Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition

Ariel Bergamini*, Christoph Scheidegger, Silvia Stofer, Palmira Carvalho, Simon Davey, Michael Dietrich, Florence Dubs, Edit Farkas, Urs Groner, Kati Kärkkäinen, Christine Keller, László Lökös, Sampsa Lommi, Cristina Máguas, Ruth Mitchell, Pedro Pinho, Víctor J. Rico, Gregorio Aragón, Anne-Marie Truscott, Pat Wolseley & 1 others Alan Watt

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the search for cost-effective methods for measuring and monitoring lichen diversity, we tested the performance of two possible indicators: lichen genus diversity and macrolichen diversity. We studied the lichen vegetation of eight European countries situated in six different biogeographic regions. In each country, six land-use units (each 1 km2) representing a land-use gradient ranging from old-growth forest to farmland were sampled (n = 48) for terricolous, saxicolous, and epiphytic lichens at 16 plots each. We found 768 different lichen species belonging to 157 genera. Relationships between richness and density of genera and species, species and macrolichens, and crustose lichens and macrolichens were highly significant (p <0.001) for all substrates combined and for epiphytic and saxicolous lichens. Richness and density of genera and macrolichens explained a large amount of variation of the species richness and density (R2: 71.9%-98.0%). The relationship between crustose lichens and macrolichens explained less of the variation (R2: 37.7%-70.1%). Effects of land-use intensity on the richness and density of genera, species, and crustose lichens were similar, except for a strong difference between the forested and the more open land-use units for epiphytic crustose lichens. For epiphytic macrolichens there were fewer significant effects. Detrended correspondence analysis indicated similar ordering of sites along the major gradients and similar length of these gradients for genera, species, macrolichens, and crustose lichens. Both genera and macrolichens are useful indicators of total lichen species richness and density. Macrolichens, however, are more suitable indicators than genera owing to (1) their more stable taxonomy of species than of genera, (2) the potential that nonspecialists could do the sampling, (3) the limited use of genera data for species conservation, and (4) the fact that species extinctions will not be indicated by nonmonotypic genera.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1051-1062
Number of pages12
JournalConservation Biology
Volume19
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005

Fingerprint

lichen
lichens
species richness
species diversity
Chemical analysis
Land use
land use
indicator
Lichens
species conservation
old-growth forest
Taxonomies
correspondence analysis
Conservation
agricultural land
extinction
Sampling
substrate
old-growth forests

Keywords

  • Biodiversity indicator
  • Crustose lichens
  • Land-use intensity
  • Species composition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Bergamini, A., Scheidegger, C., Stofer, S., Carvalho, P., Davey, S., Dietrich, M., ... Watt, A. (2005). Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition. Conservation Biology, 19(4), 1051-1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.004125.x

Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition. / Bergamini, Ariel; Scheidegger, Christoph; Stofer, Silvia; Carvalho, Palmira; Davey, Simon; Dietrich, Michael; Dubs, Florence; Farkas, Edit; Groner, Urs; Kärkkäinen, Kati; Keller, Christine; Lökös, László; Lommi, Sampsa; Máguas, Cristina; Mitchell, Ruth; Pinho, Pedro; Rico, Víctor J.; Aragón, Gregorio; Truscott, Anne-Marie; Wolseley, Pat; Watt, Alan.

In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2005, p. 1051-1062.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bergamini, A, Scheidegger, C, Stofer, S, Carvalho, P, Davey, S, Dietrich, M, Dubs, F, Farkas, E, Groner, U, Kärkkäinen, K, Keller, C, Lökös, L, Lommi, S, Máguas, C, Mitchell, R, Pinho, P, Rico, VJ, Aragón, G, Truscott, A-M, Wolseley, P & Watt, A 2005, 'Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition', Conservation Biology, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1051-1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.004125.x
Bergamini, Ariel ; Scheidegger, Christoph ; Stofer, Silvia ; Carvalho, Palmira ; Davey, Simon ; Dietrich, Michael ; Dubs, Florence ; Farkas, Edit ; Groner, Urs ; Kärkkäinen, Kati ; Keller, Christine ; Lökös, László ; Lommi, Sampsa ; Máguas, Cristina ; Mitchell, Ruth ; Pinho, Pedro ; Rico, Víctor J. ; Aragón, Gregorio ; Truscott, Anne-Marie ; Wolseley, Pat ; Watt, Alan. / Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition. In: Conservation Biology. 2005 ; Vol. 19, No. 4. pp. 1051-1062.
@article{062b82d428ed491d85cf0191bb9ddd48,
title = "Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition",
abstract = "In the search for cost-effective methods for measuring and monitoring lichen diversity, we tested the performance of two possible indicators: lichen genus diversity and macrolichen diversity. We studied the lichen vegetation of eight European countries situated in six different biogeographic regions. In each country, six land-use units (each 1 km2) representing a land-use gradient ranging from old-growth forest to farmland were sampled (n = 48) for terricolous, saxicolous, and epiphytic lichens at 16 plots each. We found 768 different lichen species belonging to 157 genera. Relationships between richness and density of genera and species, species and macrolichens, and crustose lichens and macrolichens were highly significant (p <0.001) for all substrates combined and for epiphytic and saxicolous lichens. Richness and density of genera and macrolichens explained a large amount of variation of the species richness and density (R2: 71.9{\%}-98.0{\%}). The relationship between crustose lichens and macrolichens explained less of the variation (R2: 37.7{\%}-70.1{\%}). Effects of land-use intensity on the richness and density of genera, species, and crustose lichens were similar, except for a strong difference between the forested and the more open land-use units for epiphytic crustose lichens. For epiphytic macrolichens there were fewer significant effects. Detrended correspondence analysis indicated similar ordering of sites along the major gradients and similar length of these gradients for genera, species, macrolichens, and crustose lichens. Both genera and macrolichens are useful indicators of total lichen species richness and density. Macrolichens, however, are more suitable indicators than genera owing to (1) their more stable taxonomy of species than of genera, (2) the potential that nonspecialists could do the sampling, (3) the limited use of genera data for species conservation, and (4) the fact that species extinctions will not be indicated by nonmonotypic genera.",
keywords = "Biodiversity indicator, Crustose lichens, Land-use intensity, Species composition",
author = "Ariel Bergamini and Christoph Scheidegger and Silvia Stofer and Palmira Carvalho and Simon Davey and Michael Dietrich and Florence Dubs and Edit Farkas and Urs Groner and Kati K{\"a}rkk{\"a}inen and Christine Keller and L{\'a}szl{\'o} L{\"o}k{\"o}s and Sampsa Lommi and Cristina M{\'a}guas and Ruth Mitchell and Pedro Pinho and Rico, {V{\'i}ctor J.} and Gregorio Arag{\'o}n and Anne-Marie Truscott and Pat Wolseley and Alan Watt",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.004125.x",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1051--1062",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance of macrolichens and lichen genera as indicators of lichen species richness and composition

AU - Bergamini, Ariel

AU - Scheidegger, Christoph

AU - Stofer, Silvia

AU - Carvalho, Palmira

AU - Davey, Simon

AU - Dietrich, Michael

AU - Dubs, Florence

AU - Farkas, Edit

AU - Groner, Urs

AU - Kärkkäinen, Kati

AU - Keller, Christine

AU - Lökös, László

AU - Lommi, Sampsa

AU - Máguas, Cristina

AU - Mitchell, Ruth

AU - Pinho, Pedro

AU - Rico, Víctor J.

AU - Aragón, Gregorio

AU - Truscott, Anne-Marie

AU - Wolseley, Pat

AU - Watt, Alan

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - In the search for cost-effective methods for measuring and monitoring lichen diversity, we tested the performance of two possible indicators: lichen genus diversity and macrolichen diversity. We studied the lichen vegetation of eight European countries situated in six different biogeographic regions. In each country, six land-use units (each 1 km2) representing a land-use gradient ranging from old-growth forest to farmland were sampled (n = 48) for terricolous, saxicolous, and epiphytic lichens at 16 plots each. We found 768 different lichen species belonging to 157 genera. Relationships between richness and density of genera and species, species and macrolichens, and crustose lichens and macrolichens were highly significant (p <0.001) for all substrates combined and for epiphytic and saxicolous lichens. Richness and density of genera and macrolichens explained a large amount of variation of the species richness and density (R2: 71.9%-98.0%). The relationship between crustose lichens and macrolichens explained less of the variation (R2: 37.7%-70.1%). Effects of land-use intensity on the richness and density of genera, species, and crustose lichens were similar, except for a strong difference between the forested and the more open land-use units for epiphytic crustose lichens. For epiphytic macrolichens there were fewer significant effects. Detrended correspondence analysis indicated similar ordering of sites along the major gradients and similar length of these gradients for genera, species, macrolichens, and crustose lichens. Both genera and macrolichens are useful indicators of total lichen species richness and density. Macrolichens, however, are more suitable indicators than genera owing to (1) their more stable taxonomy of species than of genera, (2) the potential that nonspecialists could do the sampling, (3) the limited use of genera data for species conservation, and (4) the fact that species extinctions will not be indicated by nonmonotypic genera.

AB - In the search for cost-effective methods for measuring and monitoring lichen diversity, we tested the performance of two possible indicators: lichen genus diversity and macrolichen diversity. We studied the lichen vegetation of eight European countries situated in six different biogeographic regions. In each country, six land-use units (each 1 km2) representing a land-use gradient ranging from old-growth forest to farmland were sampled (n = 48) for terricolous, saxicolous, and epiphytic lichens at 16 plots each. We found 768 different lichen species belonging to 157 genera. Relationships between richness and density of genera and species, species and macrolichens, and crustose lichens and macrolichens were highly significant (p <0.001) for all substrates combined and for epiphytic and saxicolous lichens. Richness and density of genera and macrolichens explained a large amount of variation of the species richness and density (R2: 71.9%-98.0%). The relationship between crustose lichens and macrolichens explained less of the variation (R2: 37.7%-70.1%). Effects of land-use intensity on the richness and density of genera, species, and crustose lichens were similar, except for a strong difference between the forested and the more open land-use units for epiphytic crustose lichens. For epiphytic macrolichens there were fewer significant effects. Detrended correspondence analysis indicated similar ordering of sites along the major gradients and similar length of these gradients for genera, species, macrolichens, and crustose lichens. Both genera and macrolichens are useful indicators of total lichen species richness and density. Macrolichens, however, are more suitable indicators than genera owing to (1) their more stable taxonomy of species than of genera, (2) the potential that nonspecialists could do the sampling, (3) the limited use of genera data for species conservation, and (4) the fact that species extinctions will not be indicated by nonmonotypic genera.

KW - Biodiversity indicator

KW - Crustose lichens

KW - Land-use intensity

KW - Species composition

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27944464373&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.004125.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.004125.x

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 1051

EP - 1062

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

IS - 4

ER -