Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 329–339

Factors affecting population size and vitality of Hamatocaulis vernicosus (Mitt.) Hedenäs (Calliergonaceae, Musci)

Original Paper

Abstract

Hamatocaulis vernicosus, a rare moss species, was monitored in 33 fens in the Czech Republic for five to six years. Population size, vitality and trends of population development were recorded. Water chemistry, water level fluctuation, vegetation type and cover, as well as mowing regime were assessed and the effect of these potential predictors on the species populations was examined. Populations of H. vernicosus were affected mainly by the density of vascular plants, the species thrived best in habitats with sparse herb and abundant “brown moss” cover. Other important factors included water table fluctuation and water concentration of iron. Populations were more vital and prospered better in sites with a stable water table and more iron-rich conditions. Dependence of population parameters on other measured characteristics of water chemistry was not detected.

Keywords

Bryophytes Fens Management pH Water chemistry 

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 19:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer IE, Tirlea D, Bhatti JS, Errington RC (2007) Environmental and biotic controls on bryophyte productivity along forest to peatland ecotones. Can J Bot 85:463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belyea LR (1999) A novel indicator of reducing conditions and water-table depth in mires. Funct Ecol 13:431–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergamini A, Peintinger M, Fakheran S, Moradi H, Schmid B, Joshi J (2009) Loss of habitat specialist despite conservation management in fen remnants 1995–2006. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 11:65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bragazza L, Gerdol R (1999) Ecological gradients in some Sphagnum mires in the southeastern Alps (Italy). Appl Veg Sci 2:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers JM, Hastie TJ (1992) Statistical models in S. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The Council of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerdol R, Siffi CH, Bombonato L (2010) Aboveground production and nutrient status of the vegetation of different mire types in the South-eastern Alps (Italy). Bot Helv 120:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glime JM, Wetzel RG, Kennedy BJ (1982) The effects of bryophytes on succession from alkaline marsh to Sphagnum bog. Am Midl Nat 108:209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hájek M, Hekera P (2004) Can seasonal variation in fen water chemistry influence the reliability of vegetation-environment analyses? Preslia 76:1–14Google Scholar
  11. Hájek M, Horsák M, Hájková P, Dítě D (2006) Habitat diversity of central European fens in relation to environmental gradients and an effort to standardise fen terminology in ecological studies. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 8:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hájková P, Hájek M, Kintrová K (2009) How can we effectively restore species richness and natural composition of a Molinia-invaded fen? J Appl Ecol 46:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hedenäs L, Eldenäs P (2007) Cryptic speciation, habitat differentiation, and geography in Hamatocaulis vernicosus (Calliergonaceae, Bryophyta). Plant Syst Evol 268:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hedenäs L, Kooijman AM (1996) Phylogeny and habitat adaptations within a monophyletic group of wetland moss genera (Amblystegiaceae). Plant Syst Evol 199:33–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janssens JA (1983) Past and extant distribution of Drepanocladus in North America with notes on the differentiation of fossil fragments. J Hattori Bot Lab 54:251–298Google Scholar
  16. Kooijman AM (1992) The decrease of rich-fen bryophytes in the Netherlands. Biol Conserv 35:139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kooijman AM (1993) On the ecological amplitude of four mire bryophytes: a reciprocal transplant experiment. Lindbergia 18:19–24Google Scholar
  18. Kooijman AM, Hedenäs L (2009) Changes in nutrient availability from calcareous to acid wetland habitats with closely related brown moss species: increase instead of decrease in N and P. Plant Soil 324:267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mälson K, Rydin H (2007) The regeneration capabilities of bryophytes for rich fen restoration. Biol Conserv 135:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Navrátilová J, Hájek M (2005) Recording relative water table depth using PVC tape discolouration: advantages and constraints in fens. Appl Veg Sci 8:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Navrátilová J, Navrátil J (2005) Vegetation gradients in fishpond mires in relation to seasonal fluctuations in environmental factors. Preslia 77:405–418Google Scholar
  22. Paulissen MPCP, Van der Ven PJM, Dees AJ, Bobbink R (2004) Differential effects of nitrate and ammonium on three fen bryophyte species in relation to pollutant nitrogen input. New Phytol 164:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paulissen MPCP, Besalú LE, Bruin H, Van der Ven PJM, Bobbink R (2005) Contrasting effects of ammonium enrichment on fen bryophytes. J Bryol 27:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Štechová T, Kučera J (2007) The requirements of the rare moss, Hamatocaulis vernicosus (Calliergonaceae, Musci), in the Czech Republic in relation to vegetation, water chemistry and management. Biol Conserv 135:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Štechová T, Štech M (2007) Ohrožené mechorosty rašelinišť České republiky [The endangered bryophytes of mires of the Czech Republic]. Zprávy ČBS, Materiály 22:113–117Google Scholar
  27. Štechová T, Štech M (2009) Lokality Hamatocaulis vernicosus (Mitt.) Hedenäs (Calliergonaceae, Bryophyta) na Českomoravské vrchovině. [Recent localities of Hamatocaulis vernicosus on the Bohemian-Moravian Highlands]. Acta rerum nat 6:13–24Google Scholar
  28. Štechová T, Hájek M, Hájková P, Navrátilová J (2008) Comparison of habitat requirements of the mosses Hamatocaulis vernicosus, Scorpidium cossonii and Warnstorfia exannulata in different parts of temperate Europe. Preslia 80:399–410Google Scholar
  29. Štechová T, Holá E, Manukjanová A, Mikulášková E (2010) Distribution and habitat requirements of the moss Hamatocaulis vernicosus (Mitt.) Hedenäs in the Bohemian Forest. Silva Gabreta 16:1–11Google Scholar
  30. Tahvanainen T, Sallantaus T, Heikkilä R (2003) Seasonal variation of water chemical gradients in three boreal fens. Ann Bot Fenn 40:345–355Google Scholar
  31. Tolasz R (2007) Climate atlas of Czechia. Czech hydrometerogical institut and Palacký University Olomouc, OlomoucGoogle Scholar
  32. Venterink HO, Kardel I, Kotowski W, Peeters W, Wassen MJ (2009) Long-term effects of drainage and hay-removal on nutrient dynamics and limitation in the Biebrza mires, Poland. Biogeochemistry 93:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vitt DH, Wieder K (2008) The structure and function of bryophyte-dominated peatlands. In: Goffinet B, Shaw AJ (eds) Bryophyte biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–391Google Scholar
  34. Zohlen A, Tyler G (2000) Imobilization of tissue iron on calcareous soil: differences between calcicole and calcifuge plants. Oikos 89:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Táňa Štechová
    • 1
  • Jan Kučera
    • 1
  • Petr Šmilauer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations