North-eastern Poland is characterized by a large diversity of natural forest communities (Polakowski 1971; Sokołowski 2006; Hołdyński 2010). This is due not only to a very diverse young glacial landscape and a relatively low degree of anthropogenic environmental transformation, but also to the location of this region in the range of important forest-forming species, including the Norway spruce
Numerous studies have been carried out in the reserve, in particular on the phenotypic diversity and genotypic variability of the Scots pine (Przybylski 1972; Remlein et al. 2015; Lesiczka et al. 2017), as well as the dynamics of its growth and the structure of the stands it co-creates (Fabijanowski 1961; Dudzińska 2012). These studies were conducted primarily in the context of the technical quality of the pine wood (Jelonek et al. 2016; Wąsik et al. 2016, 2020; Misi et al. 2019). However, data on the biocenotic role of the Scots pine and its participation within the forest stands are very scarce (Dominik and Wojciechowska 1961; Piętka et al. 2019).
The aim of the presented research was to identify the taxonomic and ecological diversity of the lichen biota of the “Sosny Taborskie” reserve and to determine the supra-regional role of this forest complex as a refugium for rare and threatened species.
The “Sosny Taborskie” nature reserve is located in the northern part of the Olsztynek Plain mesoregion (Solon et al. 2018). The reserve includes forest sections no. 93 and 94, as well as part of sections no. 95 and 106 of the Miłomłyn Forest District (BDoL 2023) with a total area of 95.32 ha. The reserve was established to protect the local Scots pine ecotype and natural succession processes in the dominant deciduous forest habitat of the
Field research on lichen biota was carried out in the reserve in 2015. Two field data collection methods were used to increase the accuracy of the results. The basic method of data collection was detailed observations at circular research sites with an area of 0.05 ha. These localities, 16 in number (Fig. 2), were identified in all types of tree stands present in the reserve (according to the dominant tree species), i.e. pine-beech stands – with a majority (sites no.: 3, 6–8, 13–16) or a minority (4, 5, 9, 10) share of pine, oak stands (1, 2, 11) and a birch stand (12). The number of sites in a given type of forest community was representative of its share in the reserve. The route method (M; see Tab. 1) was used as a complementary method, focusing on habitats that could provide new information on the taxonomic or ecological diversity of the lichen biota (e.g. biocenotic trees, fallen trees or branches, dead wood). Lichen species were identified directly in the field (only in the case of taxonomically unproblematic specimens) or small specimens were collected for further detailed morphological and chemical studies in the laboratory. Chemical properties were analysed by standard thin layer chromatography (TLC) according to the method summarised by Orange et al. (2001). The nomenclature of taxa generally followed Fałtynowicz and Kossowska (2016), except for the species:
The list of lichen species recorded in the “Sosny Taborskie” nature reserve
No. | Species | Localities | Substrate | Red List categories |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1 | 1, 2, 15 | wd | ||
2 | 13, 14 | Ap, Fe | ||
3 | 1 | Qr | ||
4 | 5, 9 | Qr | NT | |
5 | 1 | Qr | ||
6 | 2, 4, 5, 7–10, 13, 16 | Ap, Fs, Qr, Tc | ||
7 | 10 | Qr | CR | |
8 | 5, 8, 9 | Fs | EN | |
9 | 9, 12, 14 | Qr | VU | |
10 | 1 | Cb, Qr, Ug | ||
11 | 1–6, 8, 10–16 | Cb, Fs, Ps, Qr, Tc | ||
12 | 8 | Fs | NT | |
13 | 6 | Qr | NT | |
14 | 11 | Qr | EN | |
15 | 14 | Ap | VU | |
16 | 1, 2, 5–7, 13 | Ap, Cb, Fe, Qr | EN | |
17 | M | Qr | ||
18 | 1–11, 13 | Ca, Cb, Fs, Qr, Tc, wd | ||
19 | 1–3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13–15 | Ca, Cb, Fs, Qr, Tc | VU | |
20 | 12 | Qr | ||
21 | 8 | Cb, Fs | VU | |
22 | 13 | Fe | NT | |
23 | 1–6, 8–12 | Cb, Fs | ||
24 | 10 | Qr | EN | |
25 | 1–3, 8, 12 | Qr | VU | |
26 | 6, 12, 13 | Qr | VU | |
27 | 8, 9 | Fs | ||
28 | M | Qr | EN | |
29 | 1–4, 12–14, 16 | Qr, Pa | ||
30 | 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13–16 | Pa, Ps, Qr | ||
31 | 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 | Qr | NT | |
32 | 7, 13, 16 | Ps, Qr | EN | |
33 | 1, 2, 6, 9, 13 | Fe, Ps, Qr, Tc, wd | NT | |
34 | M | wd | VU | |
35 | 1, 2, 4, 11, 13 | Qr, Tc | CR | |
36 | 2, 11, 12 | Bp, Qr | ||
37 | 1–13, 15, 16 | Cb, Bp, Fs, Pa, Ps, Qr, Tc, wd | ||
38 | 3, 5, 7, 10, 12 | Bp, Pa, Ps, wd | ||
39 | 1, 12, 13, 16 | Bp, Fs, Qr, Tc, wd | ||
40 | 1 | wd | ||
41 | 4, 5 | wd | EN | |
42 | 1–16 | Bp, Cb, Fs, Pa, Ps, Qr, Tc, wd | ||
43 | 1, 8, 9, 12 | Fs, Qr, wd | NT | |
44 | 1, 6, 8, 10–13, 15 | Fs, Qr, Tc | LC | |
45 | M | Fs | EN | |
46 | 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 | Cb, Fs, Tc | ||
47 | 12, 15 | Bp, Pa | ||
48 | 1–13, 15, 16 | Ca, Cb, Fs, Tc, Ug | NT | |
49 | 1–3, 5–8, 12–14, 16 | Bp, Fs, Pa, Ps, Qr, Tc | ||
50 | 1–4, 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16 | Bp, Cb, Fs, Pa, Qr, wd | ||
51 | 3, 8 | Fs Qr | NT | |
52 | 6 | Qr | EN | |
53 | 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12–14 | Ca, Cb, Fs, Qr, Ug | ||
54 | 1, 2, 6–9 | Ap, Cb, Fs, Qr | ||
55 | 5 | Qr | ||
56 | 4, 6 | Cb | ||
57 | M | Bp | ||
58 | 1–16 | Cb, Fe, Fs, Qr, Tc, Ug | ||
59 | 11 | Fs | EN | |
60 | 8, 16 | Fs, Qr | ||
61 | 1 | wd | ||
62 | 1–4, 6, 9, 13 | Ca, Qr, Tc | ||
63 | 1–9 | Cb, Fs, Qr, Tc | ||
64 | 1 | wd | ||
65 | 12 | Fs | ||
66 | 7 | Ap | ||
67 | 1–13, 15, 16 | Cb, Fs, Qr, Tc | ||
68 | 1–16 | Bp, Ca, Cb, Fs, Pa, Ps, Qr, Tc, wd | ||
69 | 1–11, 13–16 | Ap, Ca, Cb, Fe, Fs, Qr Tc, Ug | ||
70 | 1–16 | Ap, Bp, Ca, Cb, Fe, Fs, Pa, Ps, Qr, Tc, Ug, wd | ||
71 | 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16 | Bp, Pa, Ps, Qr, Tc, wd | ||
72 | 1–3, 9, 10, 12, 16 | Bp, Cb, Fs, Tc | ||
73 | 7, 14 | Ap | ||
74 | 4, 5 | Fs | EN | |
75 | 116 | Fs Cb Ps Tc Ca Ug | ||
76 | M | Ca, Cb, Fs, Ps, Tc, Ug | ||
77 | 1, 8 | wd | ||
78 | 1–16 | Ps wd Tc Fs Qr Cb Pa Bp | ||
79 | 10, 16 | Qr, wd | ||
80 | 1 | wd | ||
81 | 6, 13 | Qr | ||
82 | 3–5, 8, 10–12, 14, 16 | Fs, Qr | VU | |
83 | 2, 11 | Bp, Fs | ||
84 | 2, 8–10, 14 | Qr | VU | |
85 | 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 | Bp, Fs, Ps, Qr | ||
86 | 1–3, 5, 7–10, 13, 15, 16 | Fs Qr Cb Ps wd Bp | ||
87 | 1, 4, 8, 12, 16 | Bp, Cb, Fs, Qr, Ps, wd | ||
88 | 5, 9, 12, 15 | Fs, Qr | NT | |
89 | 1 | Cb | NT | |
90 | 8 | Cb, Qr | NT | |
91 | 3, 16 | Fs | EN | |
92 | 16 | Fs | ||
93 | 1–10, 12–16 | Ap, Ca, Cb, Fe, Fs, Qr, Tc, Ug | ||
94 | 7 | Fs | ||
95 | 8 | Qr | ||
96 | 1, 5–9, 16 | Ap, Fs | ||
97 | 7, 10 | Ap, Cb, Fs, Qr | ||
98 | 2, 5, 8–10, 13 | Bp, Fs, wd | ||
99 | 1–3, 8, 12 | Bp, Fs, wd | ||
100 | 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 | Bp, Fs, Qr, wd | ||
101 | 1, 4–6, 8, 13–16 | Cb, Fs, Qr, Tc, Ug | ||
102 | 3, 8 | Bp, Fs, Qr | ||
103 | 2 | Qr | ||
104 | 9 | Fs | VU | |
105 | M | Fs | EN | |
106 | 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15 | Bp, Fs, Qr | VU | |
107 | 1, 10 | Qr | VU | |
108 | 1, 8–10, 12, 13 | Ca, Cb, Fs, Qr | ||
109 | 1, 2, 6–8, 12 | Cb, Fs | ||
110 | 1–12, 14–16 | Bp, Cb, Fs, Qr | ||
111 | 2, 8 | Bp, wd | ||
112 | 1 | wd | ||
113 | 3 | Bp, Fs | VU | |
114 | 1 | Ps | EN | |
115 | 2, 3, 8, 11, 16 | Bp, Fs, Tc | ||
116 | 8 | Bp, Fs, Qr | ||
117 | 13 | Ps | ||
118 | 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13–16 | Cb, Fs, Qr, Tc | VU |
Abbreviations: Ap –
non-lichenized saprobic fungus; CR, EN, VU, LC, NT – red list categories according to Cieśliński et al. (2006); lichens – indicators of lowland old-growth forest in Poland (acc. to Czyżewska & Cieśliński 2003) are given in gray.
As a result of the research, 118 species were distinguished in the reserve (Tab. 1), including 117 species of lichens (lichenized fungi) and one species of saprobic non-lichenized fungus (
Eight species of lichens under species protection in Poland were found in the reserve, including three which are strictly protected (
The lichen biota of the “Sosny Taborskie” reserve includes 17 species that have the status of indicators of old-growth forests in Poland (Czyżewska and Cieśliński 2003), also referred to as forest relics (Cieśliński et al. 1996):
Biodiversity inventories are undoubtedly an indispensable part of basic research and constitute one of the main challenges of conservation biology, especially given increasing threats related to global change processes. The classic approach is to describe the observed species richness (α-diversity) by a researcher (or a team of researchers) in a given time and space. Complete lists of species occurring in a given area can provide relevant specialists with a lot of valuable information, not ounly about the current state of local communities and their past. They also provide a wide range of possibilities for monitoring possible changes in the future. However, obtaining complete lists of species is very difficult, and may even be impossible (Vondrák et al. 2016). In order to limit this type of imperfections and the resulting errors, especially in the aspect of valorization and comparison of various objects, only selected species are often used, treated as a surrogate for the diversity of a given group of organisms or even overall diversity. Appropriate species of this type, also referred to as estimators of taxonomic diversity (TD; Cardoso et al. 2014), can be used not only to identify valuable areas but also to reflect local environmental conditions or biological phenomena (McCune 2000; Moning et al. 2009), including those that are too difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure directly (Rolstad et al. 2002). In the latter case, these must be species with known ecological requirements (preferably easy to observe) that make it easy to predict a responses to specific changes in the environment (Nitare 2019).
Due to their multi-faceted and complex relationships with the environment, lichens are a group of organisms commonly used for monitoring and valorization of forest areas (Kubiak 2013b). The occurrence of lichens in a forest community is determined by a number of factors, including the presence of a more or less specific substrate and the microclimatic conditions of the habitat (Ellis 2012). These conditions change with the age of the forest stand and the increasing internal diversity of the community. Old forest stands not only abound in a variety of microhabitats, crucial for the occurrence of many stenoecious species, but also provide stable conditions necessary for their development for a sufficiently long time (Rose 1976; Nordén et al. 2014; Łubek et al. 2020). As a result, many species growing in old-growth (and usually protected) forests are not found in commercial forests (Gustafsson 2002; Boch et al. 2013). Considering the huge disproportions between the current areas of these two types of forests, many species of old-growth forests are currently threatened with extinction on a national scale (Cieśliński et al. 2006). Forests corresponding to primary ecological systems are often the only places where so-called forest relics (Cieśliński et al. 1996) or old-growth forest indicators (Czyżewska and Cieśliński 2003) occur. These are species whose populations in a given area, sometimes now extinct, have survived in a few locations in the best-preserved parts of the communities, constituting a remnant of the forest biota, which was richer and more widespread in the past. The presence of this type of species (number and frequency) in a given forest complex constitutes important information not only about the current condition (health) of the forest but also about its past. It is therefore not surprising that lichen species constitute an important group of indicators among organisms used to determine the ecological continuity of forest communities (Rose 1976; Coppins and Coppins 2002). Taking into account the total number of species found and the number of rare and threatened stenoecious forest lichens, the “Sosny Taborskie” reserve can be included in the group of important biodiversity centers in NE Poland (Czyżewska and Cieśliński 2003). As part of the assessment of the diversity of the reserve’s lichen biota (taking into account the previously mentioned limitations), it can be concluded that all analyzed lichenological indices (total number of species, number of species from the red list and number of old-growth forest indicators) have higher values than in many other sites of a comparable nature. A good example is the “Buki Wysoczyzny Elbląskiej” reserve, located in a region more optimal for beech vegetation. This reserve has an equally long history of protection and is characterised by a very good state of preservation of forest communities, dominated by the fertile lowland beech forest
The number of lichens – indicators of lowland old-growth forest recorded in selected national parks (NP) and nature reserves (NR) in Poland
Parks and nature reserves | Białowieża NP | Budzisk NR | Las Warmiński NR | Starożyn NR | Borki NR | Sosny Taborskie NR | Pupy NR | Buki Wysoczyzny Elbląskiej NR | Dolina rzeki Wałszy NR | Starodrzew Szyndzielski NR | Kadyński Las NR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area [ha] | 10242 | 328 | 1798 | 298 | 440 | 95 | 58 | 94 | 205 | 79 | 8 |
No. of species | 601,2 | 34 1 | 30 3 | 301,5 | 291 | 17 | 125 | 106 | 87 | 88 | 49 |
However, this work does not provide detailed data for individual phorophytes. It seems that the main predictor of the greater diversity of the lichen biota in the “Sosny Taborskie” reserve, and especially the richness of stenoecious forest species, is the presence of old oak trees. On the bark of a relatively small number of oak trees, 10 indicator species of old-growth forests, including six exclusive ones, were found. Taking into account the relatively low age of the beech in the reserve, as well as the rather optimistic perspectives of this species on the border of its north-eastern range (Matuszkiewicz and Kowalska 2017), also in the aspect of predicted climate changes (Bolte et al. 2007), it can be expected that the number of lichens associated with this species will increase in the reserve. Beech forests are considered one of the most characteristic ecosystems of the temperate deciduous forest biome and are the habitat of many epiphytic lichens. The critical list of lichens associated with
When analyzing the current state of lichen biota in the reserve, it is impossible to avoid the question about the importance of pine. Its direct role as a substrate for epiphytic lichens is small, but its presence undoubtedly affects the structure of the tree stand and local microclimatic conditions, which is certainly important for the entire biota and lichens associated with individual phorophytes. However, this issue requires further detailed research. A pan-European study by Pretzsch et al. (2015) have shown that in the case of mixed stands of Scots pine and European beech, we can expect a significant overall increase in productivity compared to analogous single-species stands. It should be noted that this type of species complementarity is possible mainly in pine populations in the most humid habitats (González de Andrés et al. 2018). Mixing species is one of the proposed forestry models in response to expected restrictions in the cultivation of certain species resulting from climate change (Pretzsch et al. 2015; Sebald et al. 2021).
The obtained results not only document and confirm the above-average importance of this area for the protection of the diversity of forest lichens in supra-regional scale, but the results also address the most current forestry problems. They prove that under certain specific conditions, mixing tree species with complementary ecological traits may modify forest functioning not only in terms of productivity, stability, or resistance against disturbances (Pretzsch et al. 2016), but also general biodiversity, and more precisely, the diversity of lichens.