Next Article in Journal
A Novel Bacillus safensis-Based Formulation along with Mycorrhiza Inoculation for Controlling Alternaria alternata and Simultaneously Improving Growth, Nutrient Uptake, and Steviol Glycosides in Stevia rebaudiana under Field Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Araucaria heterophylla Needles in Urban Areas: Evaluation of Sources and Road Characteristics
Previous Article in Journal
Management of Post-Harvest Anthracnose: Current Approaches and Future Perspectives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 14
10.3390/plants11141858
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Habitat Fragmentation and Lichen Diversity in Peri-Urban Woodlands: A Case Study in the Municipality of Potenza (Southern Italy)

by
Giovanna Potenza
*,
Gianluca Gerardi
,
Simonetta Fascetti
and
Leonardo Rosati
School of Agricultural, Forest, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata, 85100 Potenza, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(14), 1858; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141858
Submission received: 20 April 2022 / Revised: 27 June 2022 / Accepted: 12 July 2022 / Published: 15 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Pollution, Monitoring and Plants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The fragmentation of the natural habitat is a process that is exponentially increasing worldwide and represents one of the biggest threats to biological diversity. Habitat destruction and fragmentation have a major impact on landscapes and may also affect ecosystems, populations, and species. The ongoing anthropogenic process can result in habitat loss for some species, habitat creation for others, reduced patch size, and increased distance between patches, which may lead to local extinction. We analyzed the effects of patch size and isolation on lichens in Quercus pubescens woods surrounding the city of Potenza (south Italy). We randomly sampled 11 forest patches with homogeneous environmental variables using circular plots with a 10 m radius; the patches ranged from 0.3 to 30 ha. For each plot, we collected data about presence and abundance of epiphytic lichens. We performed the analyses at the patch level using linear regression and multivariate analysis, searching for effects on species richness, life forms, and community compositions. Multivariate analyses were used to study the effect of fragmentation on the structure of lichen vegetation. We investigated the main predictor of lichen species richness in habitat fragmentations and concluded that patch area per se is an important (positive) driver of lichen species richness in Mediterranean peri-urban forests.

1. Introduction

The last decades have been characterized by increased migration from rural to urban areas [1], especially in developing countries. For the first time since 2008, more than half of the world’s population lives in towns and cities, and this percentage is expected to increase to 70% by 2050 [2].
Urban growth is able to modify landscapes and the related patterns of biodiversity of urban ecosystems. Moreover, the ecological footprint of cities influences the surrounding natural landscape and rural urban interface [3].
Urban areas are highly modified and complex landscapes, but green or open areas are seen as valuable for human beings as well as for wild species [4,5].
The relationship between the conservation of biodiversity and urban areas clearly emerged at the end of the 20th century and was recognized in 1993 in the framework of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). Despite urban areas representing only about 3% of the global land cover [6], their expansion has caused a huge transformation of habitat and landscape; at present, they represent a major threat to biodiversity conservation for several countries [7,8].
Cities are not randomly located on a global scale but are often positioned in biodiversity hotspots. Because the population is growing at an extraordinary pace, especially in developing countries, conflicts with conservation goals are increasing [9,10,11,12,13,14].
The urban forests of a city can represent a strategical network of high-quality natural areas that are designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and to protect biodiversity in urban and peri-urban settings.
Many studies [8,15] have reported the necessity of preventing biodiversity losses in (semi)natural landscapes that are affected by urban or agriculture growth and environmental pollution produced by human activities (e.g., air pollutants).
The protection and restoration of urban forests can help create a healthy environment, even though such forests often are appreciated more for their aesthetic value than for their ecosystem functions. Nevertheless, urban forests help to create and enhance habitats constituting a pool of biodiversity, significantly improving soil quality and contributing to land restoration and mitigation of the environmental pollutants produced by cities. In particular, urban woodlands may help preserve and increase biodiversity [16,17].
This study focused on epiphytic lichen biodiversity patterns related to fragmentation within urban woodlands; habitat fragmentation in urban woodlands is recognizably considered one of the most important threats to biodiversity. For example, several studies have confirmed that generally smaller fragments with a large perimeter-to-area ratio tend to be far from each other and have a small variety of microhabitats; moreover, they are more vulnerable to the negative effects of habitat fragmentation and are inefficient for biodiversity conservation [18,19,20,21].
Theoretically, habitat fragmentation alters plant community dynamics by influencing both local (within patch) and regional (among patch) processes. Fragmentation increases local extinction risk by lowering mean population sizes [22], reducing habitat (area effects), altering border environments (edge effects), and, at later stages, depressing immigration potential (isolation effects) [23,24,25,26,27].
Lichens may be more sensitive or may more rapidly respond to the effects of forest degradation and fragmentation, acting as foretellers of posterior synergetic effects. Due to their significant sensitivity to the inevitable microclimatic alterations resulting from habitat loss and degradation, they may be particularly useful as early indicators of the adverse effects of forest fragmentation.
According to the “rescue effect” hypothesis, habitat destruction, which undermines the distribution of several forests, will eventually result in synchronized reduction in both species occurrence and abundance, as a consequence of lower “per-patch” rates of colonization.
To test this hypothesis, previous experimental research, searching for the effects of habitat fragmentation on communities and natural landscape, was only performed at the micro-scale level.
However, many of these experiments limited the spatial or temporal scale of the studies of microsystems by focusing on taxa whose habitat patches are not entirely related to the analyzed fragments and might have included confounding effects such as inaccurate area, age, and isolation [26,28,29,30], or by focusing on communities including taxa whose habitat patches are not entirely restricted to the study fragments [31].
Three major threats are noted for their potential to alter lichen diversity: forest management, air pollution, and climate change [32,33,34,35,36,37]. Lichens are more sensitive to land management; thus, they are important indicators of forests that are close to natural conditions [38].
Epiphytic lichen diversity is also related to forest structure and dynamics, e.g., [39,40,41,42,43]. Several environmental factors are relevant to the dispersal, establishment, and maintenance of epiphytic lichens that are also affected by forest management, e.g., [41,44].
In our study, we focused on species richness and community composition, because biodiversity loss is not restricted to rare species but has also been reported in common species. In order to assess if habitat fragmentation affects the diversity and composition of epiphytic lichens, we investigated epiphytic lichens in a group of 11 forest fragments within a matrix of agricultural land residues recently affected by the urbanization process in the peri-urban belt of the city of Potenza in the Basilicata region of south Italy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study was conducted in the peri-urban woodlands of the city of Potenza in Basilicata Region (Figure 1), situated in the Lucanian Apennines of south Italy.
The topography is shaped by hilly reliefs on sandy-clay substrata, at an altitude between 700 and 1000 m a.s.l. The climate in this area is meso-temperate, humid–subhumid, with a sub-Mediterranean feature (a dry season occurs during the summer); the mean annual temperature is 12.8 °C and the mean annual rainfall is 650 mm [45].
The natural vegetation of this territory on sandy soil, generally close to hilltops, is characterized by thermophile oak forest of Centaureo centauri–Quercetum pubescentis Zanotti, Ubaldi, Corbetta & Pirone, while the mesophile areas on deeper clay soil are dominated by Quercus cerris communities [46]. The current land use is dominated by urban and agricultural areas, with only few remnants of oak forests.

2.2. Sampling Design

Peri-urban woodlands of the municipality of Potenza were mapped from ortho-rectified high-resolution aerial digital images and selected using the following criteria:
i.
Remnants of oak forests dominated by Quercus pubescens (Centaureo centauri-Quercetum pubescentis);
ii.
Homogeneous environmental variables (climate and geomorphology);
iii.
Accessibility (some small patches of fenced woods were excluded).
The oak forests were identified as the object of this study because they represent the dominant potential natural vegetation of the surroundings of the city of Potenza, and, in particular, the stands dominated by Quercus pubescens represent the almost exclusive typology of remnant forest fragments; in addition, they host one of the most abundant residual populations of Rhaponticoides centaurium (L.) M.V.Agab. & Greuter (= Centaurea centaurium L.), a rare nemoral vascular plant, endemic to the southern Apennines.
Based on a stratified random sampling, 11 patches and 11 random circular plots of 10 m radius were selected and surveyed (Table 1 and Figure 1).
To limit the edge effect, a buffer zone (10 m width) was excluded within each selected patch.
Table
Table 1. Coordinates of sampling plots with environmental variables, forest structure parameters, and landscape variables of each sampled woody patch. Patch IDs correspond to those in Figure 1.
Table 1. Coordinates of sampling plots with environmental variables, forest structure parameters, and landscape variables of each sampled woody patch. Patch IDs correspond to those in Figure 1.
Patch
Id		X
(UTM 33
WGS 84)		Y (UTM 33
WGS84)		Aspect
(Degree)		Slope
(Degree)		Altitude
(m a.s.l.)		No. Trees
(>5 cm)		Basal Area (m2)Area (ha)Perimeter (m)Species
Richness
15681254501074255108101070.939.0744326921
2568567450066825510775710.960.326429319
3568534450076531515780740.51.429988816
4568666450063824845770750.880.786655721
5570061450034213525740180.758.2519284729
6569596450021224820760610.921.505261920
7569471450003127035720630.920.843292621
856280944983019030990240.7630.7503875526
9565562450056122510820430.6318.1794535430
10569072450010027010750430.921.386590319
11568139450141627025820860.90.485437721

2.3. Lichen Sampling

From April to August 2012, epiphytic lichen species found on the trunk of the 3 trees nearest to the center of each circular 10 m diameter random plot were sampled within each selected forest patch. Trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) >16 cm and trunk inclination <30 °C were considered suitable for lichen data collection [47]. A total of 33 trees were surveyed in the study area. The number and relative abundance of lichen species were determined for each tree up to a height of 2 m. Lichens growing on the ground and on rocks were not considered in our analysis.
Species that were difficult to identify in the field were collected for identification in the laboratory using a binocular Nikon (Minato, Japan) Model C-PS (magnification up to ×40). For section of thalli and fruiting bodies, a polarized light microscope (Nikon YS100), with ×4, ×10, ×40, and ×100 objectives with the possibility of oil immersion was used. Chemical spot tests or K (10% aqueous), C (saturated aqueous bleach), KC (combination), and Pd (5% alcoholic p-phenylenediammine) were performed when necessary.
Species nomenclature, life forms, the type of symbiosis, and ecological indicator values follow [48] and are continuously updated in the online database ITALIC (https://italic.units.it/index.php accessed 20 February 2022).
Specimens were deposited in the Herbarium Lucanum (HLUC) hosted at Basilicata University (Potenza, Italy).

2.4. Data Analysis

Species richness was calculated as the number of species per plot. Linear regression analysis was used to test the significant relationship between species richness and the different group of variables regarding landscape (patch area, isolation, shape index, and distance from city center), environment (altitude, slope, and aspect) and forest structure (tree density, basal area, tree height, tree layer cover, and trunk diameter). Due to lack of fine-scale data regarding air quality in the studied area, the distance from the city center was considered as a proxy for air pollutant concentrations because it is mainly due to vehicular traffic and building heating.
Finally, a multivariate analysis (PCoA; Bray-Curtis distance) was performed to explore the combined effect of the landscape, environmental, and forest structure variables on the structure and composition of lichen vegetation as a whole. Retained variables were standardized and superimposed to the ordination axes of PCoA. Aspect (slope exposure) was converted to radians and then to a southing index S with the formula S = −cos (aspect) + 1. Statistical analyses were performed using PAST 4.10 and PRIMER 6.1.11.

3. Results

Species Richness and Composition

A total of 37 epiphytic lichen taxa were found (Table 2). Among the landscape variables, isolation, shape index, and distance from the city center were not further investigated in this specific “archipelago” of forest patches as it was significantly (r2 > 0.65; p < 0.001) and positively correlated with patch area, i.e., larger patches were more isolated, less convoluted, and more distant from the city in our study area.
Moreover, a post hoc test, looking for a correlation between species richness and edge distance, was performed to ensure we properly removed the edge effect from the sampling design. As result, no significant correlation between species richness and edge distance was found (r2 = 0.03; p = 0.35).
As for forest structure, both tree height and tree density significantly corresponded to trunk diameter and basal area, respectively; thus, they were removed from the subsequent statistical analyses.
Species richness resulted positively and significantly related to the patch area (r2 = 0.5, p = 0.01) of the analyzed forest fragments (Figure 2).
PCoA allowed us to determine which variables contribute the most to the differences in species composition and abundance among plots. The first two principal components accounted for 50.5% of the total variance. The loadings of the variables on the two retained PCs are presented in Table 3. Considering the lichen vegetation as a whole, the ordering axes highlighted the absence of a clear pattern in the distribution of forest fragments in relation to the analyzed variables. In particular, no evident relationship emerged between the composition of lichen vegetation and the higher species richness of the largest forest fragments revealed by univariate analysis. Larger patches (i.e., 8, 9, 1) appeared poorly grouped together even if some species (Ramalina fraxinea, Pertusaria pertusa, P. albescens) seemed to indicate a better state of conservation of these patches, linked to greater basal area and tree diameters. Furthermore, considering how much the abundance of epiphytic lichens is influenced by air humidity, unexpectedly, no significant correlation emerged between species richness and slope exposure (lower richness was expected in the south-facing slopes, which are generally considered to be more arid). On the contrary, slope exposure was significantly and positively correlated with species richness, one of the variables most correlated with the second ordination axis (Table 2 and Figure 3). In addition, this result can be considered contrary to the expected, when it was observed (Table 1), as, in the study area, the more inclined slopes have a prevalent west-southwest exposure; thus, the combination of these factors should emphasize aridity by increasing temperature and decreasing air humidity. These results seem to suggest that, in the study area, the microclimatic variations due to slope and aspect only have low incidence on the overall species richness at the patch level, but they can determine a shift in species composition at the community level. This shift is indicated by the species correlated with the second ordination axis shown in Figure 2. Notably, based on their ecological indicator values reported in italics, Pleusticta acetabulum, Parmelina tiliacea, and Physconia perisidiosa (i.e., positively related to steeper slopes) have higher aridity index values; on the contrary, Pertusaria albescens, Pertusaria pertusa, and Collema flaccidum (negatively related to slope values) have lower aridity index values, thus resulting in relatively hygrophytic species with respect to the former.

4. Discussion

Of the 37 lichen species found, 9 were crustose, 1 was leprose, 11 were foliose broad-lobed (Parmelia-type), 11 were foliose narrow-lobed (Physcia-type), and 5 were fruticose. One species, Pectenia plumbea, was symbiotic with filamentous cyanobacteria and one, Collema flaccidum, with coccaceous cyanobacteria [48]. Regarding the reproductive strategy, 20 species had a mainly sexual reproductive strategy; 13 were mainly asexual, using soredia or soredia-like structures; and 4 were mainly asexual, producing isidia, or isidia-like structures. As for poleotolerance, 14 species also occurred in heavily disturbed areas, including, for example, large towns; 18 species occur also in moderately disturbed areas (e.g., agricultural areas and small settlements); 4 species (Lecanora albella, Melanohalea elegantula, Physconia venusta, and Ramalina fraxinea) mostly occurred in natural or semi-natural habitats [47]. Notably, one species, Pectenia plumbea, which exclusively occurs on old trees in ancient undisturbed forests, was only found in one of the largest forest patches (two occurrences). On the other hand, five species, considered as pioneer (Lecanora chlarotera, Lecidella elaeochroma, Melanohalea exasperata, Myriolecis hagenii, and Physcia adscendens), were detected in all plots.
The size of the forest fragment was a significant and positive predictor of species richness, in agreement with several other studies, e.g., [49,50,51] in particular with data on vascular plants’ distribution in a Mediterranean forest ecosystem [49].
From the level of species, we highlighted a strong correlation between the presence of more demanding fruticose lichens with the fragment size and some structural parameters (basal area and average diameter of the trees), in agreement with [52]. The presence of Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Flot was mainly related to higher basal area values of the plot. The presence and abundance of a group of species characteristics of Xanthorion communities instead correlated with sites characterized by a greater slope.
The results of the multivariate analyses at the patch level (Table 3 and Figure 3) showed that the diversity of lichen flora (richness and community composition) was not particularly related to any of the analyzed environmental and forestry variables (altitude, slope, aspect, basal area, cover tree layer, or trunk diameter), according to [50]. After the removal of the edge effect between landscape variables, the only variables left (due to the autocorrelation of the others) were found to be significantly and positively correlated with species richness, but this effect was not so evident when the overall composition of the lichen vegetation (composition and abundance) was considered.
It was not possible to separate the effect of isolation and shape of the fragments because these landscape parameters strongly correlated with the size of the fragment in our case study. This finding can be explained by the particular configuration of the group of fragments group under investigation, in which the smaller fragments were the result of recent fragmentation and were therefore closer to each other. Not considering this, we would have obtained a result contrary to that expected, with a higher diversity in the isolated fragments.
The results showing that lichen diversity and community composition are not correlated with any of the measured environmental and forest structural parameters could be considered due to a certain homogeneity of these variables within the study area, indirectly supporting the validity of the performed stratified sampling, aimed at minimizing, as much as possible, the effect of these confounding factors. In particular, microclimatic factors possibly related to air humidity as slope and exposure proved to be irrelevant for species richness, but could determine some shifts in species composition. As shown by the results of multivariate analyses, the epiphytic lichen vegetation of Centaureo centauri-Quercetum pubescentis forest fragments is quite homogenous as a whole, and it is not evidently shaped by forest patch dimension; thus, other factors such as slope inclination, stand age (indicated by mean trunk diameter), or past management (not assessed in this study) may contribute to explaining its variation. However, the role of potential bioindicators of some of the species highlighted by ordination deserve attention in a future detailed study. Considering that lichens are extremely sensitive to changes in air pollution, the latter should be an important explanatory variable to consider in a peri-urban ecosystem. Unfortunately, high-resolution data about the air quality in Potenza are not available thus, it was not possible to relate environmental pollutants to lichen diversity and composition. Furthermore, in this study, patch area strongly correlated with the patch distance from the city center (i.e., a landscape variable, which can be assumed to be reasonably related to decreasing levels of atmospheric pollution); thus, it had to be discarded. We hope that data will be available in the future to evaluate this crucial issue. However, this study supports the idea that patch area is a relevant factor influencing biodiversity, also when applied to epiphytic lichens in peri-urban forest fragments in the Mediterranean area.
In agreement with [53,54], we found that the urban ecosystem and peri-urban areas provided a heterogeneous environment, leading to species rich community of macrolichen epiphytes.
This study proved peri-urban forest fragments provide important habitats for lichen diversity, and, in this framework, the sustainable environmental planning of the city should adequately consider the conservation of forest fragments, reducing their isolation by creating a specific ecological network and improving the habitat quality with detailed forest management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.P., G.G., S.F. and L.R.; Methodology, L.R. and G.P.; Software, L.R. and G.P.; Validation, L.R.; Formal analysis, L.R. and G.P.; Investigation, L.R. and G.P., Resources, G.P., G.G., S.F. and L.R.; Data curation, L.R.; Writing G.P., G.G., S.F. and L.R.; Visualization G.P., G.G., S.F. and L.R.; Project Administration L.R. and G.P.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Chiara Graziano and Michela Marignani for the linguistic revision that improved the clarity of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Maximillian, J.; Brusseau, M.L.; Glenn, E.P.; Matthias, A.D. Pollution and environmental perturbations in the global system. In Environmental and Pollution Science, 3rd ed.; Mark, L.B., Ian, L.P., Charles, P.G., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 457–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Salbitano, F.; Borelli, S.; Conigliaro, M.; Yujuan, C. Guidelines of Urban and Pariurban Forestry; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M. Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 69, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M.; Nilon, C.H.; Pouyat, R.V.; Zipperer, W.C. Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2004, 32, 127–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.; Bai, X.; Briggs, J.M. Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Reid, W.; Mooney, H.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R.; et al. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Current State and Trends: Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Available online: http://www.millenniumassessment.org (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  7. Antrop, M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 67, 9–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hansen, A.J.; Knight, R.L.; Marzluff, J.; Powell, S.; Brown, K.; Gude, P.H.; Jones, K. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15, 1893–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cincotta, R.P.; Wisnewski, J.; Engelman, R. Human population in the biodiversità hotspots. Nature 2000, 404, 990–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Araújo, M.B. The coincidence of people and biodiversity in Europe. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Liu, J.; Daily, G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Luck, G.W. Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 2003, 421, 530–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kühn, I.; Klotz, S. Urbanization and homogenization e comparing the floras of urban and rural areas in Germany. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 127, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kühn, I.; Brandl, R.; Klotz, S. The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2004, 6, 749–764. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhao, S.; Da, L.; Tang, Z.; Fang, H.; Song, K.; Fang, J. Ecological consequences of rapid urban expansion: Shanghai, China. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 4, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brunialti, G.; Frati, L.; Loppi, S. Fragmentation of Mediterranean oak forests affects the diversity of epiphytic lichens. Nova Hedwig. 2013, 96, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bazzato, E.; Lallai, E.; Serra, E.; Melis, M.; Marignani, M. Key role of small woodlots outside forest in a Mediterranean fragmented landscape. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 496, 119389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Capotorti, G.; Bonacquisti, S.; Abis, L.; Aloisi, I.; Attorre, F.; Bacaro, G.; Balletto, G.; Banfi, E.; Barni, E.; Bartoli, F.; et al. More nature in the city. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2020, 154, 1003–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tabarelli, M.; Mantovani, W.; Peres, C.A. Effects of habitat fragmentation on plant guild structure in the Montane Atlantic forest South eastern Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 91, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tabarelli, M.; da Silva, J.M.C.; Gascon, C. Forest fragmentation, synergisms and the impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1419–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pineda, E.; Halffter, G. Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: Frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 117, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bruna, E.M.; Vasconcelos, H.L.; Heredia, S. The effect of habitat fragmentation on communities of mutualists: Amazonian ants and their host plants. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Burkey, T.V. Extinction in Nature Reserves: The Effect of Fragmentation and the Importance of Migration between Reserve Fragments. Oikos 1989, 55, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Holt, R.D. A neglected facet of island biogeography: The role of internal spatial dynamics in area effects. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1992, 41, 354–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Holt, R.D.; Robinson, G.R.; Gaines, M.S. Vegetation Dynamics in an Experimentally Fragmented Landscape. Ecology 1995, 76, 1610–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fletcher, R.J.; Didham, R.K.; Banks-Leite, C.; Barlow, J.; Ewers, R.M.; Rosindell, J.; Holt, R.D.; Gonzalez, A.; Pardini, R.; Damschen, E.I.; et al. Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 2018, 226, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Fahrig, L.; Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Bennett, J.R.; Boucher-Lalonde, V.; Cazetta, E.; Currie, D.J.; Eigenbrod, F.; Ford, A.T.; Harrison, S.P.; Jaeger, J.A.; et al. Is habitat fragmentation bad for biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 2019, 230, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Faillace, C.A.; Sentis, A.; Montoya, J.M. Eco-evolutionary consequences of habitat warming and fragmentation in communities. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 1933–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Burkey, T.V. Metapopulation extinction in fragmented landscapes: Using bacteria and protozoa communities as model eco-systems. Am. Nat. 1997, 150, 568–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gonzalez, A.; Lawton, J.H.; Gilbert, F.S.; Blackburn, T.M.; Evans-Freke, I. Metapopulation Dynamics, Abundance, and Distribution in a Microecosystem. Science 1998, 281, 2045–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Forbes, A.E.; Chase, J.M. The role of habitat connectivity and landscape geometry in experimental zooplankton meta com-munities. Oikos 2002, 96, 433–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Davies, K.F.; Melbourne, B.A.; Margules, C.R. Effects of within-and between-patch processes on community dynamics in a fragmentation experiment. Ecology 2001, 82, 1830–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wirth, V.; Schöller, H.; Scholz, P.; Ernst, G.; Feuerer, G.; Gnüchtel, T.; Hauck, A.; Jacobsen, M.; John, V.; Litterski, B. Rote Liste der Flechten (Lichenes) der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Schr. Veg. 1996, 28, 307–368. [Google Scholar]
  33. Thor, G. Red-listed lichens in Sweden: Habitats, threats, protection, and indicator value in boreal coniferous forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 1998, 7, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ellis, C.J.; Coppins, B.J.; Dawson, T.P.; Seaward, M.R. Response of British lichens to climate change scenarios: Trends and uncertainties in the projected impact for contrasting biogeographic groups. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 140, 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ellis, C.J.; Coppins, B.J.; Dawson, T. Predicted response of the lichen epiphyte Lecanora populicola to climate change scenarios in a clean-air region of Northern Britain. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Giordani, P.; Brunialti, G.; Bacaro, G.; Nascimbene, J. Functional traits of epiphytic lichens as potential indicators of environ-mental conditions in forest ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nascimbene, J.; Thor, G.; Nimis, P.L. Effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in temperate deciduous forests of Europe—A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 298, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Uliczka, H.; Angelstam, P. Assessing conservation values of forest stands based on specialised lichens and birds. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 95, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hedenås, H.; Ericson, L. Epiphytic macrolichens as conservation indicators: Successional sequence in Populus tremula stands. Biol. Conserv. 2000, 93, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hedenås, H.; Ericson, L. Species occurrences at stand level cannot be understood without considering the landscape context: Cyanolichens on aspen in boreal Sweden. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Johansson, P. Consequences of disturbance on epiphytic lichens in boreal and near boreal forests. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1933–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rogers, P.C.; Ryel, R.J. Lichen community change in response to succession in aspen forests of the southern Rocky Mountains. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256, 1760–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Nascimbene, J.; Marini, L.; Nimis, P.L. Epiphytic lichen diversity in old-growth and managed Picea abies stands in Alpine spruce forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ellis, C.J. Lichen epiphyte diversity: A species, community and trait-based review. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2012, 14, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cantore, V.; Iovino, F.; Pontecorvo, G. Aspetti Climatici e Zone Fitoclimatiche Della Basilicata; CNR: Cosenza, Italy, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  46. Blasi, C.; Filibeck, G.; Frondoni, F.; Rosati, L.; Smiraglia, D. The map of the vegetation series of Italy. Fitosociologia 2004, 41, 21–25. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kuusinen, M. Epiphyte flora and diversity on basal trunks of six old-growth forest tree species in southern and middle Boreal Finland. Lichenologist 1996, 28, 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nimis, P.L. The Lichens of Italy. A Second Annotated Catalogue; EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste: Trieste, Italy, 2016; p. 740. [Google Scholar]
  49. Braunigera, C.; Knapp, S.; Kuhn, I.; Klotz, S. Testing taxonomic and landscape surrogates for biodiversity in an urban setting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rosati, L.; Fipaldini, M.; Marignani, M.; Blasi, C. An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology. Plant Biosyst. 2011, 144, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Haig, A.R.; Matthes, U.; Larson, D.W. Effects of natural habitat fragmentation on the species richness, diversity, and com-position of cliff vegetation. Can. J. Bot. 2000, 78, 786–797. [Google Scholar]
  52. Abas, A. A systematic review on biomonitoring using lichen as the biological indicator: A decade of practices, progress and challenges. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Benitez, G.; Aguilar, G.; Blanchon, D. Spatial Distribution of Lichens in Metrosideros excelsa in Northern New Zealand Urban Forests. Diversity 2021, 13, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Prather, H.; Eppley, S.M.; Rosenstiel, T.N. Urban forested parks and tall tree canopies contribute to macrolichen epiphyte biodiversity in urban landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 32, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 01858 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Study area location: green patches are the 11 peri-urban Quercus pubescens woodlands sampled to assess their epiphytic lichens diversity and composition; forest patch numbers correspond to those in Table 1; (b) new urban areas in the periphery of Potenza city (Macchia Romana) close to the forest patch number “1” with flowering of Spartium junceum shrubs, which are recolonizing uncultivated areas; (c) Quercus pubescens tree at Macchia Giocoli (patch n. 8); (d) Pleurosticta acetabulum (Neck.) Elix & Lumbsch and Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. on Q. pubescens; (e) Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Flot, Physcia adscendens (Fr.) H.Olivier, and Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. on Q. pubescens bark.
Figure 1. (a) Study area location: green patches are the 11 peri-urban Quercus pubescens woodlands sampled to assess their epiphytic lichens diversity and composition; forest patch numbers correspond to those in Table 1; (b) new urban areas in the periphery of Potenza city (Macchia Romana) close to the forest patch number “1” with flowering of Spartium junceum shrubs, which are recolonizing uncultivated areas; (c) Quercus pubescens tree at Macchia Giocoli (patch n. 8); (d) Pleurosticta acetabulum (Neck.) Elix & Lumbsch and Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. on Q. pubescens; (e) Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Flot, Physcia adscendens (Fr.) H.Olivier, and Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. on Q. pubescens bark.
Plants 11 01858 g001
Plants 11 01858 g002 550
Figure 2. Linear model of lichen richness and patch_area relationship at plot level. The red solid line is the linear trend line; blue lines represent the 95% confidence intervals. Numbers of the plots are the same as in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Figure 2. Linear model of lichen richness and patch_area relationship at plot level. The red solid line is the linear trend line; blue lines represent the 95% confidence intervals. Numbers of the plots are the same as in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Plants 11 01858 g002
Plants 11 01858 g003 550
Figure 3. Triplot of the two first principal components from analysis of landscape, environmental, and forestry variables (patch area altitude, slope, aspect, basal area, cover tree layer, and trunk diameter). Only variables having Spearman’s correlation >0.2 are shown. Correlation’s threshold for lichen species was set at 0.7.
Figure 3. Triplot of the two first principal components from analysis of landscape, environmental, and forestry variables (patch area altitude, slope, aspect, basal area, cover tree layer, and trunk diameter). Only variables having Spearman’s correlation >0.2 are shown. Correlation’s threshold for lichen species was set at 0.7.
Plants 11 01858 g003
Table
Table 2. Species list with occurrence (number of trees on which the species was detected) of epiphyte lichens detected in the Quercus pubescens forest patches in the study area.
Table 2. Species list with occurrence (number of trees on which the species was detected) of epiphyte lichens detected in the Quercus pubescens forest patches in the study area.
TaxonOccurrence
Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Flot19
Blastenia ferruginea (Huds.) A.Massal.6
Candelaria concolor (Dicks.) Stein2
Candelariella xanthostigma (Ach.) Lettau19
Collema flaccidum (Ach.) Ach.2
Evernia prunastri (L.) Ach.9
Flavoparmelia caperata (L.) Hale2
Hyperphyscia adglutinata (Flörke) H.Mayrhofer & Poelt13
Hypogymnia physodes (L.) Nyl.1
Lecanora albella (Pers.) Ach.3
Lecanora chlarotera Nyl. subsp. chlarotera14
Lecidella elaeochroma (Ach.) M.Choisyvar. elaeochroma f. elaeochroma10
Lepra albescens (Huds.) Hafellner5
Lepra amara (Ach.) Hafellner15
Lepraria finkii (B. de Lesd.) R.C. Harris8
Melanelixia glabra (Schaer.) O. Blanco, A. Crespo, Divakar, Essl., D. Hawksw. & Lumbsch13
Melanohalea elegantula (Zahlbr.) O.Blanco, A.Crespo, Divakar, Essl., D.Hawksw. & Lumbsch3
Melanohalea exasperata (De Not.) O.Blanco, A.Crespo, Divakar, Essl., D.Hawksw. & Lumbsch13
Myriolecis hagenii (Ach.) Śliwa, Zhao Xin&Lumbsch1
Parmelia sulcata Taylor7
Parmelina pastillifera (Harm.) Hale2
Parmelina quercina (Willd.) Hale6
Parmelina tiliacea (Hoffm.) Hale16
Pectenia plumbea (Lightf.) P. M. Jørg., L. Lindblom, Wedin & S. Ekman2
Pertusaria pertusa (L.) Tuck. var. pertusa12
Physcia adscendens (Fr.) H.Olivier17
Physcia aipolia (Humb.) Fürnr.8
Physcia leptalea (Ach.) DC.1
Physcia stellaris (L.) Nyl.3
Physconia grisea (Lam.) Poelt subsp. grisea9
Physconia perisidiosa (Erichsen) Moberg12
Physconia venusta (Ach.) Poelt8
Pleurosticta acetabulum (Neck.) Elix&Lumbsch26
Ramalina farinacea (L.) Ach.4
Ramalina fastigiata (Pers.) Ach.10
Ramalina fraxinea (L.) Ach.8
Xanthoria parietina(L.) Th.Fr.17
Table
Table 3. Loadings of the most related variables (Spearman’s r > 0.3) with the two ordination axes of PCoA shown in Figure 3.
Table 3. Loadings of the most related variables (Spearman’s r > 0.3) with the two ordination axes of PCoA shown in Figure 3.
VariablePC1PC2
Patch area0.21−0.14
Slope0.10−0.50
Basal area0.22−0.01
Tree cover−0.35−0.01
Trunk diameter0.17−0.51
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Potenza, G.; Gerardi, G.; Fascetti, S.; Rosati, L. Habitat Fragmentation and Lichen Diversity in Peri-Urban Woodlands: A Case Study in the Municipality of Potenza (Southern Italy). Plants 2022, 11, 1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141858

AMA Style

Potenza G, Gerardi G, Fascetti S, Rosati L. Habitat Fragmentation and Lichen Diversity in Peri-Urban Woodlands: A Case Study in the Municipality of Potenza (Southern Italy). Plants. 2022; 11(14):1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141858

Chicago/Turabian Style

Potenza, Giovanna, Gianluca Gerardi, Simonetta Fascetti, and Leonardo Rosati. 2022. "Habitat Fragmentation and Lichen Diversity in Peri-Urban Woodlands: A Case Study in the Municipality of Potenza (Southern Italy)" Plants 11, no. 14: 1858. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11141858

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop