The habitat factors that affect the composition of ... ?· The habitat factors that affect the composition…

  • Published on
    04-Jun-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

The habitat factors that affect the composition of bryophyte and lichencommunities on fallen logsJak faktory ovlivuj sloen spoleenstev mechorost a liejnk na padlch kmenech?Irena J a n s o v * & Zdenk S o l d nDepartment of Botany, Faculty of Sciences, Charles University, Bentsk 2, CZ-128 01Praha, Czech Republic. * Present address: Auf Pnten 29, CH-8405 Winterthur, Switzerland,e-mail: irena_vac@hotmail.comJansov I. & Soldn Z. (2006): The habitat factors that affect the composition of bryophyte and li-chen communities on fallen logs. Preslia 78: 6786.The composition of cryptogam (bryophyte and lichen) communities on fallen logs was studied intwo old-growth forests in the Czech Republic. Altogether, 85 species (22 liverworts, 44 mosses, and19 lichens) were recorded. The presence and abundance of the different species on 350 logs was at-tributed to habitat factors (e.g. humidity, wood decay, wood softness, log diameter, bark cover,thickness of humus layer and tree species) that were recorded separately for each of the logs. Theaim was to identify the factors significantly affecting the composition of cryptogam communities.For the different ecological groups of species (epiphytes, epixylic species, and ground flora) for-warded canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) selected thickness of humus layer and tree spe-cies as the factors explaining most variability. In addition, the extent of log surface covered by bark,humidity and log decay were selected as significant determinants of cryptogam communitycomposition.K e y w o r d s : bryophytes, Czech Republic, dead wood, epixylic species, lichens, old-growth for-est, species compositionIntroductionDead wood is an important component of temperate forests. Standing dead trees (snags),fallen logs and large branches and stumps form major structural features of ecological im-portance. They serve as habitats for various organisms, represent a source of mineral nutri-ents and energy and influence soil movement and deposition (Harmon et al. 1986). Theimportance of decaying logs for different groups of organisms has been intensively stud-ied, mostly in the boreal zone (Samuelsson et al. 1994, Essen et al. 1997). Harmon et al.(1986) and Eckloff & Ziegeler (1991) have reviewed the ecological roles of dead wood indifferent parts of the temperate zone.Dead wood is an important habitat for bryophytes and lichens. Some species live exclu-sively on dead wood (obligate or true epixylic species), others grow on logs and stumps aswell as on other substrates (facultative epixylic species). Generally, the importance ofdead wood for bryophytes is revealed by comparing the composition of bryophytes onlogs and stumps in forests of different ages. Greater numbers of bryophyte species occur inold forests, with a continuous supply of logs in various stages of decay than in young ormanaged forests, where the amount and quality of dead wood is limited (Andersson &Hytteborn 1991, Lesica et al. 1991, Crites & Dale 1998, Rambo & Muir 1998, dor &Standovr 2001, Desponts et al. 2002). The air humidity is substantially higher in old for-Preslia 78: 6786, 2006 67ests than in managed forests. This seems to be important for obligate epixylic species,namely tiny and drought-sensitive liverworts, which are mostly restricted to old forests(Sderstrm 1988a, Laaka 1993, Vellak & Paal 1999).The composition of the bryophyte and lichen communities on logs mirrors thesuccessional changes in the physical and chemical properties of the wood during its decay,such as texture, density, softness, pH and water-holding capacity (McCullogh 1948,Muhle & LeBlanc 1975, Cornelissen & Karssemeijer 1987, Crites & Dale 1998, dor &Van Hees 2004). The composition of bryophytes and lichens is also reportedly affected bythe tree species (Jeek 1959, Nakamura 1987, Stefureac 1987, McAlister 1997) and log di-ameter (Sderstrm 1988b, Andersson & Hytteborn 1991, dor & Van Hees 2004). Thepreferences of individual bryophyte species for stages of decay, surface texture, woodsoftness and log diameter are presented by Sderstrm (1988b). For example, the liver-wort Anastrophyllum hellerianum occurs mostly on very large logs with no bark and hardwood. Noteworthy, some species of lichens (such as Hypogymnia physodes) affect the de-cay of logs thus contributing to the formation/conservation of their habitats (Rypek1966, Henningsson & Lundstm 1970, Lundstm & Henningsson 1973). This is probablynot the case for bryophytes.Most authors have previously related species composition to the above mentioned envi-ronmental and substrate factors individually. However, since those factors are inherentlydependent on each other, it is imperative to take into account possible intercorrelations be-tween those factors. This requires an appropriate analysis of the data (which is by naturemultivariate) in order to identify the factors explaining the greatest proportions of thevariability in species composition.This study focuses on the composition of bryophyte and lichen communities on fallenlogs in two remnants of old beech-fir forests in the Novohradsk hory Mts, in SE CzechRepublic. Both forests have a similar history and are integrated into larger forest-coveredareas and declared reserves with a strict ban on logging in 1838. They differ in area andmoisture conditions, the ofnsk prales being about 10 times larger and damper than thesmaller and drier Hojn voda forest (Pra 1985).The following questions were addressed: (i) Does the composition of cryptogams onlogs differ in these two old forests that differ in dampness? (ii) Which of the habitat factorsdetermine the composition of cryptogams on fallen logs? (iii) Which of the habitat factorsdetermine the species composition of the different ecological groups of cryptogams? (iv)What are the preferences of the individual species of cryptogams for these factors?MethodsStudy sitesThis study took place in two old forests in the Novohradsk Hory Mts in the south-easternpart of Bohemia near the Czech-Austrian border. These forests are the oldest protectednatural reserves in the Czech Republic, both established in 1838. They represent remnantsof fir-beech mountain forest vegetation indigenous to the locality and illustrate the dynam-ics of a change in the tree layer. Nowadays, the dominant tree species is beech (Fagussylvatica L., 79%) followed by spruce, Picea abies (L.) Karst. (15%). The originally dom-68 Preslia 78: 6786, 2006inant fir (Abies alba Mill.) currently represents only 5% of the tree layer. Maple (Acerplatanoides L. and A. pseudoplatanus L.) and elm (Ulmus glabra Huds.) are scarce (under1%). Trees are of different dimensions and ages (from 20 to 400 years), and logs are in dif-ferent stages of decay (Pra 1990). The region lies at the transition between oceanic andcontinental climates. The climate is cold and wet, mean annual temperature is 5.5C andannual precipitation ranges from 800 to 950 mm (Pra 1985).The ofnsk prales forest is located at 4839'42" to 4840'22" N and 1442'02" to1443'03" E at an altitude of between 735 and 825 m a.s.l. It covers 97.71 ha (Pra 1985).Different forest types form an heterogeneous mosaic; this is a typical feature of the re-serve. Relatively abundant springs and brooks reflect the moist conditions in the mostlyshaded understorey. The total number of bryophyte species recently recorded on all typesof substrates in the reserve is 185 (Vacnov 1998, Kuera 2004). Currently, there are 46epiphytic and epixylic species of lichen in this forest (Peksa et al. 2004).The essentially smaller and sunnier Hojn voda forest is situated on a slope, 810 to 880m a.s.l. at 4842'30" N and 1445'30" E. Its area covers 9 ha (Vyskot 1981). This forestrepresents relatively drier habitat with a small area of springs. 90 bryophyte species are re-cently recorded in the reserve area (Vacnov 1998, Kuera 2004). Currently, 12 epiphyticand epixylic lichens species are recorded in this forest (Peksa et al. 2004).Field samplingFallen logs, at least 1 m long with diameter equal to or above 15 cm, were sampled, omit-ting stumps and snags. In the smaller forest, Hojn voda, all such logs found within the oldforest were surveyed. In the ofnsk prales forest all such logs along a ten-meter wideNNE to SSW transect, through the old forest were examined. One plot of 0.04 m2 (eithersquare 20 20 cm or rectangle 10 40 cm) was sampled on each log. Rectangular plotswere used on logs of smaller diameter, where the use of square plots would prevent thesampling of areas with approximately homogenous slopes. The sample plot area (0.04 m2)is the largest approximately homogenous area (chosen with regard to habitat factors)found on a heterogeneous substrate such as decaying logs (I. Jansov, unpublished data).The sample plot was chosen randomly on each log. Presence and abundance of bryophytesand lichens was recorded in these plots between May and September 1997. Abundanceclasses used in this study are shown in Table 1. The species that were not identified in thefield were collected and identified later. Voucher specimens are stored in PRC herbarium.For each log sampled, certain environmental and substrate characteristics (henceforth re-ferred to as habitat factors) were recorded: Substrate type of four levels, depends on speciesof tree: beech, spruce, fir and other trees including uncommon elm and maple species as wellas a few indeterminable logs. The four levels of substrate type were treated as dummy vari-ables throughout this study. Therefore, they are treated as four single factors. Logs withoutbark were identified to species with the help of the original map of fallen trees (Pra 1990)and by consulting the local forester (B. varc, pers. comm.). Recorded frequencies of indi-vidual substrate types are presented in Fig. 1. Slope, with values varying from 0 (top) to 180(bottom of the log), and slope orientation of the sample plot either to the north (Northward)or east (Eastward) (each with values 1, 0, 1). Thickness of humus layer on the log was mea-sured in the sample plot. Canopy was estimated as percentage of the area of the log over-shadowed. Diameter of the log was measured for that part of the log on which the sampleJansov & Soldn: Bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs 69was taken. Decay was measured using a semi-quantitative scale modified from Sderstrm(1988b) as follows: (1) freshly fallen log, hard, whole, bark intact, branches present; (2) logsolid, wood hard, more than 50% of bark present; (3) some patches of soft wood, more than50% of bark missing; (4) wood softening, outline retained, bark missing; (5) log outlineslightly deformed; (6) pieces of soft wood, log outline still distinguishable; (7) only log coreremains; (8) log outline indeterminable, humification 100%, no evidence of hard wood. De-cay refers to the condition of the whole log. Recorded frequencies of individual decayclasses are presented in Fig. 2. Characteristics of the log surface (Texture) was also recordedusing a semi-quantitative scale modified from Sderstrm (1988b) as follows: (0) bark in-tact; (1) smooth surface without bark; (2) small crevices; (3) crevices and rills, rough sur-face; (4) small pieces of wood missing; (5) large pieces of wood missing, surface irregular,large depressions; (6) humidified chippings of wood, surface still distinguishable; (7) sur-face indeterminable. Recorded frequencies of individual texture classes are presented inFig. 3. Wood softness was measured as the thickness of the soft wood layer in centimetres70 Preslia 78: 6786, 2006Fig. 1. Frequency of substrate types (tree species) in ofnsk prales (n = 268) and Hojn voda (n = 82) forests.Table 1. Abundance scale used in assessing bryophyte and lichen cover on the sample plots (0.04m2). Meanclass value (in %) was used in multivariate analyses.Class Fraction of plot area covered Mean class value (%)1 Some individuals to 1/100 12 1/100 to 1/16 3.53 1/16 to 1/8 9.84 1/8 to 1/4 195 1/4 to 1/2 386 1/2 to 1 75.5Jansov & Soldn: Bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs 71Fig. 2. Frequency of different decay stages of logs (1 freshly fallen log, hard, whole, bark intact, branches pres-ent; 2 log solid, wood hard, more than 50% of bark present; 3 some patches of soft wood, more than 50% ofbark missing; 4 wood softening, outline retained, bark missing; 5 log outline slightly deformed; 6 pieces ofsoft wood, logs outline still distinguishable; 7 only log core remains; 8 logs outline indeterminable,humification 100%, no evidence of hard wood) in ofnsk prales (n = 268) and Hojn voda (n = 82) forests.Fig. 3. Frequency of texture classes of logs (0 bark intact; 1 smooth surface without bark; 2 small crevices;3 crevices and rills, rough surface; 4 small pieces of wood missing; 5 large pieces of wood missing, surfaceirregular, large depressions; 6 humidified woody chippings, surface still distinguishable; 7 surface indetermin-able) in ofnsk prales (n = 268) and Hojn voda (n = 82) forests.and is the mean of three measurements on the sample plot. Soft wood was penetrable orremovable with fingers. Contact of the log with the ground was estimated as a percentage ofthe log length. Above ground height was measured at the highest point of the elevated logfrom the ground. Bark cover was estimated as a percentage of the log surface. Presence orabsence of branches was also recorded. Mean values of individual habitat factors are shownin Table 2.Data analysisBryophytes and lichens were subdivided into three ecological groups: epiphytes (speciescommonly found on living trees), epixylic species (typically found on rotting wood) andground flora (optimal habitat the ground). Species were subdivided into these groups aftercomparison with other studies (Sderstrm 1988b, Laaka 1993, Sderstrm 1993, Crites& Dale 1998). Some species, not mentioned in the above studies, were assigned to thegroups according to Vacnov (1998). Other species (e.g. Brachythecium species), whichoccurred more frequently on other substrates than fallen logs at the studied sites(I. Vacnov, unpublished data) were assigned to ecological groups according to their sub-strate preferences at the studied sites (Vacnov 1998).In the set of 17 factors there were 3 environmental (Eastward, Northward, Canopy) and14 substrate characteristics. During sampling it became evident that the habitat factors couldbe intercorrelated. Strongly correlated variables bring no independent information aboutspecies composition and may be excluded from the analysis; retaining only one factor fromthe intercorrelated group of factors is usually sufficient for an analysis (ter Braak 1986). Todetermine such possible intercorrelations among habitat factors in this study, the centred andstandardized analysis of principal components (PCA) was used. In this case, values of allfactors (disregarding the Locality) were used as species in PCA. Factors such as Texture(correlated with Decay stage), Contact, Height, Branches (all correlated with Bark), Spruce(correlated to Beech), and Other trees (correlated with Fir) were omitted from further analy-ses due to their strong intercorrelation with remaining factors (analysis not shown).Ordination techniques were used to explore the relationships between the compositionof cryptogam (bryophyte and lichen) communities and habitat factors. Since an unimodalresponse of species to the factors was expected and supported by the Detrended Corre-spondence Analysis (DCA) as the gradient length was greater than 4 (ter Braak &milauer 2002), it was decided to use weighted averaging techniques. DCA is an indirectgradient analysis, in which ecological gradients are derived from species composition. Ca-nonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA), a direct gradient analysis, relates species com-position to environmental variables. From previous analyses (not shown) it was apparentthere was no arch effect in our species dataset that would require detrending in direct ordi-nation (ter Braak & Prentice 1988) and thus CCA gave conclusive results. To test the sig-nificance of the explaining environmental factors used in CCA, Monte-Carlo permutationtest with 999 permutations was used. All analyses were conducted with CANOCO 4.5 (terBraak & milauer 2002).Standard CCA was used to examine the effect of site (Locality) on cryptogam composi-tion. Factor Locality was then used as a covariable in all further analyses. Eigenvalues inparticular analyses are, therefore, related to the residual variance after removing the effectof Locality. To determine which of the remaining eleven recorded habitat factors signifi-72 Preslia 78: 6786, 2006cantly explained variability in the composition of cryptogam communities, CCA with for-ward selection of environmental variables was used. It showed the proportion of variance(lambda-A) that each factor explained upon its inclusion to the analysis. Further for-warded CCA analyses were used to determine the factors that significantly affected com-position of epiphytes (96 samples and 27 species), epixylic species (314 samples and 25species) and ground flora (200 samples and 33 species). Comparison of DCA and CCAeigenvalues (for first and second axes) identified the proportion of variability in speciescomposition variability explained by factors selected by forwarded CCA; if the factors ex-plain most of the variation in species composition (explored by DCA), eigenvalues of cor-respondent axes would be nearly identical (see ter Braak 1986, 1987 for discussion). Theresults of forwarded CCA analyses were visualized using CanoDraw ordination diagrams.The species symbols can be projected perpendicularly onto the line of the arrow represent-ing individual factors. These projections can be used to approximate the optima of individ-ual species for the factors (ter Braak & milauer 2002).Nomenclature of species follows Kuera and Va (2003) for bryophytes and Wirth(1995) for lichens.ResultsOn the 350 fallen logs sampled at the two sites 85 cryptogam species (44 mosses, 22 liver-worts, and 19 lichens) were found. Twenty five species were classified as epixylic, 27 spe-cies as epiphytic and 33 species as ground flora (Table 3). The most frequent species wasthe epixylic moss Herzogiella seligeri (n = 197), followed by the ground flora mossHypnum cupressiforme (n = 111) and the liverwort Chiloscyphus profundus (syn.Lophocolea heterophylla) (n = 98). Highest cover (among the cryptogam species re-corded more than five times) were found for Rhytidiadelphus loreus, Polytrichastrumformosum, and Amblystegium serpens (all belonging to the ground flora group), coveringon average more than 40% of the sample plot area (Table 3). Some infrequent liverworts (n< 5) on occasion showed very high cover e.g. Ptilidium ciliare (75%) and Bazzaniatrilobata (56.5%). The epiphytic moss Neckera complanata (n = 4) covered on average al-most half of the sample plot, although epiphytes in general seldom exceeded 30% cover(Table 3).Jansov & Soldn: Bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs 73Table 2 . Values of recorded habitat factors. Mean values with standard deviations (SD) and frequencies aregiven.Variable Total ofnsk prales Hojn vodan = 350 n = 268 n = 82Branches (no. of logs) 191 158 33Slope () 37.1636.01 38.3236.74 42.2533.44Diameter (cm) 56.4324.42 57.3123.98 53.5925.74Softness (cm) 3.963.94 4.184.21 3.232.75Height (cm) 18.7431.94 16.1229.23 27.2938.50Contact (cm) 72.9340.40 74.0141.07 69.3938.16Humus (cm) 0.391.05 0.481.17 0.110.44Canopy (%) 48.6233.93 47.7134.54 51.6231.87Bark (%) 18.8634.06 19.5135.30 16.7429.7674 Preslia 78: 6786, 2006Table3.Frequencyandaverageabundance(%ofsampleplotarea)oftherecordedbryophyteandlichenspeciesinofnskpralesandHojnvodaforests.Ecologicalcate-gory:Eepiphyte,Ggroundflora,Xepixylicspecies;S.D.standarddeviation.SpeciesEcologicalcategoryTotal(n=350)ofnskprales(n=268)Hojnvoda(n=82)FrequencyAbundanceS.D.FrequencyAbundanceS.D.FrequencyAbundanceS.D,Liverworts:BazzaniatrilobataG256.5026.16256.5026.160BlepharostomatrichophyllumX81.000.0071.000.0011.00CalypogeiasuecicaX87.257.7287.257.720CephaloziabicuspidataX72.291.6062.501.6411.00CephaloziacatenuataX443.2537.17443.2537.170FrullaniadilatataE29.000.0019.0019.00ChiloscyphusprofundusX9812.6719.257212.3517.802613.5823.16JungermannialeianthaX75.146.7975.146.790LepidoziareptansX6026.8327.685126.8827.65926.5629.51LophoziaincisaX19.0019.000LophoziaventricosaX316.0019.47316.0019.470MetzgeriafurcataE710.8613.51612.5014.0111.00NowelliacurvifoliaX6433.8630.955234.7530.531230.0033.83PlagiochilaporelloidesG310.677.64310.677.640PorellaplatyphyllaE11.00011.00PtilidiumciliareG275.000.00275.000.000PtilidiumpulcherrimumE714.715.35615.675.1619.00RadulacomplanataE210.0012.73119.0011.00RiccardialatifronsG106.906.74106.906.740RiccardiapalmataG1511.0712.391511.0712.390ScapanianemoreaX11.0011.000TritomariaquinquedentataG26.503.5426.503.540Mosses:AmblystegiumserpensG633.0033.23537.8034.7419.00AtrichumundulatumG228.5013.44119.00138.00AulacomniumandrogynumX1424.8628.051424.8628.050BrachytheciumreflexumG533.8037.75533.8037.750Jansov & Soldn: Bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs 75SpeciesEcologicalcategoryTotal(n=350)ofnskprales(n=268)Hojnvoda(n=82)FrequencyAbundanceS.D.FrequencyAbundanceS.D.FrequencyAbundanceS.D,BrachytheciumrivulareG138.00138.000BrachytheciumrutabulumG36.334.6211.0029.000.00BrachytheciumsalebrosumX7932.9729.726732.7229.621234.4231.52BrachytheciumstarkeiG326.6741.88238.0052.3314.00BrachytheciumvelutinumX4616.0220.862211.7311.342419.9626.46BryumcapillareG19.0019.000BryummoravicumE88.5012.1278.4313.0919.00DicranodontiumdenudatumX3525.7729.683324.9429.07239.5050.20DicranummontanumE446.169.10314.846.73139.3112.98DicranumscopariumX4217.6423.264117.9823.4514.00DiranumpolysetumG599.8015.884110.2917.39188.6712.11HerzogiellaseligeriX19724.3227.8314021.6626.715730.8829.63HomalotheciumsericeumE313.3321.36219.5026.1611.00HylocomiumsplendensG1222.0826.781222.0826.780HypnumandoiE331.6738.59331.6738.590HypnumcupressiformeG11121.8224.908121.1624.433023.6026.47HypnumjutlandicumG613.8313.04613.8313.040IsotheciumalopecuroidesE832.7529.35449.2532.00416.2516.13LeucodonsciuroidesE414.2516.28316.0019.4719.00MniumhornumG26.503.5426.503.540NeckeracomplanataE447.2518.50350.3321.36138.00NeckerapennataE14.00014.00OrtotrichumstramineumE11.00011.00ParaleucobryumlongifoliumG14.00014.00PlagiomniumaffineG14.0014.000PlagiomniumcuspidatumG1514.7313.451514.7313.450PlagiotheciumdenticulatumG41.751.5041.751.500PlagiotheciumlaetumG911.5623.81615.8328.9933.001.73PlatygyriumrepensE1010.5011.11910.6711.7719.00PleuroziumschreberiG1620.8825.161522.2025.4611.00PohlianutansG512.8014.31415.0015.5114.0076 Preslia 78: 6786, 2006SpeciesEcologicalcategoryTotal(n=350)ofnskprales(n=268)Hojnvoda(n=82)FrequencyAbundanceS.D.FrequencyAbundanceS.D.FrequencyAbundanceS.D,PolytrichastrumformosumG2540.2831.032139.8630.57442.5038.24PterigynandrumfiliformeE39.008.66039.008.66Ptiliumcrista-castrensisG119.00119.000RhizomniumpunctatumX5913.6317.945513.7618.12411.7517.56RhytidiadelphusloreusG744.1432.03744.1432.030RhytidiadelphustriquetrusG331.0038.11331.0038.110SanioniauncinataX2319.4323.681615.3118.62728.8632.25SphagnumgirgensohniiG11.0011.000TetraphispelucidaX6428.4129.864623.1127.611841.9431.88Lichens:CladoniacenoteaG211.5010.61211.5010.610CladoniaconiocraeaX3014.1719.531913.0518.061116.0922.64CladoniadigitataX2610.8115.422410.8815.86210.0012.73CladoniafimbriataX58.809.3958.809.390CladoniachlorophaeaG43.004.0043.004.000Cladoniasp.G242.672.41212.622.5233.001.73CladoniasquamosaG14.0014.000HypocenomycescalarisE11.0011.000HypogymniaphysodesE3517.3121.522414.5416.971123.3629.21HypogymniafarinaceaE11.0011.000ChaenothecaferrugineaE21.000.0021.000.000ChaenothecachrysophyllaE52.201.6452.201.640LecanoraconizaeoidesE21.000.0021.000.000Lecanorasp.E21.000.0021.000.000Leprariasp.G43.753.7733.674.6214.00ParmeliopsisambiguaE11.0011.000PeltigerapratextataG14.0014.000PlatismatiaglaucaE95.225.7466.336.8633.001.73PseudeverniafurfuraceaE420.0013.93221.0024.04219.000.00Table 4. Significance of habitat factors selected by forwarded CCA with Locality as covariable (a). Lambda-Aindicates variance explained by the factor upon its addition to the model. Eigenvalues are shown of the first (1)and second (2) axes in forwarded CCA compared to DCA (b). ** p < 0.01; * 0.01 p < 0.05(a) All cryptogams Epiphytes Epixylic species Ground floraFactor Lambda-A Factor Lambda-A Factor Lambda-A Factor Lambda-AHumus 0.26** Beech 0.43** Beech 0.2** Humus 0.42**Bark 0.25** Bark 0.42** Decay 0.13** Softness 0.15*Slope 0.17** Eastward 0.21** Slope 0.11** Beech 0.11*Beech 0.14** Canopy 0.19* Humus 0.10**Decay 0.08** Softness 0.16* Bark 0.06**Canopy 0.08** Eastward 0.06*Canopy 0.06*(b) All cryptogams Epiphytes Epixylic species Ground flora1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2DCA 0.854 0.751 0.976 0.658 0.909 0.856 0.998 0.913CCA 0.376 0.286 0.698 0.281 0.396 0.110 0.470 0.159The total number of cryptogam species recorded on 268 logs in the ofnsk prales was80 (40 mosses, 21 liverworts and 19 lichens). The most frequent and most abundant spe-cies were the same as above (Table 3). In the Hojn voda 46 cryptogam species (30mosses, 10 liverworts and 6 lichens) were found on 82 logs. The most frequent specieswere again the same as above, but the epixylic mosses Tetraphis pellucida, Brachytheciumsalebrosum, and Herzogiella seligeri were the most abundant species covering on averageabout one-third of the sample plot areas (Table 3). In the Hojn voda forest an endangeredmoss, Neckera pennata, was also found.Site effectThe cryptogam composition on logs in the two forests differed significantly (significanceof the first ordination axis in CCA with F = 2.211, p < 0.01). This might be explained bydifferences in epixylic species (CCA with F = 3.696, p < 0.01), since the epiphytes andground flora was not significantly different in the two localities (analyses not shown).However, the eigenvalues of the first CCA axes (0.109 and 0.105 for all species andepixylic species, respectively) were substantially less than the first axes eigenvalues for theanalogous DCAs (0.857 and 0.909 for all species and epixylic species, respectively). Thisimplies that much of the variability in species composition was not explained by the locality.Effect of habitat factorsThe factors selected by forwarded CCA taking into account all bryophyte and lichen spe-cies were Humus, Bark, Slope, Beech, Decay and Canopy, all of which were highly signif-icant (p < 0.01) (Table 4a). Cryptogam species composition on logs differed along a gradi-ent between freshly fallen logs with a large amount of bark and well decayed logs in thedense parts of the forests (Axis 1, Fig. 4). It also changed along the gradient of humus ac-Jansov & Soldn: Bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs 77cumulation (Axis 2, Fig. 4). Epixylic species occurred mostly on logs in advanced stagesof decay; they grew on steeper log sides without bark and humus. Ground flora species oc-curred on logs with a layer of humus. Epiphytes occurred more on logs with bark and nohumus layer (Fig. 4). Comparison of DCA and CCA eigenvalues (Table 4b) implies thatFig. 4 accounted for 41% of the variance in cryptogam composition and so most of thevariation was not explained by habitat factors.The distribution of epiphytes on logs was mainly correlated with substrate type andamount of bark remaining on logs (Fig. 5). Beech, Bark, and Eastward were identified ashighly significant (p < 0.01). Canopy and Softness were also selected as significant (both p< 0.05) for the composition of epiphyte communities (Table 4a). Since the CCA first axiseigenvalue was not far from the corresponding DCA eigenvalue (Table 4b), bark coveredspruce logs and beech logs with softening wood appeared to be the two extremes delimit-ing the most important gradient affecting the composition of epiphytic communities on78 Preslia 78: 6786, 2006Fig. 4. Correlation of abundances of cryptogam species on decaying logs with habitat factors (arrows), whichwere previously selected by forwarded CCA. Results of CCA are shown for species recorded at least 10 times.The abbreviations of names of cryptogam species are composed of first three letters of the genus and first threeletters of the species names given in Table 3. Triangles indicate epiphytes, squares epixylic species, circlesground flora. First and second axes account for 41% of the variability in species data.fallen logs (Fig. 5, accounted for 57% of variation in epiphyte composition). The mossDicranum montanum occurred on logs with little bark (Fig. 5). Together with Isotheciumalopecuroides, these were the only epiphytes we found on plots without bark.Homalothecium sericeum, Hypnum andoi, Platygyrium repens, Pterigynandrum filiformeand Ptilidium pulcherrimum as well as Isothecium alopecuroides occurred mostly onbeech logs, whereas lichens occurred mostly on logs of other tree species.The occurrence of epixylic species was well correlated with substrate type and stage ofdecay of the logs (Fig. 6). Beech, Decay, Slope, Humus and Bark were identified as highlysignificant habitat factors for this ecological group (p < 0.01). Eastward and Canopy werealso significant (p < 0.05) (Table 4a). Some species (e.g. Brachythecium salebrosum,B. velutinum, Cladonia fimbriata, Jungermannia leiantha and Sanionia uncinata) grew onlogs with a high amount of bark and thus in early stages of decay (Fig. 6). On the otherhand, Dicranodontium denudatum, Cephalozia biuspidata, Riccardia latifrons andJansov & Soldn: Bryophyte and lichen communities on fallen logs 79Fig. 5. Correlation of abundances of epiphytic cryptogam species on decaying logs with habitat factors (arrows),which were previously selected by forwarded CCA. Results of CCA are shown for species recorded at least twotimes. Same species abbreviations are used as in Fig. 4. Species names are centered on the species scores. Firstand second axes account for 57% of the variability in species data.Tetraphis pellucida were most frequent on logs in the later stages of decay. The latter spe-cies also occurred mostly on steeper plots. The bryophytes Aulacomnium androgynum,Blepharostoma trichophyllum, Calypogeia suecica, Cephalozia catenuata, Lepidoziareptans, Nowellia curvifolia and Riccardia palmata grew on shaded plots. The liverwortsCephalozia catenulata, Chiloscyphus profundus and Jungermannia leiantha occurred onlogs without humus. The mosses Sanionia uncinata and Dicranum scoparium grew evenon humus (Fig. 6). The comparison of DCA and CCA eigenvalues (Table 4b) implies thatmost of the variability in epixylic species composition was not explained by habitat factors(Fig. 6, accounted for 43% of variation in epixylic species composition).Ground flora species distribution was best correlated (p < 0.01) with humus accumula-tion. Softness and Beech were selected by forwarded CCA as other significant factors (p

Recommended

View more >