Bryophyte and lichen diversity: A comparative study

Pharo, Emma J.; Beattie, Andrew J.

doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1997.tb00654.x

Cited by 60 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, richness of mosses and liverworts, which share several life history characteristics with lichens (e.g. poikilohydry, lack of true roots), was not related to microlichen richness in that study (see also Pharo & Beattie 1997). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Evaluating macrolichens and environmental variables as predictors of the diversity of epiphytic microlichens

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In contrast to the frequently assessed macrolichens, microlichens are rarely considered in biodiversity assessments despite their high species richness. Microlichens require generally a higher species identification effort than macrolichens. Thus, microlichens are more expensive to assess. Here we evaluate if macrolichen richness can be used as an indicator of total and threatened microlichen richness. Furthermore, we tested if different sets of environmental variables (modelled climatic variables, forest structure, altitude, etc.) improve the regression models based on macrolichens only or even replace the macrolichens as predictors. Multiple linear regressions were used to model species richness of microlichens, and Poisson regressions for threatened microlichens.On 237 forest plots (200 m 2 ) distributed randomly across Switzerland, 77 macrolichens and 219 microlichens occurred. Macrolichen richness was positively related to the richness of microlichens (R 2 adj. =0·27) and, in combination with threatened macrolichens as an additional predictor, also to the number of threatened microlichens (R 2 dev. =0·14). Environmental variables alone and in different combinations explained between 0·20 and 0·41 (R 2 adj. ) of the total variation of microlichen richness, and between 0·09 and 0·29 (R 2 dev. ) of the total variation of threatened microlichen richness. All models based on environmental variables were considerably improved when macrolichens were included. Furthermore, macrolichen richness turned out to be the most important variable in explaining species richness of all, as well as threatened microlichens. The best models for total microlichen richness reached a R 2 adj. of 0·56. Threatened microlichens were more difficult to model with the best model reaching a R 2 dev. of 0·29. We conclude that in biodiversity assessments with scarce resources, lichen sampling could be focused on the better known macrolichens, at least in many temperate lowland and mountain forests. In combination with environmental variables, reliable predictions of microlichen richness can be expected. If the focus is on threatened microlichens, however, models were not reliable and specialized taxonomists are necessary to assess these species in the field.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Evaluating macrolichens and environmental variables as predictors of the diversity of epiphytic microlichens

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We studied the bryophyte community in large plots compared to most other studies on bryophytes (e.g., Vellak and Paal 1999, Fenton et al 2003, Økland et al 2003, who used 0.04-1.25 m 2 plots, but see Frisvoll andPrestø 1997 andPharo andBeattie 1997, who used 100-1000 m 2 plots). The change at the 200-m 2 scale was often more pronounced than at the 1000-m 2 scale (Figs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substrate Form Determines the Fate of Bryophytes in Riparian Buffer Strips

Hylander

Dynesius

Jonsson

et al. 2005

Ecological Applications

117

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substrate form determines the fate of bryophytes in riparian buffer strips.Ecological Applications, http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/04-0570Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Abstract. Studies on the effectiveness of forest buffer strips left along streams after logging have long overlooked the biota of the buffers themselves, despite their high species richness. We investigated mosses and liverworts (bryophytes), abundant and species-rich groups in boreal forests, before and 2.5 years after logging along 15 small streams. In each site, two 1000-m 2 (20 ϫ 50 m) plots along the stream were inventoried; one plot in an area subjected to clear-cutting, and another in a buffer strip (10 m wide on each side of the stream). Ten plots along small streams in forest reserves in the same region were used as references. We found that less than half as many bryophyte species per plot disappeared after logging in the buffer strips compared to the clearcuts. The changes in bryophyte cover and in species composition were smaller in the buffer strips, and the species that were negatively affected in the clearcuts were less affected in the buffer strips. However, there was a significant change in species composition in the buffer strips compared to the references. Substrate form and taxonomic group were important factors in understanding this turnover. Many species growing on substrates with a convex form (e.g., logs, tree bases, and mesic ground) decreased or disappeared, while species on concave substrates were rather unaffected. This held for both mosses and liverworts, although liverworts were generally more sensitive than mosses. The difference in response of assemblages on convex vs. concave substrates makes changes in microclimate due to logging a likely explanation. The species in most need of protection (i.e., the red-listed species) were among the ones with strongest declines in the 20 m wide buffer strips. In order to function optimally for bryophyte conservation, forests along small streams need to be protected from high windthrow frequency and strong edge effects. Increasing the width of buffer strips at sites with known or potential values (e.g., large amounts of woody debris or boulders) should be considered a better strategy than using narrow buffer strips with a fixed width.

show abstract

“…Two 10 x 10 m areas were fenced to exclude wallabies and rabbits, two further sites allowed entry by rabbits but excluded wallabies, and two areas were left unfenced. Plant species abundance, cover and height were recorded at each site and monitored in , 1997(Driessen 2001). …”

Section: Rabbit Control At Strathgordon (1995)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diurnal to Decadal Changes in the Balance between Vegetation and Bare Ground in Tasmanian Fjaeldmark

Kirkpatrick

2017

Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bryophyte and lichen diversity: A comparative study

Cited by 60 publications

References 21 publications

Evaluating macrolichens and environmental variables as predictors of the diversity of epiphytic microlichens

Evaluating macrolichens and environmental variables as predictors of the diversity of epiphytic microlichens

Substrate Form Determines the Fate of Bryophytes in Riparian Buffer Strips

Diurnal to Decadal Changes in the Balance between Vegetation and Bare Ground in Tasmanian Fjaeldmark

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About