintained ecosystems or landscapes

12. Fig. 1.11 The principal kinds of wetlands can be related to duration and depth of flooding. These two axes are important because they give rise to the secondary constraints Depth of flooding shallow deep Duration of flooding continuous intermittent peatland (bog or fen) aquatic marsh wet meadow swamp (Keddy 2010)

13. Swamp developed by flooding Flooding produces the characteristic vegetation types in extensive upper Nile swamps (Thompson 1985) Najas pectinata Eichhornia crassipes Typha domingensis Vossla cuspidata Phragmites karka Cyperus papyrus Trapa natans Nymphaea lotus Oryza longistaminata Hyparrhenia rufa Echinochloa pyramidalls Rain-fad grassland (flooded in exceptional years) Seasonal swamp (3-4 months submerged, to 3-4 weeks submerged Permanent swamp with perennial pools Fringe vegetation (deep-rooted, shallow-rooted, and floating ‘sudd’ Submerged and free- floating vegetation

14. Floodplain Flooding along with sediment erosion and deposition, produces the characteristic vegetation types of the Lower Nile floodplain (Springuel 1990) Typha domingensis Acacia Halfa grass Tamarix nilotica Grass + herbs Polygonum senegalense Phragmites australis Acacia albida Dom palm Nubia sandstone Silt Water Lawsonia inermis sand Habitat types Formation Floodplain Swamp Slope of 2nd terrace Thom bush 1st terrace Meadow 2nd terrace Riverain woodland

15. Tussock Sarobetsu mire: Carex middendorffii Eriophorum vaginatum Hokkaido: Carex limosa, Carex cespitosa, Carex thunbergii, and others Tussock wetland (Sarobetsu) Eriophorum vaginatum Carex middendorffii Center Flat Edge Seed trap

16. Fig. 3. Relationship between tussock height and number of species occurring on tussocks of Carex meyeriana in a marshland in China. (Tsuyuzaki & Tsujii 1992) Height (cm) 0 10 20 Number of species 65432106543210 y = +0.712x + 0.261 r = +0.702 P < 0.01

17. Table 1. Frequency of species (%) occurring on tussocks of Carex meyeriana (Tsuyuzaki & Tsujii 1992) **: Significantly different at P < 0.001, *: P < 0.01, ns: not significant. Height of tussocks (cm) 4-1112-1617-26All (n = 19)(n = 20)(n = 17)(n = 56)  2 Species Equisetum limosum84.295.094.191.10.8 ns Potentilla anserina5.335.052.930.437.2** Chamaesium paradoxum030.023.517.927.9* Potamogeton sp.05.035.312.554.3* Poa chalarantha05.023.58.932.3* Ranunculus pedicularis010.011.87.111.1* Triglochin maritimum05.05.93.65.6 ns

18. 泥炭採掘跡地に見られる ワタスゲなどの谷地坊主 Tussock Solidago Loberia Moliniopsis Drosera Hypochaeris (Koyama & Tsuyuzaki 2010) Stability ↑ (Structure) temperature fluctuation ↓ (litter) strong light ↓ (litter)

19. The area of each microhabitat is shown in parentheses The total number of individuals on Phragmites australis, of which seeds were captured by seed traps, was 223 and most of them were established in the flat, although the microhabitats were not recorded a The individuals of R. alba were not counted when the turfs were developed. R. alba turf cover was less than 0.1% in total, 0.02 m 2 at the edge; 0.07 m 2 on the flat, and zero at the center b Indicate that seed traps captured the seeds Table 1 Total number of individuals with reference to three microhabitats (center, edge and flat) on six 1 × 10 m plots established in post-mined peatland, Sarobetsu mire, from September 2005 to September 2006 (Koyama & Tsuyuzaki 2010) Species a Hypochaeris radicata Drosera rotundifolia Solidago virgaurea Moliniopsis japonica Carex middendorffii Lobelia sessilifolia Eriophorum vaginatum Hydrangea paniculata Sanguisorba tenuifolia Seed dispersal Wind b Gravity b Gravity/Wind b Wind b Gravity Wind Center (2.3 m 2 ) 5 0 6 0 13 0 1 Edge (8.3 m 2 ) 871 174 221 99 66 134 70 78 21 Flat (49.4 m 2 ) 542 278 175 270 163 80 78 23 41 Total (60.0 m 2 ) 1,418 452 402 369 229 227 148 101 63

20. (Koyama & Tsuyuzaki 2010) Table 2. Estimated effects of microhabitat on distribution, survival, growth and flowering for common species D. rotundifolia H. radicata L. sessilifolia M. japonica S. virgaurea Center (top) Carex middendorffii Eriophorum vaginatum Edge Carex middendorffii S F J Wt Fl F G J SJ Fl Eriophorum vaginatum SJ SJ Wt SJ Flat Survival in Wt: winter Sm: in summer G: growth (RGR) Fl: flowering The species traits increased or enhanced (= positive effects) by the microhabitats are shown. Number of S: seeding J: juvenile F: fertile The functions of tussocks are not greatly different between the two species ⇒ What factors facilitate the establishment of cohabitants

21. (Koyama & Tsuyuzaki 2010) Fig. 2 a Seasonal fluctuations of seed dispersal and seedling emergence on common species from June to October 2006. Number of seedlings emerged in six 1 × 10 m plots and number of seeds captured by 294 seed traps are shown. b Number of seeds (mean ± SE) captured by seed traps on three microhabitats (center, edge and flat). Mean number of seed traps is shown in parentheses. The best clusters determined by AIC model selection are shown by angled brackets and model codes 1–3. Each numeral above bracket indicates the coefficient of difference in number of seeds from flat to other microhabitat(s), confirmed by GLM when models 2 and 3 are adapted. ** P 0.05 Seed trap effect on the edge

22. (Koyama & Tsuyuzaki 2012) Fig 1. Three microhabitat types (flat, tussock edge, and tussock mound) on and around tussocks. The rhomboids show seed-sowing plots established on each microhabitat. Objectives: Clarifying differences in the effects of litter and shape of tussocks on cohabitants Methods: Artificial removal of litter → seed-sowing and transplantation experiments (Moliniopsis japonica and Lobelia sessilifolia)

23. (Koyama & Tsuyuzaki 2012) Fig. 2 Differences among five microhabitat types (Car, Carex; Eri, Eriophorum) in a mean daily maximum PPFD (  mol m -2 s -1 ), b mean water content (%) in peat, and c, d seed retention (%) of M. japonica and L. sessilifolia. Box-and-whisker plots indicate 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles; the top whisker ranging from the 75th to 90th percentile, and the bottom from the 25th to 10th percentile. The different letters indicate significant differences between the microhabitat types (Tukey’s HSD test, P < 0.05) litter mound