Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:09:05.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantifying the loss of lichen epiphyte diversity from the pre-industrial Exmoor landscape (south-west England)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Rebecca YAHR ,
Brian J. COPPINS  and
Christopher J. ELLIS
Rebecca YAHR
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK. Email: r.yahr@rbge.ac.uk
Brian J. COPPINS
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK. Email: r.yahr@rbge.ac.uk
Christopher J. ELLIS
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK. Email: r.yahr@rbge.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Across much of lowland Britain, lichen diversity has been dramatically affected by the Industrial Revolution, including the lasting legacy of pollution, and changes in land use including the loss, intensification, or abandonment of traditional woodland management. We sampled preserved epiphytes on historical timbers in vernacular buildings to reconstruct pre-industrial lichen species occurrence for a site in Exmoor, south-west England, and used these data to quantify biodiversity loss that appears related to shifts in woodland composition. A total of 33 lichen epiphyte species were collected from pre-industrial structural timbers, and these were compared with modern lichen occurrence. Based on a direct comparison with species presence-absence in the same 10 km target grid-square, c. 31% of species recorded from the pre-industrial landscape had disappeared from the post-1960 landscape. Based on statistical inference comparing historical records with present-day biogeographical distributions, up to 38% of species could be inferred to be lost. This study presents a surprisingly high figure for these losses for a region in Britain usually recognized as having a relatively unpolluted environment and a diverse set of lichens. Of 12 species that were inferred to be lost, nine are predominantly found on nutrient-rich bark, and in our study on Ulmus, the dominant timber in the archaeological samples. We conclude that shifts in phorophyte distribution and abundance may be more important in this region than previously understood.

Keywords

archaeologybiodiversityconservationelmSomersetUlmusvernacular buildings
Type
Articles
Information
The Lichenologist , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , September 2014 , pp. 711 - 721
Copyright
Copyright © British Lichen Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, J. W. (1993) Epiphytic bryophytes preserved in a French farmhouse. Journal of Bryology 17: 511–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H., Mehlman, D. W. & Stevens, G. C. (1995) Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76: 2028–2043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunskill, R. W. (2000) Illustrated Handbook of Vernacular Architecture (4th ed.). London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Coppins, B. J. (1976) Distribution patterns shown by epiphytic lichens in the British Isles. In Lichenology: Progress and Problems (Brown, D. H., Hawksworth, D. L. & Bailey, R. H., eds): 249–278. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coppins, A. & Coppins, B. (2002) Indices of Ecological Continuity for Woodland Epiphytic Lichen Habitats in the British Isles. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Coppins, A. M. & Coppins, B. J. (1998) Lichen Survey of Horner Woods NNR. Report to the National Trust.Google Scholar
Coppins, B. J. & Lambley, P. (1974) Changes in the lichen flora of the parish of Mendlesham, Suffolk, during the the last fifty years. Suffolk Natural History 16: 319–335.Google Scholar
Coppins, B. J., Rose, F. & Tittensor, R. M. (1985) Lichens from a 16th century Sussex cottage. Lichenologist 17: 297–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombie, J. M. (1885) On the lichen-flora of Epping Forest, and the causes affecting its recent diminution. Transactions of the Essex Field Club 4: 54–75.Google Scholar
Ellis, C. J. & Coppins, B. J. (2006) Contrasting functional traits maintain lichen epiphyte diversity in response to climate and autogenic succession. Journal of Biogeography 33: 1643–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C. J., Coppins, B. J. & Dawson, T. P. (2007) Predicted response of the lichen epiphyte Lecanora populicola to climate change scenarios in a clean-air region of Northern Britain. Biological Conservation 135: 396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C. J., Yahr, R. & Coppins, B. J. (2011) Archaeobotanical evidence for a massive loss of epiphyte species richness during industrialization in southern England. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 278: 3482–3489.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellis, C. J., Coppins, B. J. & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2012) Tree fungus: lichens under threat from ash dieback. Nature 491: 672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, C. J., Coppins, B. J., Eaton, S. & Simkin, J. (2013) Implications of ash dieback for associated epiphytes. Conservation Biology 27: 899–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environmental Conservation 24: 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K. J., Blackburn, T. M., Greenwood, J. J. D., Gregory, R. D., Quinn, R. M. & Lawton, J. H. (2000) Abundance-occupancy relationships. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gignac, L. D. & Dale, M. R. T. (2005) Effects of fragment size and habitat heterogeneity on cryptogam diversity in the low-boreal forest of western Canada. Bryologist 108: 50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grindon, L. H. (1859) The Manchester Flora: a Descriptive List of the Plants Growing Wild Within Eighteen Miles of Manchester. London: William White.Google Scholar
Hall, L. J. (1981) Vernacular roof-types in north Avon and south Gloucestershire. Vernacular Architecture 12: 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haneca, K., Wazny, T., Van Acker, J. & Beeckman, H. (2005) Provenancing Baltic timber from art historical objects: success and limitations. Journal of Archaeological Science 32: 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawksworth, D. L. & McManus, P. M. (1992) Lichens. In Epping Forest Through the Eye of the Naturalist (Hanson, M. W., ed.): 92–101. London: The Essex Field Club.Google Scholar
Hawksworth, D. L. & Rose, F. (1970) Qualitative scale for estimating sulphur dioxide air pollution in England and Wales using epiphytic lichens. Nature 227: 145–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawksworth, D. L., Rose, F. & Coppins, B. J. (1973) Changes in the lichen flora of England and Wales attributable to pollution of the air by sulphur dioxide. In Air Pollution and Lichens (Ferry, B. W., Baddeley, M. S. & Hawksworth, D. L., eds): 330–367. London: The Athelone Press of the University of London.Google Scholar
Hewett, C. (1980) English Historic Carpentry. London: Phillimore.Google Scholar
Iredale, D. & Barrett, J. (2002) Discovering Your Old House, 4th edn. Princes Risborough, UK: Shire Publications.Google Scholar
Larsen, R. S., Bell, J. N. B., James, P. W., Chimonides, P. J., Rumsey, F. J., Tremper, A. & Purvis, O. W. (2007) Lichen and bryophyte distribution on oak in London in relation to air pollution and bark acidity. Environmental Pollution 146: 332–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laundon, J. R. (1967) A study of the lichen flora of London. Lichenologist 3: 277–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manel, S., Williams, H. C. & Ormerod, S. J. (2001) Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 921–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, M. (2006) The Somerset dendrochronology project: summary of results. Vernacular Architecture 37: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, D. (2006) Refinements in the interpretation of tree-ring dates for oak building timbers in England and Wales. Vernacular Architecture 37: 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penoyre, J. (1998) Medieval Somerset roofs. Vernacular Architecture 29: 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penoyre, J. (2005) Traditional Houses of Somerset. Tiverton, Devon: Somerset Books.Google Scholar
Pryor, S. N. & Smith, S. (2002) The Area and Composition of Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites. Grantham: The Woodland Trust.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from URL http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rackham, O. (1972) Grundle House: on the quantities of timber in certain East Anglian buildings in relation to local supplies. Vernacular Architecture 3: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, O. (1982) The growing and transport of timber and underwood. In Woodworking Techniques before A.D. 1500 (McGrail, S., ed.): 199–218. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum, British Archaeological Reports International Series: Vol. 129.Google Scholar
Rackham, O. (2010) Woodlands. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Rose, F. (1976) Lichenological indicators of age and environmental continuity in woodlands. In Lichenology: Progress and Problems (Brown, D. H., Hawksworth, D. L. & Bailey, R. H., eds): 279–307. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rose, F. (1992) Temperate forest management, its effect on bryophyte and lichen floras and habitats In Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment (Bates, J. W. & Farmer, A. M., eds). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Selva, S. B. (1994) Lichen diversity and stand continuity in the northern hardwoods and spruce-fir forests of northern New England and western New Brunswick. Bryologist 97: 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. W., Aptroot, A., Coppins, B. J., Fletcher, A., Gilbert, O. L., James, P. W. & Wolseley, P. A. (eds) (2009) The Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J. & McNeill, J. R. (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. Ambio 36: 614–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swets, J. A. (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240: 1285–1293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Herk, C. M. (1999) Mapping of ammonia pollution with epiphytic lichens in the Netherlands. Lichenologist 31: 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, M. F., Hawksworth, D. L. & Rose, F. (1988) Lichens on elms in the British Isles and the effect of Dutch Elm Disease on their status. Lichenologist 20: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werth, S., Tommervik, H. & Elvebakk, A. (2005) Epiphytic macrolichen communities along regional gradients in northern Norway. Journal of Vegetation Science 16: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolseley, P. A. & O'Dare, A. M. (1989) Exmoor Woodland Lichens Survey. Bridgwater, Somerset: Somerset Trust for Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
Yahr, R. & Ellis, C. J. (2009) Historic lichen communities in Wiltshire. British Lichen Society Bulletin 105: 10–17.Google Scholar
Yahr, R., Coppins, B. J. & Ellis, C. J. (2011) Preserved epiphytes as an archaeological resource in pre-industrial vernacular buildings. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 1191–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar