Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:50:09.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lack of congruence between terrestrial and epiphytic lichen strata in boreal forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2021

Robert J. Smith Open the ORCID record for Robert J. Smith [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarah Jovan  and
Susan Will-Wolf
Robert J. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, 2082 Cordley Hall, Oregon State University, CorvallisOR97331, USA
Sarah Jovan
Affiliation:
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, PortlandOR97205, USA
Susan Will-Wolf
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Wisconsin, 430 Lincoln Drive, MadisonWI53711, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Robert J. Smith. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lichens occupy diverse substrates across tremendous ranges of environmental variation. In boreal forests, lichen communities co-occur in ‘strata’ defined by terrestrial or arboreal substrates, but these strata may or may not be interchangeable as bioindicators. Do co-occurring lichen strata have similar community structures and environmental responses? Could one stratum serve as a proxy for the other? We assessed variation in species richness and community compositions between ground-layer versus epiphyte-layer lichen strata in boreal forests and peatlands of interior Alaska. Species richness was lower and more spatially structured in the ground layer than the epiphyte layer. Richness of strata was not correlated. The most compositionally unique ground-layer communities were species-poor but contained regionally rare species not common in other plots. Variation in community compositions (ordination scores) were not congruent between strata (Procrustes congruence < 0.16 on 0–1 scale); the largest departures from congruence occurred where ground layers were species-poor. The best predictors of ground-layer community compositions were hydrological and topographic, whereas epiphytes were most associated with macroclimate and tree abundances. We conclude that lichens on different substrates ‘move in different circles’: compositional gradients did not agree and the environmental gradients most important to each lichen stratum were not the same. The conditions which strongly influence one vegetation stratum may have little bearing upon another. As global changes modify habitats, an incremental change in environment may lead community trajectories to diverge among lichen strata.

Keywords

Alaskacommunity compositionsdiversityglobal changessubstrate specificity
Type
Standard Papers
Information
The Lichenologist , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 149 - 158
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Lichen Society

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

Aptroot, A and van Herk, CM (2007) Further evidence of the effects of global warming on lichens, particularly those with Trentepohlia phycobionts. Environmental Pollution 146, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, RA (2015) The influence of environmental factors on the growth of lichens in the field. In Upreti, DK, Divakar, PK, Shukla, V and Bajpai, R (eds), Recent Advances in Lichenology: Modern Methods and Approaches in Biomonitoring and Bioprospection, Volume 1. New Delhi: Springer India, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Barkman, JJ (1958) Phytosociology and Ecology of Cryptogamic Epiphytes. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Barlow, J, Gardner, TA, Araujo, IS, Ávila-Pires, TC, Bonaldo, AB, Costa, JE, Esposito, MC, Ferreira, LV, Hawes, J, Hernandez, MIM, et al. (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 18555–18560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergamini, A, Scheidegger, C, Stofer, S, Carvalho, P, Davey, S, Dietrich, M, Dubs, F, Farkas, E, Groner, U, Kärkkäinen, K, et al. (2005) Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition. Conservation Biology 19, 1051–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreault, C, Drapeau, P, Bouchard, M, St-Laurent, MH, Imbeau, L and Bergeron, Y (2015) Contrasting responses of epiphytic and terricolous lichens to variations in forest characteristics in northern boreal ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 45, 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, SP (1975) A comparison of the beta diversity functions of the overstory and herbaceous understory of a deciduous forest. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 102, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodo, IM (1973) Substrate ecology. In Ahmadjian, V and Hale, ME (eds), The Lichens. New York: Academic Press, pp. 401–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruso, A, Rudolphi, J and Thor, G (2008) Lichen species diversity and substrate amounts in young planted boreal forests: a comparison between slash and stumps of Picea abies. Biological Conservation 141, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, FS, McGuire, AD, Ruess, RW, Hollingsworth, TN, Mack, MC, Johnstone, JF, Kasischke, ES, Euskirchen, ES, Jones, JB, Jorgenson, MT, et al. (2010) Resilience of Alaska's boreal forest to climatic change. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40, 1360–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, KR and Ainsworth, M (1993) A method of linking multivariate community structure to environmental variables. Marine Ecology Progress Series 92, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crittenden, PD (1991) Ecological significance of necromass production in mat-forming lichens. Lichenologist 23, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crittenden, PD (2000) Aspects of the ecology of mat-forming lichens. Rangifer 20, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crittenden, PD, Ellis, CJ, Vogt, KA and Boddy, L (2012) Editorial. Fungal Ecology 5, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Moral, R and Watson, AF (1978) Gradient structure of forest vegetation in the central Washington cascades. Vegetatio 38, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorey, JE, Lendemer, JC and Naczi, RFC (2018) Patterns of biodiverse, understudied groups do not mirror those of the surrogate groups that set conservation priorities: a case study from the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain of eastern North America. Biodiversity and Conservation 27, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, CJ, Eaton, S, Theodoropoulos, M, Coppins, BJ, Seaward, MRD and Simkin, J (2014) Response of epiphytic lichens to 21st Century climate change and tree disease scenarios. Biological Conservation 180, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esslinger, TL (2018) A cumulative checklist for the lichen-forming, lichenicolous and allied fungi of the continental United States and Canada, version 22. Opuscula Philolichenum 17, 6–268.Google Scholar
Ferrenberg, S, Reed, SC and Belnap, J (2015) Climate change and physical disturbance cause similar community shifts in biological soil crusts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, 12116–12121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FIA [Forest Inventory and Analysis Program] (2012) Forest Inventory and Analysis Fiscal Year Business Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Google Scholar
Gaya, E, Fernández-Brime, S, Vargas, R, Lachlan, RF, Gueidan, C, Ramírez-Mejía, M and Lutzoni, F (2015) The adaptive radiation of lichen-forming Teloschistaceae is associated with sunscreening pigments and a bark-to-rock substrate shift. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112, 11600–11605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glauser, AL (2018) Contrasting epiphytic and ground layer macrolichen communities along the coast-to-inland climatic gradient in Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University.Google Scholar
Gower, JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GRASS Development Team (2019) Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) Software, Version 7.6. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. [WWW resource] URL http://grass.osgeo.org. [Accessed 31 October 2019].Google Scholar
Heino, J (2010) Are indicator groups and cross-taxon congruence useful for predicting biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems? Ecological Indicators 10, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, EA and Miller, SW (2010) Bioindicators: using organisms to measure environmental impacts. Nature Education Knowledge 3, 1–8.Google Scholar
Hyvärinen, M and Crittenden, PD (1998) Relationships between atmospheric nitrogen inputs and the vertical nitrogen and phosphorus concentration gradients in the lichen Cladonia portentosa. New Phytologist 140, 519–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jasiewicz, J and Stepinski, TF (2013) Geomorphons – a pattern recognition approach to classification and mapping of landforms. Geomorphology 182, 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jovan, S, Haldeman, M, Will-Wolf, S, Dillman, K, Geiser, L, Thompson, J and Hollinger, J (2020) National Atlas of Epiphytic Lichens in Forested Habitats, USA. Portland, Oregon: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
Kantvilas, G and Jarman, SJ (2006) Recovery of lichens after logging: preliminary results from Tasmania's wet forests. Lichenologist 38, 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J (1964) Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B (1993) Gradients in epiphyte biomass in three Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forests of different ages in western Oregon and Washington. Bryologist 96, 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B and Antos, JA (1981) Correlations between forest layers in the Swan Valley, Montana. Ecology 62, 1196–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B and Keon, D (2002) Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load. Journal of Vegetation Science 13, 603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, JED, Root, HT and Safford, HD (2018) Altered fire regimes cause long-term lichen diversity losses. Global Change Biology 24, 4909–4918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mucina, L, Bültmann, H, Dierßen, K, Theurillat, JP, Raus, T, Čarni, A, Šumberová, K, Willner, W, Dengler, J, García, RG, et al. (2016) Vegetation of Europe: hierarchical floristic classification system of vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and algal communities. Applied Vegetation Science 19, 3–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nascimbene, J, Dainese, M and Sitzia, T (2013) Contrasting responses of epiphytic and dead wood-dwelling lichen diversity to forest management abandonment in silver fir mature woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management 289, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, J, Blanchet, FG, Friendly, M, Kindt, R, Legendre, P, McGlinn, DJ, Minchin, PR, O'Hara, RB, Simpson, GL, Solymos, P, et al. (2019) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-5. [WWW resource] URL https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan. [Accessed 31 October 2019].Google Scholar
Pattison, R, Andersen, HE, Gray, A, Schulz, B, Smith, RJ and Jovan, S (2018) Forests of the Tanana Valley State Forest and Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska: Results of the 2014 Pilot Inventory. Portland, Oregon: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
Peres-Neto, PR and Jackson, DA (2001) How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia 129, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pharo, EJ and Beattie, AJ (2002) The association between substrate variability and bryophyte and lichen diversity in eastern Australian forests. Bryologist 105, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharo, EJ, Beattie, AJ and Binns, D (1999) Vascular plant diversity as a surrogate for bryophyte and lichen diversity. Conservation Biology 13, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phinney, NH, Solhaug, KA and Gauslaa, Y (2019) Photobiont-dependent humidity threshold for chlorolichen photosystem-II activation. Planta 250, 2023–2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team (2019) R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.5.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [WWW resource] URL https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Resl, P, Fernández-Mendoza, F, Mayrhofer, H and Spribille, T (2018) The evolution of fungal substrate specificity in a widespread group of crustose lichens. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 285, 20180640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinhardt, RD (1992) Disparate distribution patterns between canopy and subcanopy life-forms in two temperate North American forests. Vegetatio 103, 67–77.Google Scholar
Sabatini, FM, Burrascano, S, Azzella, MM, Barbati, A, De Paulis, S, Di Santo, D, Facioni, L, Giuliarelli, D, Lombardi, F, Maggi, O, et al. (2016) One taxon does not fit all: herb-layer diversity and stand structural complexity are weak predictors of biodiversity in Fagus sylvatica forests. Ecological Indicators 69, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagers, CL and Lyon, J (1997) Gradient analysis in a riparian landscape: contrasts among forest layers. Forest Ecology and Management 96, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santaniello, F, Djupström, LB, Ranius, T, Weslien, J, Rudolphi, J and Thor, G (2017) Large proportion of wood dependent lichens in boreal pine forest are confined to old hard wood. Biodiversity and Conservation 26, 1295–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RJ and Gray, AN (2019) Combining potentially incompatible community datasets when harmonizing forest inventories in subarctic Alaska, USA. Journal of Vegetation Science 30, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RJ, Nelson, PR, Jovan, S, Hanson, PJ and McCune, B (2018) Novel climates reverse carbon uptake of atmospherically dependent epiphytes: climatic constraints on the iconic boreal forest lichen Evernia mesomorpha. American Journal of Botany 105, 266–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stehn, SE and Roland, CA (2018) Concordant community similarity patterns across functional groups in subarctic plant assemblages. Ecosphere 9, e02181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulyma, R and Coxson, DS (2001) Microsite displacement of terrestrial lichens by feather moss mats in late seral pine-lichen woodlands of north-central British Columbia. Bryologist 104, 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turetsky, MR, Donahue, WF and Benscoter, BW (2011) Experimental drying intensifies burning and carbon losses in a northern peatland. Nature Communications 2, 514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vondrák, J and Liška, J (2010) Changes in distribution and substrate preferences of selected threatened lichens in the Czech Republic. Biologia 65, 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, T, Hamann, A, Spittlehouse, D and Carroll, C (2016) Locally downscaled and spatially customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS ONE 11, e0156720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westgate, MJ, Barton, PS, Lane, PW and Lindenmayer, DB (2014) Global meta-analysis reveals low consistency of biodiversity congruence relationships. Nature Communications 5, 3899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williamson, MH (1978) The ordination of incidence data. Journal of Ecology 66, 911–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolters, V, Bengtsson, J and Zaitsev, AS (2006) Relationship among the species richness of different taxa. Ecology 87, 1886–1895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed