Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 1587–1607 | Cite as

Epiphytic and epixylic lichen species diversity in Estonian natural forests

  • Inga Jüriado
  • Jaanus Paal
  • Jaan Liira


The epiphytic and epixylic lichen flora of natural forests was recorded in different parts of Estonia. Altogether 232 taxa of lichens, lichenicolous fungi, or non-lichenized fungi were recorded, 10 of them listed in the Estonian Red Data Book. We found regional differences in lichen species composition and diversity caused by differences in the forest types. The tree-species-rich boreo-nemoral forests had the most diverse lichen flora, while the boreal forest dominated by coniferous trees or birch had the lowest diversity. The stand age proved to be significant in regard to the number of lichen species in a forest. The most remarkable effect on the diversity of forest lichen species was caused by the presence of Populus tremula. Aspen had the highest number of lichen species on the basal trunk and twigs, and also the highest number of host-specific lichen species.

Boreal forest Boreo-nemoral forests Populus tremula Red Data Book Stand age 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahti T., Hämet-Ahti L. and Jalas J. 1968.Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169–211.Google Scholar
  2. Barkman J.J. 1958. Phytosociology and Ecology of Cryptogamic Epiphytes. Van Gorcum & Comp., Assen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Cieśliśski S., Czyżewska K. and Glanc K. 1995. Lichenes. Phytocoenosis 7: 75–86.Google Scholar
  4. Cieśliśski S., Czyżewska K., Faliński J.B., Klama H., Mułenko W. and Żarnowiec J. 1996a. Relicts of the primeval (virgin) forest. Relict phenomena. Phytocoenosis 8: 197–216.Google Scholar
  5. Cieśliśski S., Czyżewska K., Klama H. and Żarnowiec J. 1996b. Epiphytes and epiphytism. Phytocoenosis 8: 15–35.Google Scholar
  6. Crites S. and Dale M.R.T. 1998. Diversity and abundance of bryophytes, lichens, and fungi in relation to woody substrate and successional stage in aspen mixedwood boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Botany 76: 641–651.Google Scholar
  7. Esseen P.A., Ehnström B., Ericson L. and Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletin 46: 16–47.Google Scholar
  8. Gauslaa Y. 1995. The Lobarion, an epiphytic community of ancient forests threatened by acid rain. Lichenologist 27: 59–76.Google Scholar
  9. Goward T. 1994. Notes on old growth-dependent epiphytic macrolichens in inland British Columbia, Canada. Acta Botanica Fennica 150: 31–38.Google Scholar
  10. Haapala H., Goltsova N., Seppala R., Huttunen S., Kouki J., Lamppu J. et al. 1996. Ecological condition of forests around the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. Environmental Pollution 91: 253–265.Google Scholar
  11. Harmon M.E., Franklin J.F., Swanson F.J., Sollins P., Gregory S.V., Lattin J.D. et al. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Advanced Ecological Research 15: 133–302.Google Scholar
  12. Hedenås H. and Ericson L. 2000. Epiphytic macrolichens as conservation indicators: successional sequence in Populus tremula stands. Biological Conservation 93: 43–53.Google Scholar
  13. Holien H. 1996. Influence of site and stand factors on the distribution of crustose lichens of the Caliciales in a suboceanic spruce forest area in central Norway. Lichenologist 28: 315–330.Google Scholar
  14. Hyvärinen M., Halonen P. and Kauppi M. 1992. Influence of stand age and structure on the epiphytic lichen vegetation in the middle-boreal forests of Finland. Lichenologist 24: 165–180.Google Scholar
  15. James P.W., Hawksworth D.L. and Rose F. 1977. Lichen communities in the British Isles: a preliminary conspectus. In: Seaward M.R.D. (ed.), Lichen Ecology. Academic Press, London, pp. 295–413.Google Scholar
  16. Jõgi J. and Tarand A. 1995. Nüüdiskliima [Climate]. In: Raukas A. (ed.), Eesti Loodus. Valgus & Eesti Entsïklopeediakirjastus, Tallinn, Estonia, pp. 183–216.Google Scholar
  17. Jüriado I., Lõhmus P. and Saag L. 2000. Supplement to the second checklist of lichenized, lichenicolous and allied fungi of Estonia. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 37: 21–26.Google Scholar
  18. Kaar E. 1974. Kõvad lehtpuud [Hardwood deciduous trees]. In: Valk U. and Eilart J. (eds), Eesti metsad. Valgus, Tallinn, Estonia, pp. 146–155.Google Scholar
  19. Kuusinen M. 1994. Epiphytic lichen flora and diversity on Populus tremula in old-growth and managed forests of southern and middle boreal Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 31: 245–260.Google Scholar
  20. Kuusinen M. 1996a Cyanobacterial macrolichens on Populus tremula as indicators of forest continuity in Finland. Biological Conservation 75: 43–49.Google Scholar
  21. Kuusinen M. 1996b. Epiphyte flora and diversity on basal trunks of six old-growth forest tree species in southern and middle boreal Finland. Lichenologist 28: 443–463.Google Scholar
  22. Kuusinen M. 1996c. Importance of spruce swamp-forests for epiphyte diversity and flora on Picea abies in southern and middle boreal Finland. Ecography 19: 41–51.Google Scholar
  23. Kuusinen M. and Siitonen J. 1998. Epiphytic lichen diversity in old-growth and managed Picea abies stands in southern Finland. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 283–292.Google Scholar
  24. Laasimer L. 1965. Eesti NSV taimkate [Vegetation of Estonian SSR]. Valgus, Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
  25. Laasimer L. and Masing V. 1995. Taimestik ja taimkate [Flora and plant cover]. In: Raukas A. (ed.), Eesti Loodus. Valgus & Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus, Tallinn, Estonia, pp. 364–401.Google Scholar
  26. Lesica P., McCune B., Cooper S.V. and Hong W.S. 1991. Differences in lichen and bryophyte communities between old-growth and managed second-growth forests in the Swan Valley, Montana. Canadian Journal of Botany 69: 1745–1755.Google Scholar
  27. Liblik V., Pensa M. and Kundel H. 2000. Õhusaaste trendid Ida-ja Lääne-Virumaa tööstuspiirkondades [Temporal changes in atmospheric air pollution in industrial areas of Ida-and Lääne-Viru counties]. Metsanduslikud uurimused XXXIII: 17–36.Google Scholar
  28. Lippmaa T. 1935. Eesti geobotaanika põhijooni [General principles of the Estonian geobotany]. Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis 28: 1–151.Google Scholar
  29. Lõhmus E. 1984. Eesti metsakasvukohatüübid [Forests Site Types of Estonia]. Eesti NSV Agrot-ööstuskoondise Info-ja Juurutusvalitsus, Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
  30. Lõhmus P. and Lõhmus A. 2001. Snags, and their lichen flora in old Estonian peatland forests. Annales Botanici Fennici 38: 265–280.Google Scholar
  31. Martin L. and Martin J. 1998. Epiphytic macrolichens in Estonian forests. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 32: 47–55.Google Scholar
  32. Martin L. and Martin J. 2000. Epifüütsed suursamblikud Kirde-Eesti metsades [Epiphytic macrolichens in the forests of North-East Estonia]. Metsanduslikud uurimused XXXIII: 186–198.Google Scholar
  33. Martin L. and Nilson E. 1992. Impact of the Kunda cement plant (North-East Estonia) emission on the distribution of epiphytic lichens. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Ecology 2: 181–185.Google Scholar
  34. McCune B. 1993. Gradients in epiphyte biomass in three Pseudotsuga-Tsuga forests of different ages in western Oregon and Washington. Bryologist 96: 405–411.Google Scholar
  35. Nilson E. 1995. Species composition and structure of epiphytic lichen assemblages on Scots pine around the Kunda cement plant. In: Mandre M. (ed.), Dust Pollution and Forest Ecosystems. Institute of Ecology, Tallinn, Estonia, pp. 134–140.Google Scholar
  36. Oksanen J. 1988. Impact of habitat, substrate and microsite classes on the epiphyte vegetation: interpretation using exploratory and canonical correspondence analysis. Annales Botanici Fennici 25: 59–71.Google Scholar
  37. Paal J. 1997. Eesti taimkatte kasvukohatüüpide klassifikatsioon [Classification of Estonian Vegetation Site Types]. Keskkonnaministeerium, ÑRO Keskkonnaprogramm, Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
  38. Paal J. 1998. Rare and threatened plant communities of Estonia. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1027–1049.Google Scholar
  39. Paal J. 2001. Classification of Estonian vegetation site types. Amended and completed. Scholar
  40. Randlane T. 1998. Samblikud, Lichens (Lichenized Ascomycota). In: Lilleleht V. (ed.), Eesti punane raamat. Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Looduskaitse Komisjon, Tartu, Estonia, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
  41. Randlane T. and Saag A. (eds) 1999. Second checklist of lichenized, lichenicolous and allied fungi of Estonia. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 35: 1–132.Google Scholar
  42. Randlane T. and Saag A. 2000. Biogeographical survey of Estonian lichen flora, with reference to conservation strategies. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 75: 381–390.Google Scholar
  43. Rose F. 1985. The old forests of western Europe and their epiphytic lichens. British Lichen Society Bulletin 56: 1–8.Google Scholar
  44. Rose F. 1988. Phytogeographical and ecological aspects of Lobarion communities in Europe. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 96: 69–79.Google Scholar
  45. SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT® User's Guide.Version 6, 4th edn,Vol. 2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  46. Selva S.B. 1994. Lichen diversity and stand continuity in the northern hardwoods and spruce–fir forests of northern New England and western New Brunswick. Bryologist 97: 424–429.Google Scholar
  47. Sõmermaa A. 1972. Ecology of epiphytic lichens in main Estonian forest types. Scripta Mycologica 4: 1–117.Google Scholar
  48. Ter Braak C.J.F. and Šmilauer P. 1998. CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Tibell L. 1992. Crustose lichens as indicators of forest continuity in boreal coniferous forests. Nordic Journal of Botany 12: 427–450.Google Scholar
  50. Trass H. and Randlane T. (eds) 1994. Eesti suursamblikud [Macrolichens of Estonia]. Institute of Botany and Ecology, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia.Google Scholar
  51. Trass H., Vellak K. and Ingerpuu N. 1999. Floristical and ecological properties for identifying of primeval forests in Estonia. Annales Botanici Fennici 36: 67–80.Google Scholar
  52. Uliczka H. and Angelstam P. 1999. Occurrence of epiphytic macrolichens in relation to tree species and age in managed boreal forest. Ecography 22: 396–405.Google Scholar
  53. Viilma K., Öövel J., Tamm U., Tomson P., Amos T., Ostonen I. et al. 2001. Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network. Final Report of the Estonian Forest Conservation Area Network Project. Triip Grupp, Tartu, Estonia.Google Scholar
  54. Watson M.F., Hawksworth D.L. and Rose F. 1988. Lichens on elms in the British Isles and the effect of Dutch Elm Disease on their status. Lichenologist 20: 352.Google Scholar
  55. Wirth V. 1995. Flechtenflora. Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inga Jüriado
  • Jaanus Paal
  • Jaan Liira

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations