Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 307–318 | Cite as

Ecological variables influencing the diversity and distribution of macrolichens colonizing Quercus leucotrichophora in Uttarakhand forest

  • Shashi Upadhyay
  • Arun K. Jugran
  • Yogesh Joshi
  • Renu Suyal
  • Ranbeer S. Rawal
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Ecological variables play a significant role in determining the diversity and distribution of any living organism on earth. Lichens are not exceptional and are quite sensitive in comparison to other organisms; hence the present study focuses on the impact of ecological variables on the diversity and distribution of epiphytic macrolichens colonizing Quercus leucotrichophora across eight different sites (50 m × 50 m) in Thal Ke Dhar forest, Kumaun Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. For sampling of macrolichens, 200 trees (25 trees from each site) of Q. leucotrichophora were selected from each site and five quadrats of 5 cm × 10 cm (1000 quadrats in totality) were drawn at the tree trunk. From all the sampled trees, a total of 54 species of epiphytic macrolichens belonging to 18 genera and five families were recorded. Various ecological variables, namely altitude, aspect, slope, diameter at breast height (DBH), and lopping percent (partial cutting of the twigs as disturbance), were also analyzed to investigate their influence on macrolichen species composition and distribution pattern in the study area. For the determination of relationships between these variables, statistical analysis, namely Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, Polynomial regression analysis and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were performed. Out of all variables, lopping was significantly correlated to species richness of epiphytic macrolichens (0.712*, p<0.05) and it was confirmed by Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient. Despite of having high anthropogenic pressure or impact through lopping, the maximum number of macrolichen species was recorded at elevation 2267 meter above sea level (m asl). The present study revealed that besides other ecological variables, lopping practices can act as a key parameter in controlling the diversity and distribution not only of epiphytic macrolichens but also of other life forms such as bryophytes, pteridophytes, insects, birds etc. and can be either negatively or positively correlated.

Keywords

Conservation Epiphytic macrolichens Kumaun Himalaya Lopping Quercus Banj oak 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Yogesh JOSHI would like to thank Head, Department of Botany, S.S.J. Campus Kumaun University, Almora - 263601 for providing laboratory facilities and G. B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora- 263643 (GBPI/IERP/16-17/16/175) for financial assistance. Other authors would like to thank Director, G. B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora-263643 and Lead-Botanical Garden (funded by MoEF&CC) for financial assistance. Authors are grateful to Dr. Ravindra K. Joshi, G.B.P.N.I.H.E.S.D., Kosi- Katarmal, Almora-263643, for enhancing the quality of figures.

References

  1. Adhikari YP, Fischer A, Fischer HS (2012a) Micro-site conditions of epiphytic orchids in a human impact gradient in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Journal of Mountain Science 9: 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-009-2262-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adhikari YP, Fischer HS, Fischer A (2012b) Host tree utilization by epiphytic orchids in different land-use intensities in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Plant Ecology 213: 1393–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-012-0099-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adhikari YP, Fischer A, Fischer HS (2016) Epiphytic orchids and their ecological niche under anthropogenic influence in Central Himalaya, Nepal. Journal of Mountain Science 13(5): 774–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-015-3751-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aude E, Poulsen RS (2000) Influence of management on the species composition of epiphytic cryptogams in Danish Fagus forests. Applied Vegetation Science 3: 81–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1478921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Awasthi DD (2007) A compendium of the macrolichens from India, Nepal and Shri Lanka. Dehradun: Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh.Google Scholar
  6. Balaji P, Hariharan GN (2004) Lichen Diversity and its distribution pattern in tropical dry evergreen forest of Guindy National Park (GNP), Chennai. Indian Forester 130: 1155–1168.Google Scholar
  7. Baniya CB (2010) Vascular and cryptogam richness in the world’s highest alpine zone, Tibet. Mountain Research and Development 30: 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRDJOURNAL-D-09-00057.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baniya CB, Solhoy T, Gauslaa Y, Palmer MW (2012) Richness and composition of vascular plants and cryptogams along a high elevational gradient on Buddha mountain, central Tibet. Folia Geobotanica 47: 135–151. http://doi.org/10.1007/S12224-011-9113-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bisht K, Joshi Y, Tripathi M, Upreti DK (2013) Estimation of epiphytic macrolichen biomass in Binsar Wildlife Sanctuary (BWS), Almora, Uttarakhand, India. G-Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1: 62–70.Google Scholar
  10. Boudreault C, Coxson D, Bergeron Y, et al. (2013) Do forests treated by partial cutting provide growth conditions similar to old-growth forests for epiphytic lichens? Biological Conservation 159: 458–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2012.12.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunialti G, Giordani P (2003) Variability of lichen diversity in a climatically heterogeneous area (Liguria, NW Italy). Lichenologist 35: 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/lich.2002. 0417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruun HH, Moen J, Virtanen R, et al. (2006) Effects of altitude and topography on species richness of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens in alpine communities. Journal of Vegetation Science 17: 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2006.tb02421.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curtis JT, Cottam G (1956) Plant ecology work book. Laboratory Field reference manual. Minnesota: Burgess Publ Co. p 193.Google Scholar
  14. Curtis JT, McIntosh RP (1950) The interactions of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characters. Ecology 31: 434–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dettki H, Esseen PA (2003) Modelling long-term effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 175: 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/50378-1127(02)00131-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Divakar PK, Upreti DK (2005) Parmelioid Lichens in India (a revisionary study). Dehradun: Bishen Singh and Mahendra Pal Singh.Google Scholar
  17. Friedel A, Oheimb GV, Dengler J, Hardtle W (2006) Species diversity and species composition of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens-a comparison of managed and unmanaged beech forest in NE Germany. Feddes Repertorium 117: 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.200511084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galloway DJ (1992) Biodiversity: a lichenological perspective. Biodiversity and Conservation 1: 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00693767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan DP (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software packages for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4: 9. https://palaeoelectonica. org/2001_1/past/past.pdf.Google Scholar
  20. Huang MR (2010) Altitudinal patterns of Stereocaulon (Lichenized Ascomycota) in China. Acta Oecologica 36: 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2009.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jansson KU, Palmqvist K, Esseen PE (2009) Growth of the old forest lichen Usnea longissima at forest edges. Lichenologist 41: 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282909008536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joshi Y, Tripathi M, Jinnah Z, et al. (2016) Host specificity of epiphytic macrolichens: a case study of Jageshwar forest (Uttarakhand) India. Tropical Ecology 57: 1–8.Google Scholar
  23. Kricke R, Loppi S (2002) Bioindication: the I.A.P. approach. In: Nimis PL, Scheidegger C, Wolseley PA (eds.), Monitoring with lichens-monitoring lichens. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. pp 21–37.Google Scholar
  24. Kumar J, Khare R, Rai H, et al. (2012) Diversity of lichens along altitudinal and land use gradients in the Trans Himalayan cold desert of Ladakh. Nature and Science 10: 1–9.Google Scholar
  25. Kumar J, Rai H, Khare R, et al. (2014) Elevational controls of lichen communities in Zanskar Valley, Ladakh, a Trans Himalayan cold desert. Tropical Plant Research 1: 48–54.Google Scholar
