Evaluation and long-term conservation perspectives of woodland key habitat bryophyte and lichen indicators in Latgale

Anna Mežaka, Sanita Putna, Inga Erta

Abstract


Nowadays human impact to habitats and species are stronger then ever before. Latvia is typical example of fragmented landscape, where forest patches are mixed with agricultural land and waterbodies. Latgale is one of typical such a fragmented landscape parts of Latvia. Around 6.41 % of Latgalian forests were evaluated as Woodland Key Habitats (WKHs) or potential WKHs (P)WKHs  after WKH inventory. In total 16 WKH types, suitable for bryophyte and lichen indicator species existence were identified in Latgale. (P)WKH type, forest stand age and area were significant factors influencing bryophyte and lichen specialist and indicator species richness in forest stand level. WKH status did not provide any official conservation status for habitats or species based on current legislation in Latvia. Therefore establishment of conservation areas as microreserves for habitats and species and Nature Reserves in areas, with high (P)WKH density is an effective tool for their long-term conservation in Latgale. Further scientific studies of bryophytes, lichens and WKHs are necessary for planning the best conservation scenarios taking into account also forest ecosystem services.    

Keywords


Woodland key habitats; bryophytes; lichens; conservation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Heinken T., Weber E. Consequences of habitat fragmentation for plant species: Do we know enough? Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 15. 2013, pp. 205– 216.

Aune K., Jonsson B. G., Moen J. Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: Is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biological Conservation 124. 2005, pp. 89–95.

Berglund H., Jonsson B.G. Verifying an extinction debt among lichens and fungi in Northern Swedish Boreal forests. Conservation Biology Vol. 19 No 2, 2005, pp. 338-348.

Dumpe L. Mežu izmantošanas attīstība Latvijā. Grām.: Latvijas mežu vēsture līdz 1940. gadam. 1999, Rīga, Pasaules Dabas fonds, pp. 305-357.

SIA Grupa 93. Stratēģiskais ietekmes uz vidi novērtējums. Vides pārskata projekts. 2010, pp.68.

Ek T., Suško U., Auziņš R. Inventory of woodland key habitats. Methodology. 2002, pp.73.

Anonīms. Meža platību sadalījums. Latgales plānošanas reģiona teritoriālais plānojums. Mežu platību sadalījums. http://www.latgale.lv/lv/ padome/planosana. 2007.

Anonīms. Noslēguma pārskats. Dabisko meža biotopu inventarizācija Latvijas valsts mežos. 2003, pp 71.

MK Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr. 940. Noteikumi par mikroliegumu izveidošanas un apsaimniekošanas kārtību, to aizsardzību, kā arī mikroliegumu un to buferzonu noteikšanu. 2012.

MK Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr.421. Noteikumi par īpaši aizsargājamo biotopu veidu sarakstu. 2000.

Jaunputniņš A. Austrumlatvija. Latvijas PSR ģeogrāfija. Zinātne, Rīga. 1975, 671, pp. 200-221.

Latvijas dabas fonds. Rāznas nacionālā parka dabas aizsardzības plāns. Jaunmārupe. 2009, pp. 183.

Daugavpils novada dome, Daugavpils Universitāte, Sistemātiskās bioloģijas institūts (DND, DU, SBI) . Dabas parks “Daugavas loki” dabas aizsardzības plāns. 2010, Daugavpils, pp. 206.

Mežaka A., Brūmelis G., Piterāns A. Epiphytic bryophyte and lichen communities in relation to tree and forest stand variables in Populus tremula forests of south-east Latvia. Acta Biologica Universitatis Daugavpiliensis Suppl. 2. 2010, pp. 1-8.

Ikauniece S., Brūmelis G., Zariņš J. Linking woodland key habitat inventory and forest inventory data to prioritize districts needing conservation efforts. Ecological Indicators 14. 2012, pp.18-26.

Putna S., Mežaka A. Preferences of epiphytic bryophytes for forest stand and substrate in North-East Latvia. Folia Cryptogamica Estonica 5. 2014, pp. 75–83.

Jüriado I., Paal J., Liira J. Epiphytic and epixylic lichen species diversity in Estonian natural forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 8, 2003. pp. 1587-1607.

Rogers P.C., Ryel R.J. Lichen community change in response to succession in aspen forests of the Southern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 256, 2008, pp. 1760-1770.

Hanski I., Ovaskainen O. Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16 No 3. 2001, pp. 666-673.

Ellis C.J., Coppins B.J. 19th century woodland structure controls stand-scale epiphyte diversity in present-day Scotland. Diversity and Distribution, 13. 2007, pp. 84-91.

Paltto H., Nordén B., Götmark F., Franc N. At which spatial and temporal scales does landscape context affect local density of Red Data Book and Indicator species? - Biological Conservation 133. 2006, pp. 442-454.

Margules C.R., Pressey R.L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 2000. pp. 243-253.

Opdam P. Coninx I., Dewulf A., Steingrövere E., Vos C., van der Wal M. Framing ecosystem services: Affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape planning? Land use policy 46. 2015, pp. 223-23.

Castro A.J. , Martín-Lopez B. , Lopez E. , Plieninger T., Alcaraz-Segura D. , Vaughn C.C.,Cabello J. “Do protected areas networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial patterns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain” Applied Geography 60. 2015, pp. 1-9.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17770/etr2015vol2.283

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


SCImago Journal & Country Rank