Importance of Forest Act habitats for epiphytic lichens in Finnish managed forests

Abstract Habitats of particular importance, as defined in the recent Forest Act of Finland, provide a new means to conserve forest biodiversity in managed forest landscapes. These “Forest Act habitats” should by definition contain populations of rare and red-listed species, but their species composition has not been studied. In this work, indicator and red-listed lichens were studied in private forests of southern Finland in three Forest Act habitat types (brookside forests, herb-rich forests, cliff-forests). Threatened species were found only in 9%, red-listed species in 29% and indicator species in 50% of the study sites. Populations of the target species were mainly very small, half of them on no more than one tree, and thus prone to extinction. Picea abies , Populus tremula and Sorbus aucuparia were the most important host tree species for indicator lichens. The Forest Act habitats appear to make only a limited contribution to the conservation of indicator and red-listed lichens. This is because delimited Forest Act habitats are small-sized sites and rarely harbour old forest stands. Moreover, even selective logging and felling of individual trees, which are generally permitted in Forest Act habitats, can decrease the persistence of epiphytic lichens. Thus, the biodiversity goals integrated in the Forest Act appear to be incompletely realized in current forestry practices.

[1]  B. Jonsson,et al.  Edge Effects on Liverworts and Lichens in Forest Patches in a Mosaic of Boreal Forest and Wetland , 2003 .

[2]  K. Korhonen,et al.  Pirkanmaan metsäkeskuksen alueen metsävarat 1965–1999 , 1970 .

[3]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Uncommon bryophytes in Swedish forests—key habitats and production forests compared , 2004 .

[4]  J. Pykälä.  Effects of New Forestry Practices on Rare Epiphytic Macrolichens , 2004 .

[5]  H. Holien,et al.  Epiphytic Lichen Response to the Edge Environment in a Boreal Picea abies Forest in Central Norway , 2002 .

[6]  Åke Berg,et al.  Habitat preferences of red-listed fungi and bryophytes in woodland key habitats in southern Sweden – analyses of data from a national survey , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[7]  G. Thor.  Red-listed lichens in Sweden: habitats, threats, protection, and indicator value in boreal coniferous forests , 1998, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[8]  S. Nilsson,et al.  Tree-Dependent Lichens and Beetles as Indicators in Conservation Forests. , 1995, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[9]  L. Ericson,et al.  Epiphytic macrolichens as conservation indicators: successional sequence in Populus tremula stands , 2000 .

[10]  A. Sverdrup‐Thygeson.  Key Habitats in the Norwegian Production Forest: A Case Study , 2002 .

[11]  L. Gustafsson.  Presence and Abundance of Red‐Listed Plant Species in Swedish Forests , 2002 .

[12]  P. Angelstam,et al.  Occurrence of epiphytic macrolichens in relation to tree species and age in managed boreal forest , 1999 .

[13]  Malcolm L. Hunter,et al.  Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems: Contents , 1999 .

[14]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens , 1999, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[15]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Red-listed and indicator lichens in woodland key habitats and production forests in Sweden , 2001 .

[16]  Christer Nilsson,et al.  Protected Areas in Sweden: Is Natural Variety Adequately Represented? , 1992 .

[17]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Threatened Plant, Animal, and Fungus Species in Swedish Forests: Distribution and Habitat Associations , 1994 .

[18]  C. L. Shafer.  Values and shortcomings of small reserves , 1995 .

[19]  I. Hanski,et al.  Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. , 2000 .

[20]  J. Fridman.  Conservation of forest in Sweden: a strategic ecological analysis. , 2000 .

[21]  A. Nordin,et al.  Lichen-forming and lichenicolous fungi of Fennoscandia , 2004 .

[22]  Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment , 1994 .

[23]  S. Nilsson,et al.  Biodiversity and its Assessment in Boreal and Nemoral Forests , 2001 .

[24]  L. Gustafsson.  Red-listed species and indicators: vascular plants in woodland key habitats and surrounding production forests in Sweden , 2000 .

[25]  M. Kuusinen.  Epiphyte Flora and Diversity on Basal Trunks of Six Old-Growth Forest Tree Species in Southern and Middle Boreal Finland , 1996, The Lichenologist.

[26]  Per‐Anders Esseen,et al.  Edge Effects on an Epiphytic Lichen in Fragmented Forests , 1998 .

[27]  Jogeir N. Stokland,et al.  Representativeness and Efficiency of Bird and Insect Conservation in Norwegian Boreal Forest Reserves , 1997 .

[28]  F. Götmark,et al.  Size of nature reserves: densities of large trees and dead wood indicate high value of small conservation forests in southern Sweden , 2003, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[29]  Per‐Anders Esseen,et al.  Modelling long-term effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in northern Sweden , 2003 .

[30]  L. Hansson.  Key Habitats in Swedish Managed Forests , 2001 .

[31]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems: Dynamic forest mosaics , 1999 .

[32]  M. Rosenzweig,et al.  Species Diversity in Space and Time , 1995 .

[33]  Jon Moen,et al.  Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: Is forest policy promoting fragmentation? , 2005 .

[34]  F. Rose.  Temperate forest management: its effects on bryophyte and lichen floras and habitats , 1992 .