Advertisement

Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 175–190 | Cite as

Presence of bark influences the succession of cryptogamic wood-inhabiting communities on conifer fallen logs

  • Helena Kushnevskaya
  • Ekaterina Shorohova
Article

Abstract

Predictors of cryptogamic wood-inhabiting communities need to be examined to understand the drivers of forest biodiversity. We estimated the influence of bark cover on the wood-inhabiting vegetation on conifer logs in early stages of epixylic succession in mature European boreal and hemi-boreal forests. Abundance of substrate groups with respect to log attributes was estimated with generalized linear and generalized linear mixed models. The structure and composition of epixylic communities was analysed using non-metric multidimensional scaling with subsequent environmental fitting. The abundance of true epixylics was inversely related to bark cover. In the first stage, bark cover did not influence the abundance of epiphytes and epigeous species; positively influenced the abundance of facultative epixylics on spruce logs and negatively influenced it on pine logs. In the second stage, the effect of bark cover was positive for epiphytes and epigeous species on spruce logs and for facultative epixylics independent of log species identity and negative for epigeous species on pine logs. Generalist species did not depend on bark cover. Total cover of wood-inhabiting vegetation was marginally influenced by bark cover. The effect of bark cover on epixylic vegetation at community level was negligible. In general, bark cover favours the establishment and growth of species with low substrate specificity. This preference may lead to either burial of logs by epigeous bryophytes, or facilitation of succession towards the dominance of ground vegetation.

Keywords

Decay Decomposition Deadwood Coarse Woody debris Bryophytes Log diameter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Data analysis and preparation of the manuscript were supported by the Russian Science Foundation (15-14-10023). The fieldwork was financially supported by WWF, Saint-Petersburg State University, Russian Foundation for Basic Research (06-04-48549), Finnish Forest Research Institute. Ilkka Vahna-Majamaa, Denis Mirin, Aleksandr Kozykin and Kaija Puputti helped with organization of fieldwork. Dmitry Gimmelbrant, Irina Stepanchikova and Natalia Glushkovskaya helped in identifying lichen specimens. The map was created by Veronika Voronina. We thank Eugene Borovichev and Denis Mirin for valuable comments on the manuscript. Carla Burton revised the language. The comments from the editor and two reviewers significantly improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Aakala T (2010) Coarse woody debris in late-successional Picea abies forests in northern Europe: Variability in quantities and models of decay class dynamics. Forest Ecol Managem 260:770–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson L, Hytteborn H (1991) Bryophytes and decaying wood – a comparison between managed and natural forest. Holarc Ecol 2:121–130Google Scholar
  3. Andersson L, Alexeeva M, Kuznetsova E (eds) (2009) Survey of biologically valuable forests in North-Western European Russia. Vol. 2. Identification manual of species to be used during survey at stand level. Saint-PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  4. Botting RS, DeLong C (2009) Macrolichen and bryophyte responses to coarse woody debris characteristics in sub-boreal spruce forest. Forest Ecol Managem 258:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Culberson WL (1955) The corticolous communities of lichens and bryophytes in the upland forests of northern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 25: 215-231 Sorry, it was a misspelling. Correct name is CulbersonGoogle Scholar
  6. Dynesius M, Gibb H, Hjältén J (2010) Surface covering of downed logs: Drivers of a neglected process in dead wood ecology PLoS ONE 5, 10 e 13237Google Scholar
  7. Hagemann U, Moroni MT, Gleibner J Makeschin F (2010) Accumulation and preservation of dead wood upon burial by bryophytes. Ecosystems 13:600–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harmon ME (1989) Effects of bark fragmentation on plant succession on conifer logs in the Picea-Tsuga forest of Olympic National Park. Amer Midl Naturalist 121:112–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heilmann-Clausen J, Aude E, van Dort K, Christensen M, Piltaver A, Veerkamp M, Walleyn R, Siller I, Standovár T, Òdor P. (2014) Communities of wood-inhabiting bryophytes and fungi on dead beech logs in Europe - reflecting substrate quality or shaped by climate and forest conditions? J Biogeogr 41:2269–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ignatov M, Afonina O; Ignatova E (2006) Check-list of mosses of East Europe and North Asia. Arctoa 15:1–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ignatov M and Ignatova E (2003) Moss flora of the Middle European Russia Vol 1: Sphagnaceae – Hedwigiaceae. KMK, Moscow [in Russian]Google Scholar
  12. Ignatov M, Ignatova E (2004) Moss flora of the Middle European Russia Vol 2: Fontinalaceae – Amblistegiaceae. KMK, Moscow [in Russian]Google Scholar
  13. Jansová I and Soldán Z (2006) The habitat factors that affect the composition of bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs. Preslia 78:67–86Google Scholar
  14. Kharpukhaeva TM, Mukhortova LV (2016) Dynamics of Interaction between Lichens and Fallen Deadwood in Forest Ecosystems of the Eastern Baikal Region Contemporary Problems of Ecology 9: 125-139Google Scholar
  15. Konstantinova NA, Bakalin VA., Andreeva EN. et al. Checklist of liverworts (Marchantiophyta) of Russia 2009. Arctoa 18:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kurbatova L (2002) Mosses of the Leningrad Province. Dissertation, Komarov’ Bot. Inst. [in Russian]Google Scholar
  17. Kushnevskaya H, Mirin D, Shorohova E (2007) Patterns of epixylic vegetation on spruce logs in late-successional boreal forests. Forest Ecol Managem 250:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kushnevskaya E (2012) Epixylic successions in Norway spruce forests in Leningrad region. Bot Zhurn (Moscow & Leningrad) 97:917–939 [in Russian]Google Scholar
  19. Kushnevskaya E, Potemkin A (2014) The liverworts of the eastern Leningrad region. Bot Zhurn (Moscow & Leningrad) 99:23–34 [in Russian]Google Scholar
  20. McAlister S. (1997) Cryptogam communities on fallen logs in the Duke Forest. North Carolina. J Veg Sci 8:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCullough HA, (1948) Plant successions on fallen logs in a virgin spruce-fir forest. Ecology 29: 508–513Google Scholar
  22. Mills SE, Macdonald SE (2004) Predictors of moss and liverwort species diversity of microsites in conifer-dominated boreal forest. J Veg Sci 15:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muhle H, LeBlanc F (1975) Bryophyte and lichen succession on decaying logs. 1. Analysis along an evaporational gradient in eastern Canada. J Hattori Bot Lab 39:1–33Google Scholar
  24. Müller J, Boch S, Blaser S, Fischer M, and Prati D (2015) Effects of forest management on bryophyte communities on deadwood. Nova Hedwigia 100:423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ódor P, Heilmann-Clausen J, Christensen M, Aude E, van Dort KW, Piltaver A, Siller I, Veerkamp MT, Walleyn R, Standovár T, van Hees AFM, Kosec J, Matočec N, Kraigher H, Grebenc T (2006) Diversity of dead wood inhabiting fungi and bryophytes in semi-natural beech forests in Europe. Biol Conservation 131:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ódor P, van Hees AFM (2004) Preferences of dead wood inhabiting bryophytes to decay phase, log size and habitat types in Hungarian beech forests. J Bryol 26:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oksanen J, Blanchet GF, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MH, Wagner H (2013) Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-10Google Scholar
  28. Palmer MW (1986) Pattern in corticolous bryophyte communities of North Carolina piedmont: Do mosses see the forest or the trees? Bryologist 89:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perhans K, Gustafsson L, Jonsson F, Nordin U, Weibull H (2007) Bryophytes and lichens in different types of forest set-asides in boreal Sweden. Forest Ecol Managem 242:374–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potemkin AD, Sofronova EV (2009) Liverworts and hornworts of Russia. Boton-Spectr, Saint-Petersburg – Yakutsk [in Russian]Google Scholar
  31. Preikša Z, Brazaitis G, Marozas V, Jaroszewicz B (2016) Dead wood quality influences species diversity of rare cryptogams in temperate broadleaved forests. iForest 9:276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rambo TR, Muir PS (1998) Bryophyte species associations with coarse woody debris and stand ages in Oregon. Bryologist 101:366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rysin L, Savelieva L (2002) Spruce forests of Russia. Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  34. Santesson R, Moberg R., Nordin A, Tønsberg T, Vitikainen O (2004) Lichen-forming and lichenicolous fungi of Fennoscandia. Museum of Evolution, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. Shorohova E, Shorohov A (2001) Coarse woody debris dynamics and stores in a boreal virgin spruce forest. Ecol Bull 49:129–137Google Scholar
  36. Shorohova E, Kapitsa E (2014) Influence of the substrate and ecosystem attributes on the decomposition rates of coarse woody debris in European boreal forests. Forest Ecol Managem 356:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shorohova E, Kapitsa E (2015) Stand and landscape scale variability in the amount and diversity of coarse woody debris in primeval European boreal forests. For Ecol Managem 315: 185–190Google Scholar
  38. Siitonen J (2001) Forest management, coarse woody debris and saproxylic organisms: Fennoscandian boreal forests as an example. Ecol Bull 49:11–41Google Scholar
  39. Söderström L (1988) Sequence of bryophytes and lichens in relation to substrate variables of decaying coniferous wood in Northern Sweden. Nordic J Bot 8:89–97Google Scholar
  40. Shorohova E, Kapitsa E, Kazartsev I, Romashkin I, Polevoi A, Kushnevskaya H (2016) Tree species traits are the predominant control on the decomposition rate of tree log bark in a mesic old-growth boreal forest Forest Ecology and Management 337: 36-45Google Scholar
  41. Söderström L, Hagborg A, von Konrat M, Bartholomew-Began S, Bell D, Briscoe L, Brown E, Cargill DC, Costa DP, Crandall-Stotler BJ, Cooper ED, Dauphin G, Engel JJ, Feldberg K, Glenny D, Gradstein SR, He X, Heinrichs J, Hentschel J, Ilkiu-Borges AL, Katagiri T, Konstantinova NA, Larraín J, Long DG, Nebel M, Pócs T, Felisa Puche F, Reiner-Drehwald E, Renner MAM, Sass-Gyarmati A, Schäfer-Verwimp A, Moragues JGS, Stotler RE, Sukkharak P, Thiers BM, Uribe J, Váňa J, Villarreal JC, Wigginton M, Zhang L, Zhu R-L (2016) World checklist of hornworts and liverworts. PhytoKeys. Vol. 59, pp 1–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taborská M, Přívĕtivý T, Vrška T, Ódor P (2015) Bryophytes associated with two tree species and different stages of decay in a natural fir-beech mixed forest in the Czech Republic. Preslia 87:387–401Google Scholar
  43. Thorn S, Bässler, C, Bußler H, Lindenmayer D, Schmidt S, Seibold S, Wende B, Müller J (2016) Bark-scratching of storm-felled trees preserves biodiversity at lower economic costs compared to debarking. Forest Ecol Managem 364:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ulyshen MD (2016) Wood decomposition as influenced by invertebrates. Biol Rev 91:70–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Research Institute of the Karelian Research CentreRussian Academy of SciencePetrozavodskRussia
  2. 2.Saint-Petersburg State UniversitySt PetersburgRussia
  3. 3.Saint-Petersburg State Forest Technical UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia
  4. 4.Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations