EKOLOGIJA. 2005. Nr. 3. P. 34–43 © Lietuvos mokslø akademija, 2005 34 Jurga Motiejûnaitë, Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz © Lietuvos mokslø akademijos leidykla, 2005 Effect of land-use on lichen diversity in the transboundary region of Lithuania and northeastern Poland Jurga Motiejûnaitë Institute of Botany, Þaliøjø eþerø 49, LT-08406 Vilnius, L ithuania Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz Institute of Plant Biology, Wrocùaw University, Kanonia 6/8, PL -50-328 Wrocùaw, Poland Twelve transects, each 7 km long and 10 m wide (in groups of six in Lithuania and Poland), and additional five areas (three on the Lithuanian side and two on the Polish side) were chosen for the evaluation of lichen diversity along the Via Baltica highway in the segment between Marijampolë and Suwalki towns. The study area was similar geographically, but had a different history of land-use practices determined by different human activities in both countries. A total of 194 species of lichens were registered during the present study in the whole investigated area; 165 species were reported from the Lithuanian part and 136 from the Polish part. In the Polish part of the study area, among the commonest species acidophilous lichens were more frequently registered, meanwhile on the Lithuanian side nitrophilous species were more common. On the other hand, most of the lichens characteristic of forests with a long ecological continuity were registered only in the Lithuanian part of the study area. The large-scale totally replacing sylviculture combined with relatively intensive agriculture affected lichen diversity more adversely than the agricultural landscape intermixed with surviving islands of natural biotopes. The differences in lichen diversity were caused by a decrease of landscape/ biotope diversity on the Polish side and maintenance of landscape/biotope diversity through a more traditional land-use on the Lithuanian side. Key words : lichens, diversity, land-use, Lithuania, NE Poland INTRODUCTION Man is one of the most important factors influencing the modern patterns of lichen diversity all over the world and especially in the areas with a long history of human activities like Europe, where nature has been shaped by humans for millennia. Though it is impossible to track all changes in lichen flora due to deforestation, industrial re-forestation, agriculture, urbanization, environmental pollution and mining activities, at least some mirroring of not too remote land-use history can be observed. It is reasonably well known how species diversity dwindle to rather simplified flora due to habitat destruction, especially destruction of forest habitats (Hawksworth et al., 1974; Gilbert, 1980; 2000, etc.), environmental pollution (see, e. g., bibliography by A. Hendersson in http://www.nhm.uio.no/botanisk/lav/ R LL/R LL.H TM), agriculture (Brown, 1992; 1996; Loppi, De Dominicis, 1996; van Dobben, 1996, etc.), and forestry (Kuusinen, Siitonen, 1998; Gilbert, 2000; etc.). There is also certain amount of data on lichens spreading through new substrates or habitats created by man (Alstrup, 1977; Aptroot, James, 2002; Gilbert, 1990, 2000; Daniels, Harkema, 1992; Ceynowa-Gieùdon, 2001; Ernst, 1995; Wirth, 1976; Motiejûnaitë, 1999; etc.). All these factors are important, and often it is difficult to tell which of them has played the key role in the formation of the existing pattern of lichen diversity in one or another locality. Documenting of lichen flora in various areas usually does not answer this question, because subjectively more often protected or at least less humanaffected areas are chosen for lichen inventory and then mainly the influence of natural factors on lichen diversity are discussed, if at all, or only a human-influenced decrease of diversity is mentioned (e. g., Arup et al., 2001; Czyýewska et al., 2002; Faùtynowicz, 1996; Motiejûnaitë, Piterâns, 1998; Piðut, Guttovc, 1998; Randlane, Jüriado, 1999; Woods, 2003; etc.) or, if ecological surveys are carried out, they Effect of land-use on lichen diversity in the transboundary region of Lithuania and northeastern Poland are targeted either to one environmental factor or to one ecological group of lichens (Dietrich, Scheidegger, 1996, 1997; Giordani et al., 2001; Holien, 1998; Arup et al., 2003; etc.). Therefore analyses of lichen diversity in a mosaic landscape are quite sparse. In 1999, an international project was launched in the transboundary region of Lithuania (Marijampolë district) and Poland (Suwalki region), aiming to evaluate the diversity of target organism groups in the vicinity of the important international highway Via Baltica, where the transport and urbanisation load is expected to increase significantly in the nearest future. The results of the investigation not only highlighted the present situation of lichen diversity in the study area, but also revealed certain patterns that can be explained by differences in human activities on both sides of the state border. In the present paper, we attempted to elucidate the factors influencing lichen diversity and to link the variability of diversity patterns to different land-use practices in the region. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twelve transects (7 km long and 10 m wide) and five additional localities of slightly varying area in both countries were chosen for the field studies in the environs of the Via Baltica highway. In the Lithuanian part of the area six transects were chosen. Two were in the segment between Marijampolë and Kalvarija towns (Valavièiai (L1) and Z apalimai (L2) transects); this segment is especially heavily anthropogenized, and any forested areas are absent; agricultural fields prevail, therefore lichen diversity is especially low here. In the segment between Kalvarija and the state border, four transects were chosen: Sangrûda (L3), Reketija (L4), Brazavas (L5) and Palucmargiai (L6). Three additional areas were the Trakënai forest (L7), the forest in the environs of the Barkai farmstead in the valley of the Šarkyèia rivulet (L8), and the territory around the Reketija cordon (L9). Six transects were chosen between Suwalki and the Polish–Lithuanian state border in the Polish part of the study area: Sadzawki (P1), Becejy (P2), Z aboryszki (P3), Jeleniewo (P4), Prudziszki (P5) and Osinki (P6). Two additional areas were chosen in Szymanowizna (P7) and Studzieniczne (P8) forests. Material for the study was collected or registered from all available substrates and habitats. The collected specimens were identified following routine lichenological methods. In the present analysis lichenicolous fungi were omitted, as they were registered only on the Lithuanian side. These findings were published earlier (Motiejûnaitë, 2002). Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed with PC-OR D 4 (McCune, Mefford, 1999) to estimate 35 the similarity of lichen species composition in transects and study areas. The relative S¸ rensen distance measure and the farthest neighbourhood linkage method were employed in cluster analysis. The analysis was based on presence of species; species abundance was not taken into account. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LICHENOLOGICAL STUDIES IN THE STUDY AREA AND SURROUNDING REGION No baseline of lichenological studies for the investigation area exists in either of the countries. In the Lithuanian part, as in the whole previous district of Marijampolë in general, lichens are generally very much understudied: historical data are almost absent. There are only several collections from this region, mainly common species like Xanthoria parietina, Hypogymnia physodes, Cladonia rangiferina in the herbarium of Vilnius University (WI) (Motiejûnaitë, 1992). The closest better-investigated area is the Bagotoji military forestry, northwards of the present study area, which was studied in 1995 (Motiejûnaitë, 1996); besides, there is a small collection of lichens from the close-laying Bukta forest in the herbarium of the Institute of Botany (BILAS). A small recent lichenological collection containing several specimens from the area of the present study is kept in the herbarium of the Marijampolë Ecological Education Station. Almost all species of this collection were recorded during the present study as well: Physcia tenella, Evernia prunastri, Xanthoria parietina, Ramalina fraxinea, R. farinacea, Parmelia sulcata, Platismatia glauca, Vulpicida pinastri, Hypogymnia physodes, Pseudevernia furfuracea and Cladonia furcata. Only two species (Cladonia botrytes and C. rangiformis) were not found on the Lithuanian side of the area. There are no historical data on the lichens from the Polish part of the study area either, except for several lichenological works concerning the Suwalki region in general. Information concerning lichens of the neighbouring Wigierski National Park can be found in the articles by Bystrek and Matwiejuk (1994); Bystrek and Przepiórkowska (1994); Faùtynowicz (1994). Some data on lichens from the vicinity of the study area can be found in papers by Ñàâè ÷ (1923); Bystrek (1964, 1964, 1974); Faùtynowicz (1981) and Cieúliñski, Tobolewski (1989). INVESTIGATION AREA The investigated area is a belt of ca. 90 km long, starting at the outskirts of the Marijampolë town in Lithuania, crossing the state border and ending in the outskirts of the Suwalki town in Poland. Its direction coincides with the Via Baltica highway. Geographically, the Lithuanian part of the study area belongs to two districts of the biogeographical 36 Jurga Motiejûnaitë, Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz Eastern Baltic province’s Atlantic belt: the segment from Marijampolë to Kalvarija belongs to the Sûduva lowland district, and the segment between Kalvarija and the State border belongs to the Sûduva highland district. The Sûduva lowland district is characterized by argillaceous and wavy loam plains with biocenoses of mixed spruce-hardwood as well as deciduous forests intermixed with dry meadows and mires under conditions of agrarian and agrarian-forested landscape. This part is characterized by rich soils and subsequently by intensive agriculture. Most areas are occupied with arable fields, cultured meadows and pastures, farms and gardens with very sparse areas of forest plantations (Pinus sylvestris). The Sûduva highland district is characterized by loamy hills with biocenoses of mixed spruce-hardwood as well as deciduous forests intermixed with lowland meadows and lakes under conditions of agrarian and agrarian-forested landscape (Anonimas, 1997). In this part, more fragments of natural landscape survived: small patches of semi-natural deciduous forests, fragments of dry grasslands with numerous boulders. Forest plantations occupy larger areas as well. The Polish part of the study area belongs to the physicogeographical Eastern Suwalki Lakeland mesoregion (Kondracki, 1978). In the sense of phytogeographic division it belongs to the Suwalki–Augustów region (Szafer, 1972). Most of the Polish part of the area is arable land. In this agricultural landscape, small patches of forests (not exceeding several square kilometres) have survived. Woodland communities with the dominant Pinus sylvestris prevail. Picea abies is another important tree species. Monocultures of both conifers often replace forest habitats, formerly occupied by deciduous and mixed woodland. Only small fragments of rich deciduous forests with Quercus petraea, Carpinus betulus, Tilia cordata and Corylus avellana have survived on slopes above streams, as well as narrow patches of forests with Alnus glutinosa in tree-stands along streams and small rivers. The age structure of the tree-stands is outstandingly poor: most of them are post-war plantations (ca. 55 years old). The whole territory is characterised by a rather low annual precipitation (550–600 mm). Local industrial pollution is low on both sides of the border, as there is no large industrial objects in the whole region. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Lichen frequency and diversity In total, 194 species of lichens were registered during the present study in the whole investigated area. As the genus L epraria was identified to the species level only in part of the collections, all species were united under L epraria spp. All “chemical” species of the Cladonia chlorophaea group were united under C. chlorophaea coll., the same as the Xanthoria candelaria and in part L ecanora dispersa groups. The taxa identified only to the genus level were not taken into account in the present paper, except a sterile species probably belonging to the genus Biatora, which is widespread and common in hardwood forests of Lithuania. Lichen frequency analysis showed that most lichens were of the lowest frequency (Table 1), found in one or two transects or study areas (76 species, 39% of Table 1. List of species in four classes of frequency (with indicating the number of transects and study areas they occurred in) Rare Rather rare Rather frequent Frequent Acarospora heppii 2 Acrocordia gemmata 2 Agonimia allobata 2 Arthonia dispersa 1 Arthonia radiata 1 Arthothelium ruanum 2 Acarospora veronensis 4 Anaptychia ciliaris 5 Arthonia spadicea 4 Aspicilia moenium 3 Bacidia bagliettoana 3 Bacidia rubella 5 Acarospora fuscata 14 Amandinea punctata 14 Caloplaca decipiens 10 Caloplaca holocarpa 14 Caloplaca saxicola 11 Candelariella aurella 13 Aspicilia caesiocinerea 2 Aspicilia calcarea 2 Bacidina arnoldiana 3 Candelaria concolor 3 Aspicilia cinerea 7 Buellia griseovirens 8 Caloplaca citrina 6 Cetraria chlorophylla 7 Chaenotheca ferruginea 7 Cladonia chlorophaea aggr. 8 Cladonia furcata 8 Cladonia ochrochlora 6 Bacidina chloroticula 1 Chaenotheca furfuracea 3 Chaenotheca trichialis 4 Cladonia arbuscula 3 Cladonia glauca 4 Collema limosum 3 Collema tenax 5 Graphis scripta 3 Bacidina egenula 1 “Biatora” sp. 1 Bryoria fuscescens 1 Buellia badia 1 Caloplaca cerinella 1 Candelariella coralliza 2 Cladonia subulata 7 Candelariella vitellina 13 Candelariella xanthostigma 14 Cladonia coniocraea 10 Dimerella pineti 6 Cladonia fimbriata 13 L ecania cyrtella 7 L ecanora argentata 8 L ecanora crenulata 6 L ecanora saligna 7 L ecanora symmicta 6 Evernia prunastri 16 Hypocenomyce scalaris 11 Hypogymnia physodes 16 Hypogymnia tubulosa 11 L ecanora albescens 13 Effect of land-use on lichen diversity in the transboundary region of Lithuania and northeastern Poland 37 Candelariella efflorescens 1 Candelariella reflexa 1 Cetraria aculeata 1 Cetraria islandica 1 L ecania cyrtellina 3 L ecanora varia 7 L ecanora carpinea 17 L ecania naegelii 4 L ecanora allophana 5 L ecanora piniperda 4 L ecidea fuscoatra 6 Neofuscella loxodes 8 Neofuscella pulla 7 Cetraria sepincola 1 Chaenotheca brachypoda 2 Chaenotheca chrysocephala 1 Chaenotheca xyloxena 2 Cladonia cariosa 2 Cladonia cenotea 1 Cladonia cornuta 2 Cladonia digitata 2 Cladonia gracilis 1 L ecanora populicola 3 Peltigera rufescens 8 L ecanora rupicola 4 Pertusaria amara 6 L ecanra chlarotera 14 L ecanora conizaeoides 14 L ecanora dispersa s. l. 13 L ecanora expallens 13 L ecanora hagenii 13 L ecanora umbrina 4 L ecanora muralis 15 Physconia distorta 7 L ecidella stigmatea 4 Physconia perisidiosa 6 L eptogium