  26. Larrea ML, Werner FA (2010) Response of vascular epiphyte diversity to different land-use intensities in a neotropical montane wet forest. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 1950–1955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lehmkuhl JF (2004) Epiphytic lichen diversity and biomass in low-elevation forests of the eastern Washington Cascade range, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 187: 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2003.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCune B (2000) Lichen communities as indicators of forest health. Bryologist 103: 353–356. https://doi.org/10.1639/0007-2745(2000)103[0353:LCAIOF]2.0.co;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGee GG, Kimmerer RW (2002) Forest age and management effects on epiphytic bryophyte communities in Adirondack, northern hardwood forests, New York, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1562–1576. https://doi.org/10.1139/x02-083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Negi HR (2000a) On the patterns of abundance and diversity of macrolichens of Chopta-Tungnath in the Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Bioscience 25: 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Negi HR (2000b) Spatial patterns of biodiversity of lichens. Journal of Indian Institute of Science 80: 571–589.Google Scholar
  32. Negi HR, Upreti DK (2000) Species diversity and relative abundance of lichens in Rumbak catchment of Hemis National Park in Laddakh. Current Science 78: 1105–1112.Google Scholar
  33. Nkongmeneck BA, Lowman MD, Atwood JT (2002) Epiphyte diversity in primary and fragmented forests of Cameroon, Central Africa: A preliminary survey. Selbyana 23: 121–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/41760108Google Scholar
  34. Oheimb GV, Friedel A, Tempel H, et al. (2003) Succession research and derivation of silvicultural information in nearnatural beech forests with long-term undisturbed forest dynamics in the north-east German lowland. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
  35. Oldfield S, Eastwood A (2007) The Red List of Oaks. UK: Fauna and Flora of International Cambridge. ISBN: 9781 903703250Google Scholar
  36. Orange A, James PW, White EJ (2001) Microchemical methods for the identification of lichens. London: British lichen Society.Google Scholar
  37. Pentecost A (1998) Some observations on the biomass and distribution of cryptogamic epiphytes in the upper montane forest of the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7: 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822x.1998.00297.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Phillips EA (1959) Methods of vegetation study. Henry Holt & Co Inc. p 107.Google Scholar
  39. Pinokiyo A, Singh KP, Singh JS (2008) Diversity and distribution of lichens in relation to altitude within a protected biodiversity hot spot, north-east India. Lichenologist 40: 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00242829 08007214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pintado A, Sancho LG, Valladares F (2001) The influence of microclimate on the composition of lichen communities along an altitudinal gradient in the Maritime Antarctic. Symbiosis 31: 69–84.Google Scholar
  41. Rai H, Upreti DK, Gupta RK (2012) Diversity and distribution of terricolous lichens as indicator of habitat heterogeneity and grazing induced trampling in a temperate-alpine shrub and meadow. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0168-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rai H, Khare R, Baniya CB, et al. (2015) Elevational gradients of terricolous lichen species richness in the Western Himalaya. Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 1155–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0848-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schumacher A (2000) The ecology of mosses in Central European beech forests under the influence of Forestry. Dissertationes Botanicae 331: 1–176.Google Scholar
  44. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana IL: University Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  45. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Singh G, Rawat GS (2012) Quantitative analysis of tree species diversity in different Oak (Quercus spp.) dominated forests in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Notulae Scientia Biologicae 4: 132–140. https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb448200Google Scholar
  47. Singh G, Padalia H, Rai ID, et al. (2016) Spatial extent and conservation status of Banj oak (Quercus leucotrichophora A. Camus) forests in Uttarakhand, Western Himalaya. Tropical Ecology 57(2): 255–262.Google Scholar
  48. Singh KP, Sinha GP (2010) Indian Lichens: An Annotated checklist. India: Botanical Survey of India.Google Scholar
  49. Sorenson T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analysis of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter Kongelige Danske videnskabernes Selskab 5: 1–34.Google Scholar
  50. Werth S, Wagner HH, Holderegger R, et al. (2006) Effect of disturbances on the genetic diversity of an old-forest associated lichen. Molecular Ecology 15: 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2006.02838.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whitford PB (1949) Distribution of woodland plants in relation to succession and clonal growth. Ecology 30: 199–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/1931186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolf JHD (2005) The response of epiphytes to anthropogenic disturbance of pine-oak forests in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 212: 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolseley PA, James PW, Theobald MR, Sutton MA (2006) Detecting changes in epiphytic lichen communities at sites affected by atmospheric ammonia from agricultural sources. Lichenologist 38: 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002428 2905005487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yeshitela VK (2008) Effect of anthropogenic disturbance on the diversity of foliicolous lichens in tropical rainforests of East Africa: Godere (Ethiopia), Budongo (Uganda) and Kakamega (Kenya). Dissertation Report, Department 3: Mathematics/Natural Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lichenology laboratory, S.S.J. CampusKumaun UniversityAlmoraIndia
  2. 2.G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentGarhwal UnitSrinagarIndia
  3. 3.Biodiversity Conservation & Management, Ecosystem Services and Climate Change Group, G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Kosi-KatarmalAlmoraIndia

Personalised recommendations