Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:10:46.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of representative inventories for lichen conservation assessments: the case of Cladonia norvegica and C. parasitica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2009

Piret LÕHMUS  and
Asko LÕHMUS
Asko LÕHMUS
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, EE-51014, Tartu, Estonia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservation assessments of lichens have usually been based on scattered and methodologically diverse data. We illustrate the contribution of standardized inventories to conventional data sources by assessing the status of two conspicuous epixylic Cladonia species of conservation concern in Estonia. A time-limited inventory of all lichen species was carried out in 92 stands (2 ha each) in a balanced design of forests and clear-cuts. Cladonia parasitica (previously considered Regionally Extinct) was present in 13 stands with a total of 33 individual records, almost exclusively in dry boreal old-growth forests and clear-cuts. Thirty-six records of C. norvegica (previously six records) were made in 17 stands, most frequently in mature meso-eutrophic forests. On average, 1·5 hours of inventory were needed to discover C. parasitica in a stand, and 2 hours for C. norvegica. The scarcity of old records was probably due to the low local abundance of the species, their habitats being unpopular among lichenologists and expenditure of too short an inventory time in the field. Using habitat and frequency data, we estimate that the national population sizes of the species clearly exceed those set as IUCN criteria for species at risk. The key issue is the expected trend in substratum abundance, which suggests C. parasitica to be Near Threatened. We recommend stratified random sampling as an efficient method to collect quantitative information for lichen flora assessments.

Keywords

dead woodhabitat requirementshemiboreal forestIUCN Red List criteriathreatened species
Type
Research Article
Information
The Lichenologist , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 61 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © British Lichen Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arup, U., Ekman, S., Kärnefelt, I. & Mattsson, J.-E. (eds) (1997) Red-listed Lichens and Changes in the Lichen Flora of Southwestern Sweden (in Swedish). Lund: SBF-förlaget.Google Scholar
Brodo, I. M., Sharnoff, S. D. & Sharnoff, S. (2001) Lichens of North America. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Cáceres, M. E. S., Lücking, R. & Rambold, G. (2008) Efficiency of sampling methods for accurate estimation of species richness of corticolous microlichens in the Atlantic rainforest of northeastern Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 1285–1301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruso, A. (2008) Lichen diversity on stems, slash and stumps in managed boreal forests. Impact of whole-tree harvest. Ph. D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Dietrich, M., Stofer, S., Scheidegger, C., Frei, M., Groner, U., Keller, C., Roth, I. & Steinmeier, C. (2000) Data sampling of rare and common species for compiling a Red List of epiphytic lichens. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research 75: 369–380.Google Scholar
Edwards, T. C., Jr., Cutler, D. R., Geiser, L., Alegria, J. & McKenzie, D. (2004) Assessing rarity of species with low detectability: lichens in Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications 14: 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, U. (ed) (2005) The 2005 Red List of Swedish Species. Uppsala: ArtDatabanken.Google Scholar
Granbo, J. (1999) Psora globifera in Sweden—a rare lichen only found in Dalsland (in Swedish). Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 93: 201–212.Google Scholar
Hallingbäck, T. (2007) Working with Swedish cryptogam conservation. Biological Conservation 135: 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halonen, P., Kukwa, M., Motiejūnaitė, J., Lõhmus, P. & Martin, L. (2000) Notes on lichens and lichenicolous fungi found during the XIV Symposium of Baltic Mycologists and Lichenologists in Järvselja, Estonia. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 36: 17–21.Google Scholar
Hedenäs, L., Bisang, I., Tehler, A., Hamnede, M., Jaederfeldt, K. & Odelvik, K. (2002) A herbarium-based method for estimates of temporal frequency changes: mosses in Sweden. Biological Conservation 105: 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, M. L., Jr. & Webb, S. L. (2002) Enlisting taxonomists to survey poorly known taxa for bio diversity conservation: a lichen case study. Conservation Biology 16: 660–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jüriado, I., Paal, J. & Liira, J. (2003) Epiphytic and epixylic lichen species diversity in Estonian natural forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1587–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kålås, J.A., Viken, Å. & Bakken, T. (eds) (2006) 2006 Norwegian Red List. Trondheim: Artsdatabanken.Google Scholar
Kuusinen, M., Stenroos, S. & Ahti, T. (1989) Cladonia norvegica and C. incrassata in Finland. Graphis Scripta 2: 128–133.Google Scholar
Lõhmus, A. (2002) The lack of old-growth forest—a threat to Estonian biodiversity. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Biology/Ecology 51: 138–144.Google Scholar
Lõhmus, A. & Lõhmus, P. (2008) First-generation forests are not necessarily worse than long-term managed forests for lichens and bryophytes. Restoration Ecology 16: 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lõhmus, A., Kohv, K., Palo, A. & Viilma, K. (2004) Loss of old-growth, and the minimum need for strictly protected forests in Estonia. Ecological Bulletins 51: 401–412.Google Scholar
Lõhmus, A., Lõhmus, P., Remm, J. & Vellak, K. (2005) Old-growth structural elements in a strict reserve and commercial forest landscape in Estonia. Forest Ecology and Management 216: 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lõhmus, E. (1984) Estonian Forest Site Types (in Estonian). Tallinn: Eesti NSV Agrotööstuskoondise Info- ja juurutusvalitsus.Google Scholar
Lõhmus, P. (2003) Composition and substrata of forest lichens in Estonia: a meta-analysis. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 40: 19–38.Google Scholar
Motiejūnaitė, J. (2005) Distribution of some rare and declining lichen species in lowland eastern and eastern-central Europe. Biologia (Bratislava) 60: 357–363.Google Scholar
Orange, A., James, P. W. & White, F. J. (2001) Microchemical Methods for the Identification of Lichens. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Purvis, O. W., Coppins, B. J., Hawksworth, D. L., James, P. W. & Moore, D. M. (eds) (1992) The Lichen Flora of Great Britain and Ireland. London: Natural History Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Randlane, T. (1998) Red List of Estonian macrolichens. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 32: 75–79.Google Scholar
Randlane, T. & Saag, A. (eds) (1999) Second checklist of lichenized, lichenicolous and allied fungi of Estonia. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 35: 1–132.Google Scholar
Randlane, T., Saag, A. & Suija, A. (2001) Biodiversity of lichenized taxa in Estonia: distribution of rare species. Bibliotheca Lichenologica 82: 99–109.Google Scholar
Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. & Mannerkoski, I. (eds) (2001) The Finnish Red List 2000 (in Finnish). Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus.Google Scholar
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. & Burgman, M. A. (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 12: 618–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santesson, R., Moberg, R., Nordin, A., Tønsberg, T. & Vitikainen, O. (2004) Lichen-forming and Lichenicolous Fungi of Fennoscandia. Uppsala: Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Scheidegger, C. (2003) Erioderma pedicellatum. In IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed on 13 April 2008..+Accessed+on+13+April+2008.>Google Scholar
Scheidegger, C. & Goward, T. (2002) Monitoring lichens for conservation: Red Lists and conservation action plans. In Monitoring with Lichens—Monitoring Lichens (Nimis, P. L., Scheidegger, C. & Wolseley, P. A., eds): 163–181. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serusiaux, E. (1989) Liste Rouge des Macrolichens dans la Communauté Européenne. Liége: Centre des Recherches sur les Lichens.Google Scholar
Siitonen, J. (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecological Bulletins 49: 11–41.Google Scholar
Standards and Petitions Working Group (2006) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 6.1. http://app.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdfGoogle Scholar
Suija, A., Leppik, E., Randlane, T. & Thor, G. (2007 a) New Estonian records. Lichens and lichenicolous fungi. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 43: 73–76.Google Scholar
Suija, A., Lõhmus, P. & Jüriado, I. (2007 b) The lichen biota of the Agusalu and Puhatu reserves (Estonia): the first overview. Forestry Studies 47: 99–116.Google Scholar
Thor, G. (1995) Red Lists—aspects of their compilation and use in lichen conservation. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research 70: 29–39.Google Scholar
Thor, G. (1998) Red-listed lichens in Sweden: habitats, threats, protection, and indicator value in boreal coniferous forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thor, G. & Arvidsson, L. (eds) (1999) Swedish Red Data Book of Lichens (in Swedish with an English summary). Uppsala: ArtDatabanken, SLU.Google Scholar
Timdal, E. (1989) The production of rhodocladonic acid in Cladonia bacilliformis and C. norvegica triggered by the presence of a lichenicolous mite. Graphis Scripta 2: 125–127.Google Scholar
Tønsberg, T. & Holien, H. (1984) Cladonia (sect. Cocciferae) norvegica, a new lichen species. Nordic Journal of Botany 4: 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tõrra, T. & Randlane, T. (2007) The lichen genus Usnea (lichenized Ascomycetes, Parmeliaceae) in Estonia with keys to the species in the Baltic countries. Lichenologist 39: 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trass, H. & Randlane, T. (eds) (1994) Macrolichens of Estonia (in Estonian). Tartu.Google Scholar
Zavarzin, A. A., Katerina, O. A., Kotlov, Yu. V. & Sokolova, S. V. (1999) Lichens of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region. In Biodiversity of the Leningrad region (Balashova, N. B. & Zavarzin, A. A. eds): 208–260. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.Google Scholar