biatorinum 3 Platismatia glauca 6 Melanelia subaurifera 4 Pleurosticta acetabulum 8 Micarea denigrata 4 Tephromela atra 6 Micarea prasina 4 Trapeliopsis flexuosa 9 Mycobilimbia Verrucaria muralis 8 sabuletorum 3 Cladonia macilenta 2 Opegrapha rufescens 3 Verrucaria nigrescens 7 Cladonia rei 2 Placynthiella icmalea 3 Vulpicida pinastri 7 Cladonia scabriuscula 1 Placynthiella uliginosa 5 Xanthoria candelaria s. l. 8 Cladonia subrangiformis 1 Porpidia crustulata 5 Xanthoria elegans 6 Cladonia symphycarpa 1 Rhizocarpon obscuratum 5 Diploschistes scruposus 1 Rinodina pyrina 4 Fuscidea pusilla 1 Sarcogyne regularis 4 Imshaugia aleurites 2 Sarcosagium campestre 4 L ecania globulosa 2 Scoliciosporum chlorococcum 5 L ecanora glabrata 2 Scoliciosporum umbrinum 4 L ecanora intricata 2 Thelidium zwackhii 3 L ecidea nylanderi 1 L ecidea plana 1 L ecidea variegatula 1 Melanelia exasperata 1 Melanelia incolorata 2 Melanelia olivacea 1 Melanelia sorediata 1 Melanelia subargentifera 1 Micarea melaena 1 Opegrapha varia 1 Parmelia submontana 1 Peltigera neckeri 1 Peltigera praetextata 1 Pertusaria albescens 2 Pertusaria coccodes 2 Pertusaria leioplaca 1 Phaeophyscia endophoenicea 1 Physcia aipolia 1 Physconia grisea 2 Placynthiella oligotropha 1 Polysporina simplex 1 L ecanora polytropa 14 L ecanora pulicaris 15 L ecidella elaeochroma 15 L epraria spp. 15 Melanelia exasperatula 16 Melanelia fuliginosa 10 Parmelia sulcata 17 Parmeliopsis ambigua 10 Peltigera didactyla 11 Phaeophyscia nigricans 14 Phaeophyscia orbicularis 14 Phlyctis argena 17 Physcia adscedens 15 Physcia caesia 14 Physcia dubia 13 Physcia stellaris 12 Physcia tenella 16 Physconia enteroxantha 15 Pseudevernia furfuracea 13 Ramalina farinacea 14 Ramalina fastigiata 10 Ramalina fraxinea 13 Xanthoparmelia conspersa 11 Xanthoria parietina 15 Xanthoria polycarpa 17 38 Jurga Motiejûnaitë, Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz Table 1 (continued) Rare Rather rare Rather frequent Frequent Porina aenea 1 Ramalina pollinaria 2 Rhizocarpon geographicum 2 Steinia geophana 2 Thelidium minutulum 1 Thelomma ocellatum 2 Trapelia obtegens 1 Trapelia placodioides 1 Trapeliopsis granulosa 1 Usnea hirta 1 Verrucaria dolosa 2 Verrcaria hydrela 2 Verrucaria praetermissa 2 Verrucaria xyloxena 2 Xanthoparmelia somloensis 2 Xanthoria calcicola 1 the total species number). Frequent species, found in 10–17 transects or areas, comprised 24% of the total species number (47 species). Only four species were registered in all transects and study areas. Notably, the “common” species of this study were generally common in Lithuania and NE Poland, meanwhile the case was different with “rare” species. Part of them are genuinely rare in both countries, e. g., Agonimia allobata, Arthonia dispersa, Bacidina egenula (which is here reported for the first time for Lithuania and has not been known in NE Poland so far), Chaenotheca brachypoda, Caloplaca cerinella, etc. The other “rare” species were generally common to very common, but due to the scarcity of suitable biotopes in the study area fell into the “rare” category: Cetraria aculeata, Cetraria islandica, Chaenotheca chrysocephala, Cladonia cornuta, Cladonia digitata, Cladonia macilenta, etc. Quantitatively, lichen diversity in the study areas of the Lithuanian and in Polish parts was not similar: 165 species were recorded in the Lithuanian part and 136 in the Polish part. This is explainable by more uniform, man-impacted biotopes on the Polish side. It is notable that two species, Chaenotheca brachypoda and Micarea melaena, which are assumed to be old-growth forest indicators in Lithuania and NE Poland (Motiejûnaitë et al., 2004), were found only on the Lithuanian side. Almost all calicioid species also were recorded on the Lithuanian side, meanwhile only one, very common Chaenotheca ferruginea was found on the Polish side. R ichness of this group of lichens is known to be a good index of forest naturality (Selva, 2000). More of the species that are indicators of sites of conservational value in other European countries (Coppins A. M., Coppins B. J., 2002; Hallingbäck, 1995) were recorded only on the Lithuanian part: Agonimia allobata, Opegrapha varia, Phaeophyscia endophoenicea, Porina aenea. Only on the Polish side, Melanelia incolorata and Parmelia submontana which are indicators of biologically rich sites in Sweden (Hallingbäck, 1995) were noted. On both Lithuanian and Polish parts Pleurosticta acetabulum, an indicator of biologically rich sites in Sweden (Hallingbäck, 1995) and in Lithuania (Andersson, Kriukelis, 2002) was recorded. Aquatic lichens, which are characteristic of undisturbed streams, were recorded only on the Lithuanian part. Presence of these species along with saxicolous lichens (Neofuscelia spp., Rhizocarpon spp., Candelariella coralliza, Diploschistes scruposus, etc.) indicate a probable pattern of the former lichen diversty in the study area in both countries and the extent of losses in lichen flora over the last decades. On the other hand, traditional human activities have created several ecological niches for specific lichen diversity, such as old gravel pits, road scarps along old gravel roads, and old timber constructions. The first two were more common and had a higher lichen diversity in the Lithuanian part, meanwhile timber constructions boasted of more diverse lichen flora on the Polish part. Notably, though old gravel pits and road scarps bear diverse and generally understudied lichen communities, they are pioneer ones consisting of spreading or invasive species. Besides, this type of human activity is continuous and does not tend to decrease in the area, though in Western Europe it is thought to be vanishing (see, e. g., Jørgensen, Motiejûnaitë, 2005). Meanwhile old, untreated timber constructions belong to a decreasing lichen habitat which can often bear rare and vulnerable stenotopic species (Hawksworth et al., 1974; Faùtynowicz, Kukwa, 1999). Another noteworthy pattern was revealed by analysis of the most common species on the both sides of the study area (Table 2). Though generally common species were common on the both sides of the Effect of land-use on lichen diversity in the transboundary region of Lithuania and northeastern Poland study area, acidophilous lichens were more frequent in the Polish part and nitrophilous in the Lithuanian part. Common saxicolous lichens were more or less equally distributed on the both sides of the study area, Verrucaria muralis making an exception: it was found on calcareous pebbles, old brickwork and concrete in almost all transects and study areas in Lithuania and not recorded in the Polish part. 39 Substrates The study territory is mosaic and includes a variety of substrates suitable for lichens, however, different substrates bear a varying load of lichen diversity (Fig. 1). Gross part of the registered species make epiphytes, especially these of deciduous trees. Siliceous stones also bear numerous lichen species, though only in the case of a weaker human influence. Other substrate groups are considerably poTable 2. List of most frequent species in Polish and Lithuanian parts of the orer in lichens. Different substrastudy area (registered in no less than 7 transects / study areas in the Lithute types are distributed unevenly anian part or 6 transects/study areas in the Polish part). Acidophilous lichens among the transects and study are marked in bold type, nitrophilous lichens are marked with an asterisk (*) areas. When comparing the substrate groups bearing most of the Lichen species Frequency in Frequency in rarest and the commonest (in this Lithuanian part Polish part study) species, the highest numAcarospora fuscata 7 7 bers of rare species (1–2 findings) *Amandinea punctata 8 6 were noted for siliceous stones *Caloplaca holocarpa 8 6 (15 species), deciduous trees in Candelariella aurella 7 6 forests (20 species) and soil (14 *Candelariella vitellina 9 6 species) (Fig. 2). Four substrate Candelariella xanthostigma 8 7 groups, wood, timber, pebbles and Cladonia fimbriata 6 7 bryophytes-plant remnants, did Evernia prunastri 8 8 not bear very common lichens at Hypocenomyce scalaris 3 8 all. The first two substrates are Hypogymnia physodes 8 8 scarce and unevenly distributed in Hypogymnia tubulosa 4 7 transects. Wood is sparse due to L ecanora albescens 7 6 the intensive sanitary cleaning of L ecanora argentata 1 7 forests, even in transects with larL ecanora carpinea 9 8 ger woodland areas. Bryophyte Lecanora conizaeoides 6 8 remnants and pebbles are often *L ecanora chlarotera 7 6 more common, but suitable con*L ecanora dispersa 7 6 ditions are rare for lichens to setL ecanora expallens 8 5 tle on them. In all substrate *L ecanora hagenii 8 5 groups rare species were more *L ecanora muralis 8 7 abundant, repeating the general L ecanora polytropa 7 7 frequency pattern (Fig. 2, Table Lecanora pulicaris 7 8 1). An except was concrete-inhaL ecidella elaeochroma 9 7 biting lichens and the eurysubstMelanelia exasperatula 9 7 rate lichen group (species found Melanelia fuliginosa 4 6 on more than three different tyParmelia sulcata 9 8 pes of substrate) where common Parmeliopsis ambigua 3 7 lichens comprise a larger part Peltigera didactyla 7 4 than rare ones (Fig. 2). *Pheophyscia nigricans 8 6 *Phaeophyscia orbicularis 8 6 Characteristics of the transects Phlyctis argena 9 8 and study areas *Physcia adscendens 9 6 Different numbers of lichen spe*Physcia caesia 8 6 cies were found in the transects *Physcia dubia 9 4 and study areas (Fig. 3). The *Physcia stellaris 9 3 highest numbers on the Lithua*Physcia tenella 9 7 nian side were found in the *Physconia enteroxantha 9 6 Sangrûda transect, Trakënai forest Ramalina farinacea 7 7 and the territory around Reketija Ramalina fraxinea 7 6 cordon. The Sangrûda transect Verrucaria muralis 8 0 and Reketija cordon area are mo*Xanthoria parietina 9 6 saic landscapes that provide va*Xanthoria polycarpa 9 8 r ia ble co n d it io n s fo r lich e n s 40 Jurga Motiejûnaitë, Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz S P 17 32 52 DF 9 16 25 DO W versity was found in the young and dense Szymanowizna and Studzieniczne forests, where conditions for lichens are rather adverse. Lichen diversity in the Polish transects and study areas was generally lower than in the Lithuanian part. T 24 78 22 C 58 B SL CO EU CO SL B C T W DO DF P S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Substrate types Fig. 1. Numbers of lichen species found on different substrate types. Abbreviations: S – siliceous stones, P – pebbles, DF – deciduous trees in forests, DO – deciduous trees in open places, W – natural wood, T – worked timber, C – concrete, B – bryophytes/plant remnants; SL – soil; CO – coniferous trees 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Species finding frequency Fig. 2. Lichen frequency distribution on different substrate types. For abbreviations, see legend of Fig. 1. (Additional – EU – eurysubstrate lichens) 92 Lichen species numbers 100 83 82 82 77 73 80 62 60 47 51 52 76 77 69 65 53 35 35 40 20 0 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 Transects and study areas Fig. 3. Diversity of lichen species in the transects and study areas. For abbreviations, see Materials and Methods to settle. Trakënai forest is an islet of semi-natural deciduous forest, native for the studied territory. The lowest diversity was found in the Valavièiai, Z apalimai and Reketija transects, which cross an anthropogenic landscape with prevailing pastures and arable fields. On the Polish side, the highest diversity was found in the Sadzawki transect which is also characterised by a mosaic landscape. The lowest di- Fig. 4. Similarities of lichen species diversity in the transects and study areas according to cluster analysis. Designations I; II; III; IV; V indicate clusters. For abbreviations, see Materials and Methods Based on the results of cluster analysis, the transects and study areas could be divided into five groups (Fig. 4). The first cluster (P7 and P8) unites similar areas with a rather dense, relatively young, lichen-poor woodland. The second cluster (L7, L8 and P2) is characterized by prevailing remnants of natural and semi-natural mixed broad-leaved forests, which are native for the region. The third cluster (P1, P3, P4, P5, P6) comprises the transects in Poland that are characterized by a relatively uniform landscape of intensive agriculture, intermixed with mainly planted forests. Fragments of seminatural mixed forests exert a rather insignificant impact on the differences in lichen flora of these areas. The fourth cluster (L3, L6, L9) comprises transects and areas in Lithuania with a less signficant human impact. Relatively natural forest communities have survived there, together with semi-natural dry calcareous grasslands with numerous erratics. Forest plantations, albeit present, do not occupy significat areas. Besides, these transects and study areas, close to the former well-guarded external border of the Soviet Union, were less exploited economically for several decades. The fifth cluster comprises two relatively distant subclusters (L1, L2 and L4, L5). The transects L1 and L2 are situated in the region of extremely intensive economic activities and of almost purely agricultural land. L4 and L5, though also characterized by intensive human activities, contain more natural elements; besides, these two subclusters belong to different geographical districts characterized by differing soils and relief. CONCLUSIONS The factors that most heavily affect lichen flora on the whole study area are: Effect of land-use on lichen diversity in the transboundary region of Lithuania and northeastern Poland 1) intensive forest management, which replaces natural mixed deciduous forest communities with coniferous monocultures, thus destroying characteristic populations of epiphytic lichens; subsequent sanitary cleanings, which reduce coarse wood debris important to epixylic lichens; 2) agriculture, especially the use of fertilisers which increase the nutrient enrichment of the environment and the subsesequent lichen community impoverishment both on stones and trees; 3) destruction of old roadside trees; 4) direct destruction of boulders and stones (their number has decreased substantially, because they have been a cheap and accessible building material for a long time); 5) diversity of small-scale traditional human activities (gravel pit making, maintenance of gravel road scarps); 6) small-scale construction, creating new habitats for lichens (concrete and objects of worked, chemically untreated timber). The present study clearly demonstrated the influence of different land-use history on the diversity of lichens in a geographically similar area. Intensive land exploitation for agricultural purposes together with an equally intensive replacement-type sylviculture in the Polish part of the study area lead to the uniformity and impoverishement of biotopes and lichen flora. In the Lithuanian part, lichen flora is in general equally severely influenced by human activities. However, more sustainable forest management, allowing preservation of albeit small but natural islets of native forest types, locally less intensive exploitation of erratics together with small-scale traditional human activities lead to survival of a richer lichen diversity, at least in part of the Lithuanian study area. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The authors thank D r. Martin Kukwa (G dañsk University, Poland) for identification of L ecidea nylanderi from the Polish part of the study area. The study was financed by PHAR E CR EDO programme, project No. 98-Lt/PL -17-S-04. 15. 16. Received 11 April 2005 17. 1. Alstrup V. Cryptogams on imported timber in West Greenland. L ichenologist. 1977. Vol. 9. P. 113–117. 2. Andersson L., Kriukelis R ., eds. Pilot woodland key habitat inventory in Lithuania. Final Report. Vilnius: Forest Department, Ministry of Environment, Lithuania, County Forestry Board, Östra Götaland, Sweden, 2002. 72 p. 3. Anonimas. Lietuvos Respublikos biologinës ávairovës iðsaugojimo strategija ir veiksmø planas. Vilnius: Lietu- 18. References 19. 41 vos Respublikos aplinkos apsaugos ministerija, 1997. 108 p. Aptroot A., James P. W. Monitoring lichens on monuments. Monitoring with L ichens – Monitoring L ichens (P. L. Nimis, C. Scheidegger, P. A. Wolseley, eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002. P. 239– 253. Arup U., Knutsson T., Ålind P. The epiphytic lichen flora in Mittlandskogen, Öland, SE Sweden. Graphis scripta. 2003. Vol. 14. P. 33–48. Arup U., Wilfling A., Prügger J., Mayrhofer H. Contributions to the lichen flora of Slovenia VIII. Lichenized and lichenicolous fungi from Veliki Sneþnik. Bibl. L ichenologica. 2001. Vol. 78. P. 17–25. Brown D. H. Impact of agriculture on bryophytes and lichens. Bryophytes and L ichens in a Changing Environment (J. W. Bates, A. M. Farmer, eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. P. 259–283. Brown D. H. Urban, industrial and agricultural effects on lichens. Fungi and environmental change (J. C. Frankland, N. Magan, G. M. Gadd, eds.). Cambridge University Press, 1996. P. 257–281. Bystrek J. Przyczynek do poznania porostów Suwaùszczyzny. Ann. UMCS. 1964. Vol. C 19. N 15. P. 261–272. Bystrek J. Ramalina motykana Bystr., nowy gatunek porostu znaleziony na Suwaùszczyênie. Ann. UMCS. 1965. Vol. C 20. N 14. P. 219–222. Bystrek J. L ecanora subalbella Nyl. (L ichenes, Usneaceae) na Suwaszczyznie. Fragm. Flor. Geobot. 1974. Vol. 20. N 2. P. 257–258. Bystrek J., Matwiejuk A. Porosty rezerwatu Monkinie w Wigierskim Parku Narodowym. Ann. UMCS. 1994. Vol. C 49. N 3. P. 31–42. Bystrek J., Przepiórkowska A. Porosty rezerwatu Sernetki w Wigierskim Parku Narodowym. Ann. UMCS. 1994. Vol. C 49. N 3. P. 43–58. Ceynowa-Gieùdoñ M. Kalcyfilne porosty naziemne na Kujawach. Toruñ: Wydawnictwo Unywersytetu Mikoùaja Kopernika, 2001. 44 p. Cieúliñski S., Tobolewski Z . Porosty Polski póùnocnowschodniej. I. Acta Mycol. 1989. Vol. 25. N 1. P. 57–100. Coppins A. M., Coppins B. J. Indices of ecological continuity for woodland epiphytic lichen habitats in the British Isles. London: British Lichen Society, 2002. 36 p. Czyýewska K., Cieúliñski S., Motiejûnaitë J., Kolanko K. The Budzisk nature reserve as a biocentre of lichen diversity in the Knyszyñska Large Forest (NE Poland). Acta Mycol. 2002. Vol. 37. N 1, 2. P. 77–92. Daniels F. J. A., Harkema M. Epilithic lichen vegetation on man-made calcareous substrates in The Netherlands. Phytocoenologia. 1992. Vol. 21. N 3. P. 209– 235. Dietrich M., Scheidegger C. Diversität und Z eigerwerte von epiphytischen Flechten der häufigsten Baumarten: Ein metodicher Ansatz zur Beurteilun von Umweltveränderungen im Wald und im Freiland. Botanica Helvetica. 1996. H. 106. S. 85–102. 42 Jurga Motiejûnaitë, Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz 20. Dietrich M., Scheidegger C. Frequency, diversity and ecological strategies of epiphytic lichens in the Swiss Central Plateau and the pre-Alps. L ichenologist. 1997. Vol. 29. P. 237–258. 21. Ernst G. Vezdaea leprosa – Spezialist am Strassenrand. Herzogia. 1995. H. 11. S. 175–188. 22. Faùtynowicz W. Umbilicaria deusta (L.) Baumg. i Collema flaccidum (Ach.) Ach. na Suwalszczynie. Fragm. Flor. Geobot. 1981. Vol. 27. N 3. P. 523–525. 23. Faùtynowicz W. Porosty Wigierskiego Parku Narodowego. Parki narod. i rezer. przyr. 1994. Vol. 13. N 3. P. 9–28. 24. Faùtynowicz W. Porosty rezerwatu “Bagnisko Niedêwiady” i “Bagno Biel”, zasùugujàcych na ochronæ torfowisk na Pomorzu Z achodnim. Parki narod. i rezer. przyr. 1996. Vol. 15. N 2. P. 3–11. 25. Faùtynowicz W., Kukwa M. Cyphelium tigillare (Caliciaceae, Ascomycota lichenisati) in Polish lowland. Graphis Scripta. 1999. Vol. 10. P. 51–52. 26. Gilbert O. L. Effect of land-use on terricolous lichens. L ichenologist. 1980. Vol. 12. P. 117–124. 27. Gilbert O. L. The lichen flora of urban wasteland. L ichenologist. 1990. Vol. 22. P. 87–101. 28. Gilbert O. L. Lichens. London: HarperCollins, 2000. 288 p. 29. Giordani P., Brunialti G., Modenesi P. Applicability of the lichen biodiversity method (L. B.) to a Mediterranean area (Liguria, nw Italy). Cryptogamie, Mycol. 2001. Vol. 22. N 3. P. 193–208. 30. Hallingbäck T. Ekologisk katalog över lavar. Uppsala: ArtDarabanken, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, 1995. 141 p. 31. Hawksworth D. L., Coppins B. J., Rose F. Changes in the British lichen flora. The Changing Flora and Fauna of Britain (D. L. Hawksworth, ed.). London and New York: Academic Press, 1974. P. 47–78. 32. Holien H. Lichens in spruce forest stands of different successional stages in central Norway with emphasis on diversity and old growth species. Nova Hedwigia. 1998. Vol. 66. P. 283–324. 33. J¸ rgensen P. M., Motiejûnaitë J. L emmopsis pelodes (Körb. ex Stein) Ellis found in Lithuania. Graphis Scripta. 2005. Vol. 17. P. 17–19. 34. Kondracki J. G eografia fizyczna Polski. Warszawa: PWN, 1978. 272 p. 35. Kuusinen M., Siitonen J. Epiphytic lichen diversity in old-growth and managed Picea abies stands in southern Finland. Journal of vegetation science. 1998. Vol. 9. P. 283–292. 36. Loppi S., De Dominicis V. Effects of agriculture on epiphytic lichen vegetation in central Italy. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences. 1996. Vol. 44. P. 297–307. 37. McCune B., Mefford M. J. PC-O R D . Multivariate analysis of E cological D ata, Version 4. G leneden Beach, O regon, U SA: MjM Software D esign, 1999. 237 p. 38. Motiejûnaitë J. Vilniaus universiteto herbaras. Ekologija. 1992. Nr. 1. P. 3–15. 39. Motiejûnaitë J. Mycological and lichenological investigations in the former Soviet military forestries in Lithuania. Lichens and allied fungi. Botanica L ithuanica. 1996. Vol. 2. P. 343–364. 40. Motiejûnaitë J. Dimelaena oreina and L ecidea plana found in Lithuania. Botanica L ithuanica. 1999. Vol. 5. P. 195–192. 41. Motiejûnaitë J. Diversity of lichens and lichenicolous fungi in the transboundary region of Marijampolë district (southern Lithuania). Botanica L ithuanica. 2002. Vol. 8. P. 277–294. 42. Motiejûnaitë J., Piterâns A. Materials on lichens and allied fungi of Í emeri National Park (Latvia). Botanica L ithuanica. 1998. Vol. 4. P. 187–196. 43. Motiejûnaitë J., Czyýewska K., Cieúliñski S. Lichens – indicators of old-growth forests in biocenters of Lithuania and NE Poland. Botanica L ithuanica. 2004. Vol. 10. P. 59–74. 44. Pišut I., Guttovã A. Deterioration of the lichen flora in the National Nature Reserve Rozsutec (the Malã Fatra Mts, Slovakia). Folia Cryptog. Eston. 1998. Vol. 32. P. 69–73. 45. Randlane T., Jüriado I. Lichen flora of Osmussar Island (north-western Estonia). Folia Cryptog. Eston. 1999. Vol. 34. P. 47–53. 46. Selva S. Using calicioid lichens and fungi to assess forest continuity in northeastern North America’s Acadian Forest Region. NATO Advanced Research Workshop L ichen Monitoring. 16–22nd August, 2000. Orielton Field Centre Pembroke, 2000. P. 54. 47. Szafer W. Szata roúlinna Polski Niêowej. In: Szata roúlinna Polski (W. Szafer, K. Z arzycki, eds.). Warszawa: PWN, 1972. Vol. 2. P. 17–188. 48. Van Dobben H. F. Decline and recovery of epiphytic lichens in an agricultural area in The Netherlands (1900–1988). Nova Hedwigia. 1996. Vol. 62. N 3, 4. P. 477–485. 49. Wirth V. Veränderungen der Flechtenflora und Flechten vegetation in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Schriftenreihe Vegetationskunde. 1976. H. 10. S. 177–202. 50. Woods R . Lichen flora of Brecknock. Powys: R . G. Woods, 2003. 128 p. 51. Ñàâè ÷ Â. Ï . Ë è ø àé í è ê î âàÿ è ì î õî âàÿ ðàñòè òåë üí î ñòü á î ðà â á ë è æàé ø è õ î ê ðåñòí î ñòÿõ Àâãóñòî âà â Ñóâàë ê ñê î é ãóá åðí è è . È çâ. Ãëàâ. Áî ò . Ñàäà. 1923. T. 22. ¹ 2. C . 135–141. Jurga Motiejûnaitë, Wiesùaw Faùtynowicz ÞEMËNAUDOS ÁTAKA KERPIØ ÁVAIROVEI LIETUVOS IR LENKIJOS PASIENIO REGIONE Sa ntr a u ka Via Baltica greitkelio aplinkoje, atkarpoje tarp Marijampolës ir Suvalkø miestø, vertinta kerpiø ávairovë. Tam tikslui buvo pasirinkta dvylika 7 km ilgio ir 10 m ploèio transektø (po ðeðias Lietuvos ir Lenkijos pusëje) ir penki papildomi tyrimø plotai (trys Lietuvos ir du Lenkijos pusëje). Juose Effect of land-use on lichen diversity in the transboundary region of Lithuania and northeastern Poland registruotos visø rûðiø kerpës, surinktos nuo visø galimø substratø. Tyrimø teritorijai yra bûdingos panaðios geografinës sàlygos, taèiau kiekvienos transektos skiriasi þemënaudos pobûdis, kurá lëmë skirtinga þmoniø ûkinë veikla abiejose sienos pusëse. Ið viso tyrimo metu uþregistruotos 194 rûðiø kerpës. Lietuvos pusëje aptiktos 165 rûðys, Lenkijos – 136 rûðys. Lenkijos pusëje ið daþniausiai aptinkamø kerpiø daugiau pasitaikë acidofiliniø rûðiø, o Lietuvos pusëje – nitrofiliniø. Dauguma kerpiø, bûdingø miðkams, iðsiskiriantiems ilgu ekologiniu kontinumu, buvo aptiktos tik Lietuvos pusëje. 43 Plataus masto intensyvi miðkininkystë, kai plynai iðkertami natûralûs miðkai ir uþsodinamos spygliuoèiø monokultûros, kartu su palyginti intensyvia þemdirbyste kerpiø ávairovæ paveikë neigiamai, stipriau negu þemës ûkio kraðtovaizdis, á kurá ásiterpia iðlikusios natûraliø miðkø salos. Kerpiø ávairovës skirtumus abiejose ðalyse nulëmë kraðtovaizdþio ir biotopø ávairovës sumaþëjimas Lenkijos pusëje ir dël labiau tradicinio ûkininkavimo iðlikusi kraðtovaizdþio ávairovë Lietuvos pusëje. Raktaþodþiai: kerpës, ávairovë, þemënauda, Lietuva, ÐR Lenkija