4.6 Article

Vertical distribution of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens emphasizes the importance of old beeches in conservation

Journal

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 289-304

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9483-4

Keywords

Biskopstorp; Fagus sylvatica; Red-listed species; Southern Sweden; Species of conservation concern; Substrate quality; Tree age

Funding

  1. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During storms in 2005, a number of beech trees fell over at Biskopstorp, SW Sweden, offering the opportunity to study epiphytes along entire stems. In total 16 beech trees in four beech stands representing three different age classes were included. For each tree, 2 m segments from the base to the top were surveyed. In total 115 species were found (76 lichens, 39 bryophytes), of which 30 were considered to be of conservation concern (22 lichens, 8 bryophytes). For lichens significantly more species were recorded above 2 m in height, whereas more bryophytes were recorded below 2 m in height. Certain red-listed lichens were recorded only above 2 m in height on old trees. In a second data set from the same area 140 age-determined beech trees were surveyed for species of conservation concern at the heights 0-2 and 2-5 m, respectively. These species were found almost exclusively on old beech trees, and presence at 2-5 m was recorded, with one exception, only on those trees which also had species of conservation concern at 0-2 m. Records of these species correlated significantly to microhabitat variables, i.e. the presence of rough bark and moss cover higher up the stems on the old trees. This study indicates that surveying only the base in really old beech forests can underestimate both the number of species of conservation concern and their population sizes. However, surveys restricted to the base in rather even-aged beech stands catch a large proportion of the trees with species of conservation concern.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available