Retention patches maintain diversity of epiphytic and epixylic indicator lichens more effectively than solitary trees

References

• Ahti T, Hämet-Ahti L, Jalas J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann Bot Fenn. 5:169–211.
   Google Scholar
• Allison PD. 2012. Logistic regression using SAS®: theory and application. 2nd ed. Cary: SAS Institute. 339 p.
   Google Scholar
• Aude E, Poulsen RS. 2000. Influence of management on species composition of epiphytic cryptogams in Danish Fagus forests. Appl Veg Sci. 3:81–88. doi: 10.2307/1478921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolker B, Skaug M, Magnusson A, Nielsen A. 2012. Getting started with the glmmADMB package. http://glmmadmb.r-forage.r_project.org/glmmADMB.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brunialti G, Frati L, Aleffi M, Marignani M, Rosati L, Burrascano S, Ravera S. 2010. Lichens and bryophytes as indicators of old-growth features in Mediterranean forests. Plant Biosyst. 144:221–233. doi: 10.1080/11263500903560959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caruso A, Rudolphi J, Rydin H, Moen J. 2011. Positive edge effects on forest-interior cryptogams in clear-cuts. PloS ONE. 6(11):e27936. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Franklin J, Spies TA. 1995. Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl. 5(1):74–86. doi: 10.2307/1942053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis CJ. 2012. Lichen epiphyte diversity: A species, community and trait-based review. Persp Plant Ecol Evol Systemat. 14:131–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ppees.2011.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esseen P-A, Ehnström B, Ericson L, Sjöberg K. 1997. Boreal forests. In: Hansson L, editor. Boreal ecosystems and landscapes: structures, processes and conservation of biodiversity. Ecol Bull. 46: 16–47.
   Google Scholar
• Fedrowitz K, Koricheva J, Baker SC, Lindenmayer DB, Palik B, Rosenvald R, Beese W, Franklin JF, Kouki J, Macdonald E, et al. 2014. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol. 51:1669–1679. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12289
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, Nielsen A, Sibert J. 2012. AD model builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Method Software. 27:233–249. doi: 10.1080/10556788.2011.597854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox J. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. J Stat Soft 8(15):1–27. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/. doi: 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
   Google Scholar
• Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA, Tappeiner JC. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: Variable retention harvesting systems. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF, editors. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of forest management. Washington, DC: Island Press; p. 111–139.
   Google Scholar
• Gauslaa Y, Lie M, Solhaug KA, Ohlson M. 2006. Growth and ecophysiological acclimation of the foliose lichen Lobaria pulmonaria in forests with contrasting light climates. Oecologia. 147:406–416. doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0283-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Baker S, Bauhus J, Beese, WJ, Brodie A, Kouki J, Lindenmayer DB, Lõhmus A, Martinez Pastur G, Messier C, et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. BioScience. 62 (7): 633–645. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Bauhus J, Kouki J, Lõhmus A, Sverdrup-Thygeson A. 2013a. Retention forestry: an integrated approach in practical use. In: Kraus D, Krumm F, editors. Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. Freiburg: European Forest Institute; p. 74–81.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Fedrowiz K, Hazell P. 2013b. Survival and vitality of a macrolichen 14 years after transplantation on aspen trees retained at clearcutting. For Ecol Manage. 291:436–441. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallikainen V, Karvonen L, Sippola A-L. 2005. Luonnon- ja ympäristönsuojelu metsiä uudistettaessa. [Conservation of nature and environment in forest regeneration]. In: Hyppönen M, Hallikainen V, Jalkanen R, editors. Metsätaloutta kairoilla – Metsänuudistaminen Pohjois-Suomessa [Forest regeneration in Northern Finland]. Hämeenlinna: Metsälehti Kustannus Oy; p. 173–188. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger M, Johansson V, Schmalholz M, Sjöberg S, Ranius T. 2016. Factors driving tree mortality in retained forest fragments. For Ecol Manage. 368:163–172. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.03.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halonen P, Jääskeläinen K. 2003. Jäkälät [Lichens]. In: Kuusisto A, editor. Ylläs-Aakenuksen alueen luonto. [Nature of Ylläs-Aakenus]. Mestähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja, Sarja A, No. 141. Helsinki: Edita; p. 108–117. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen A, Kouki J, Lõhmus P. 2014. The value of retained Scots pines and their dead wood legacies for lichen diversity in clear-cut forests: The effects of retention level and prescribed burning. For Ecol Manage. 324:89–100. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazell P, Gustafsson L. 1999. Retention of trees at final harvest – evaluation of a conservation technique using epiphytic bryophyte and lichen transplants. Biol Conserv. 90:133–142. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00024-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedenås H, Blomberg P, Ericson L. 2007. Significance of old aspen (Populus tremula) trees for the occurrence of lichen photobionts. Biol Conserv. 135:380–387. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedenås H, Ericson L. 2003. Response of epiphytic lichens on Populus tremula in a selective cutting experiment. Ecol Appl. 13:1124–1134. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13[1124:ROELOP]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedenås H, Hedström P. 2007. Conservation of epiphytic lichens: significance of remnant aspen (Populus tremula) trees in clear-cuts. Biol Conserv. 135:388–395. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikkala O, Suominen M, Junninen K, Hämäläinen A, Kouki J. 2014. Effects of retention level and fire on retention tree dynamics in boreal forests. For Ecol Manage. 328:193–201. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.05.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilmo O. 2002. Growth and morphological response of old-forest lichens transplanted into a young and old Picea abies forest. Ecography. 25:329–335. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250309.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jairus K, Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P. 2009. Lichen acclimatization on retention trees: a conservation physiology lesson. J Appl Ecol. 46:930–936. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01672.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson P. 2008. Consequences of disturbance on epiphytic lichens in boreal and near boreal forests. Biol Conserv. 141:1933–1944. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jüriado I, Paal J, Liira J. 2003. Epiphytic and epixylic lichen species diversity in Estonian natural forests. Biodivers Conserv. 12:1587–1607. doi: 10.1023/A:1023645730446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuusinen M. 1996. Cyanobacterial macrolichens on Populus tremula as indicators of forest continuity in Finland. Biol Conserv. 75:43–49. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(95)00039-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenth RV. 2016. Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Software. 69(1):1–33. doi: 10.18637/jss.v069.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löbel S, Snäll T, Rydin H, Saura S. 2012. Epiphytic bryophytes near forest edges and on retention trees: reduced growth and reproduction especially in old-growth-forest indicator species. J Appl Ecol. 49:1334–1343. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02201.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P. 2010. Epiphyte communities on the trunks of retention trees stabilise in 5 years after timber harvesting, but remain threatened due to tree loss. Biol Conserv. 143:891–898. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lõhmus A, Lõhmus P. 2011. Old-forest species: the importance of specific substrata vs. stand continuity in the case of calicioid fungi. Silva Fenn. 45(5):1015–1039. doi: 10.14214/sf.84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lõhmus P, Rosenvald R, Lõhmus A. 2006. Effectiveness of solitary retention tress for conserving epiphytes: differential short-term responses of bryophytes and lichens. Can J For Res. 36:1319–1330. doi: 10.1139/x06-032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundström J, Jonsson F, Perhans K, Gustafsson L. 2013. Lichen species richness on retained aspens increases with time since clear-cutting. For Ecol Manage. 293:49–56. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäkinen H, Hynynen J, Siitonen J, Sievänen R. 2006. Predicting the decomposition of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch stems in Finland. Ecol Appl. 15(5):1865–1879. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1865:PTDOSP]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nascimbene J, Thor G, Nimis PL. 2013b. Effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in temperate deciduous forests of Europe –a review. For Ecol Manage. 29:827–838.
   Google Scholar
• Nascimbene J, Ylisirniö A-L, Pykälä J, Giordani P. 2013a. Lichens: sensitive indicators of changes in the forest environment. In: Kraus D, Krumm F, editors. Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. Freiburg: European Forest Institute; p. 180–185.
   Google Scholar
• Nybacken L, Asplund J, Solhaug KA, Gauslaa Y. 2007. Forest succession stage affects the cortical secondary chemistry of three old forest lichens. J Chem Ecol. 33:1607–1618. doi: 10.1007/s10886-007-9339-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perhans K, Appelgren L, Jonsson F, Nordin U, Söderström B, Gustafsson L. 2009. Retention patches as potential refugia for bryophytes and lichens in managed forest landscapes. Biol Conserv. 142:1125–1133. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rikkinen J. 2003. Calicioid lichens and fungi in the forests and woodlands of western Oregon. Acta Bot Fenn. 175:1–41.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenvald R, Lõhmus A. 2008. For what, when and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. For Ecol Manage. 255:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runnel K, Rosenvald R, Lõhmus A. 2013. The dying legacy of green-tree retention: different habitat values for polypores and wood-inhabiting lichens. Biol Conserv. 159:187–196. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderström L. 1988. The occurrence of epixylic bryophytes and lichen species in an old natural and managed forest stand in north-east Sweden. Biol Conserv. 45(3):169–178. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(88)90137-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenroos S, Ahti T, Lohtander K, Myllys L, editors. 2011. Lichen flora of Finland. Norrlinia 21:1–534. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Tikkanen O-P, Martikainen P, Hyvärinen E, Junninen K, Kouki J. 2006. Red-listed boreal forest species of Finland: associations with forest structure, tree species and decaying wood. Ann Zool Fenn. 43(4):373–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Väre H, Kiuru H. 2006. Suomen puut ja pensaat. Raita [Trees and shrubs of Finland. Goat willow]. Hämeenlinna: Metsäkustannus Oy; p. 124–128. Finnish.
   Google Scholar
• Venables WN, Ripley BD. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar