Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1095–1114 | Cite as

Can large unmanaged trees replace ancient pollarded trees as habitats for lichenized fungi, non-lichenized fungi and bryophytes?

  • Björn Nordén
  • John Bjarne Jordal
  • Marianne Evju
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forest and plantation biodiversity

Abstract

Management of ancient trees constitutes a major dilemma in the conservation of associated biodiversity. While traditional methods are often advocated, such practices may incur considerable costs and their effects have rarely been scientifically evaluated. We compared the communities of lichenized fungi, non-lichenized fungi, and bryophytes among equal number of coarse previously pollarded and unmanaged trees (n = 340). On 400 Ulmus glabra and 280 Fraxinus excelsior trees at 62 sites in Norway, we found 209 lichenized fungi, 128 non-lichenized fungi, and 115 bryophytes. Pollarded trees were richer in microhabitats than unmanaged trees and had significantly higher richness of bryophytes (ash) and non-lichenized fungi (ash and elm), the latter increasing with the availability of dead wood, cavities and coarse bark structure in pollarded trees. Further, the average total number of red-listed species, and red-listed lichenized fungi separately, were significantly higher on pollarded versus unmanaged trees, with diversity related to trunk circumference, depth of bark fissures and number of cavities. Our results underline the importance of microhabitats associated with old trees, but we cannot establish with certainty the importance of pollarding per se. Since we did not find any negative effect of canopy cover for community diversity, we assume that old trees with rich epiphytic communities can develop without management intervention. The high share (37 out of 49) of red-listed species occurring on unmanaged trees, and the fact that 11 red-listed species were found exclusively on unmanaged trees, may further indicate that unmanaged trees can with time replace the ancient pollarded trees as habitats for rich cryptogamic communities.

Keywords

Temperate deciduous forest Broad-leaf forest Wood-decaying fungi Bark-living fungi Ecological restoration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We carried out the fieldwork as part of the project ‘Areas for red-listed species—survey and monitoring’ (ARKO), subproject ‘Old temperate deciduous trees’ funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency and performed at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA). BN thanks NINA for funding ‘free research time’ to write this paper. The Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre supported part of the fieldwork through a grant (project ‘Pyrenomycetes (Sordariomycetes and similar fungi) in temperate deciduous forests of southern and western Norway to BN. We thank Håkon Holien (Steinkjer), Tor Tønsberg (Bergen), Per Magnus Jørgensen (Bergen), Einar Timdal (Oslo), Göran Thor (Uppsala), and Othmar Breuss (Wien) for confirmination of some specimens of lichenized fungi, and Hans H. Blom (Bergen); Kristian Hassel (Trondheim), Torbjørn Høitomt (Oslo), og Perry G. Larssen (Ålesund) for help with bryophytes. Thomas Læssøe (København), Jacques Fournier (Las Muros), Karen Hansen (Stockholm), Hans-Otto Baral (Tübingen) and Hanna Tuovila (Jyväskylä) confirmed or determined some specimens of non-lichenized ascomycetes, and Slava Spirin (Helsinki) and Karl Henrik Larsson (Oslo) assisted with basidiomycetes. Finally, we wish to thank the landowners who gave permissions for the surveys and in many cases assisted us with information during the fieldwork.’

Supplementary material

10531_2017_1482_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Online App. A (DOCX 20 kb)
10531_2017_1482_MOESM2_ESM.docx (79 kb)
Online App. B (DOCX 78 kb)
10531_2017_1482_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Online App. C (DOCX 14 kb)
10531_2017_1482_MOESM4_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Online App. D (DOCX 17 kb)
10531_2017_1482_MOESM5_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Online App. E (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. Austad I (1988) Tree pollarding in W Norway. In: Birks HH, Birks HJB, Kaland PE, Moe D (eds) The cultural landscape, past, present and future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–29Google Scholar
  2. Barkman JJ (1958) Phytosociology and ecology of cryptogamic epiphytes: including a taxonomic survey and description of their vegetation units in Europe. Van Gorcum, AssenGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergendorff C, Emanuelsson U (1996) History and traces of coppicing and pollarding in Scania, South Sweden. In: Slotte H, Göransson H (eds) Lövtäkt och stubbskottsbruk II. Stockholm, Kungl. Skogs- och Lantbruksakademien, pp 235–304Google Scholar
  5. Bernes C, Jonsson BG, Junninen K, Lõhmus A, Macdonald E, Müller J, Sandström J (2015) What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests set asides for conservation or restoration? A systematic map. Environ Evid 4:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro A, De Murguia LM, Fernandez J, Casis A, Molino-Olmedo F (2012) Size and quality of wood used by Rosalia alpina (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in beech woodlands of Gipuzkoa (northern Spain). Munibe 60:77–100Google Scholar
  7. Clark J, May R (2002) Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science (N Y) 297(5579):191–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fritz Ö, Heilmann-Clausen J (2010) Rot holes create key microhabitats for epiphytic lichens and bryophytes on beech (Fagus sylvatica). Biol Conserv 143:1008–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritz Ö, Niklasson M, Churski M (2009) Tree age is a key factor for the conservation of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests. Appl Veg Sci 12:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Götmark F (2013) Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manag 306:292–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hallingbäck T (2016) Mossor en fältguide. NaturcentrumGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen L, Knudsen H (eds) (1997) Nordic Macromycetes (Vol 3) Heterobasidioid, Aphyllophoroid, Gasteromycetoid Basidiomycetes. Nordsvamp, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen L, Knudsen H (eds) (2000) Nordic Macromycetes (Vol 1) Ascomycetes. Nordsvamp, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. Henriksen S, Hilmo O (eds) (2015) Norsk rødliste for arter 2015. Artsdatabanken, NorgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Höjer O, Hultengren S (2004) Åtgärdsprogram för särskilt skyddsvärda träd i kulturlandskapet (Rapport/Naturvårdsverket, 5411). Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm (in Swedish with English summary) Google Scholar
  17. Johansson V, Ranius T, Snäll T (2014) Development of secondary woodland decreases epiphyte metapopulation sizes in wooded grasslands. Biol Conserv 172:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jönsson MT, Thor G, Johansson P (2011) Environmental and historical effects on lichen diversity in managed and unmanaged wooded meadows. Appl Veg Sci 14:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knudsen H, Vesterholt J (eds) (2012) Funga Nordica. Agaricoid, boletoid, clavarioid, cyphelloid and gastroid genera, 2nd edn. Nordsvamp, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  20. Lang P, Jeschke M, Wommelsdorf T, Backes T, Lv C, Zhang X, Frank MT (2015) Wood harvest by pollarding exerts long-term effects on Populus euphratica stands in riparian forests at the Tarim River, NW China. For Ecol Manag 353:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leppik E, Jueriado I, Liira J (2011) Changes in stand structure due to the cessation of traditional land use in wooded meadows impoverish epiphytic lichen communities. Lichenologist 43:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lonsdale D (ed) (2013) Ancient and other veteran trees: further guidance on management. The Tree Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansion D (2010) Les trognes—l’arbre paysan aux mille usages. Editions Ouest-France, RennesGoogle Scholar
  24. Mežaka A, Brūmelis G, Piterāns A (2012) Tree and stand-scale factors affecting richness and composition of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens in deciduous woodland key habitats. Biodivers Conserv 21:3221–3241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miljødirektoratet (2012) Naturbase. www.naturbase.no. Accessed 23 Jan 2012
  26. Mitchell RJ, Beaton JK, Bellamy PE, Broome A, Chetcuti J, Eaton S, Ellis CJ, Gimona A, Harmere R, Hester AJ, Hewison RL, Hodgetts NG, Iason GR, Kerr G, Littlewood NA, Newey S, Potts JM, Pozsgai G, Ray D, Sim DA, Stockan JA, Taylor AFS, Woodward S (2014) Ash dieback in the UK: a review of the ecological and conservation implications and potential management options. Biol Conserv 175:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moe B, Botnen A (1997) A quantitative study of the epiphytic vegetation on pollarded trunks of Fraxinus excelsior at Havrå, Osterøy, western Norway. Plant Ecol 129:157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moe B, Botnen A (2000) Epiphytic vegetation on pollarded trunks of Fraxinus excelsior in four different habitats at Grinde, Leikanger, western Norway. Plant Ecol 151:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moen A (1999) National atlas of Norway. Vegetation. Statens kartverk, HønefossGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakagawa S, Cuthill I (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nilsson SG, Arup U, Baranowski R, Ekman S (1994) Trädbundna lavar och skalbaggar i ålderdomliga kulturlanskap. Svensk bot Tidskr 88:1–12Google Scholar
  32. Nordén B, Jordal JB, Bratli H (2013) Bacidia incompta, Pyrenula nitidella and Schismatomma decolorans, three lichen species on old deciduous trees new to Norway. Graphis Scripta 25:44–47Google Scholar
  33. Nordén B, Evju M, Jordal JB (2015) Old temperate deciduous trees—a hotspot habitat. Final report from the third period of the ARKO project (Survey and monitoring of red-listed species). NINA Rapport 1168 (in Norwegian with English summary) Google Scholar
  34. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens HH, Szoecs E, Wagner H (2016) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  35. Paltto H, Nordberg A, Nordén B, Snäll T (2011) Development of secondary woodland in oak wood pastures reduces the richness of rare epiphytic lichens. PLoS ONE 6:e24675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Pankhurst M (2013) There’s more to a pollard than meets the eye! The views and experience of a woodland ranger. Arboricul J 35:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  38. Ranius T, Johansson P, Berg N, Niklasson M (2008) Influence of tree age and microhabitat quality on the occurrence of crustose lichens associated with old oaks. J Veg Sci 19:653–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Read HJ (ed) (1996) Pollard and veteran tree management II—incorporating the proceedings of the meeting hosted by the corporation of London at Epping Forest in 1993. Richmond Publishing Company, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  40. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1(2):103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sebek P, Altman J, Platek M, Cizek L (2013) Is active management the key to the conservation of saproxylic biodiversity? Pollarding promotes the formation of tree hollows. PLoS ONE 8:e60456.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060456 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Sjölund MJ, Jump AS (2013) The benefits and hazards of exploiting vegetative regeneration for forest conservation management in a warming world. Forestry 86:503–513.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpt030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith CW, Aptroot A, Coppins BJ, Fletcher A, Gilbert O, James PW, Wolseley PA (eds) (2009) The lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. British Lichen Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Solheim H, Eriksen R, Hietala AM (2011) Dutch elm disease has currently a low incidence on wych elm in Norway. For Pathol 41:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ter Braak CJF, Prentice IC (1988) A theory of gradient analysis. Adv Ecol Res 18:271–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thor G, Johansson P, Jönsson MT (2010) Lichen diversity and red-listed lichen species relationships with tree species and diameter in wooded meadows. Biodivers Conserv 19:2307–2328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Timdal E (2012) Norsk Lavdatabase. http://www.nhm.uio.no/lichens. First posted 16 April 1997, latest update 06 Feb 2012
  48. Tønsberg T, Gauslaa Y, Haugan R, Holien H, Timdal E (1996) The threatened macrolichens of Norway 1995. Sommerfeltia 23:1–258Google Scholar
  49. Vatne S (2010) Gamle styvingstre i Flostranda naturreservat: Kartlegging av epifyttisk lavflora og tilrådingar til restaurering, nyetablering og skjøtsel. Økolog Vatne rapport 1-2010. http://sognogfjordane.miljostatus.no/dm_documents/Vatne_2010-1_Restaurering_av_styvingstre_i_Flostranda_NR_iBUKQ.pdf (in Norwegian)
  50. Watson MF, Hawksworth DL, Rose F (1988) Lichens on elms in the British Isles and the effect of Dutch Elm Disease on their Status. The Lichenologist 20:327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Norwegian Institute for Nature ResearchOsloNorway
  2. 2.SunndalsøraNorway

Personalised recommendations