Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T06:38:49.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors influencing the diversity and distribution of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes on the relict tree Zelkova abelicea (Lam.) Boiss. (Ulmaceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2022

Laurence Fazan
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Botanic Garden, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 10, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz
Affiliation:
Poznań University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, Poznań, Poland
Yann Fragnière
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Botanic Garden, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 10, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
Wiesław Fałtynowicz
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Wrocław University, Wrocław, Poland
Dany Ghosn
Affiliation:
Department of Geoinformation in Environmental Management – CIHEAM Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Alsyllio Agrokepiou, 73100 Chania, Greece
Ilektra Remoundou
Affiliation:
Department of Geoinformation in Environmental Management – CIHEAM Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Chania, Alsyllio Agrokepiou, 73100 Chania, Greece
Anna Rusińska
Affiliation:
Natural History Collections, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Paweł Urbański
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Salvatore Pasta
Affiliation:
Institute of Biosciences and BioResources – National Research Council, Corso Calatafimi 414, 90129 Palermo, Italy
Giuseppe Garfì
Affiliation:
Institute of Biosciences and BioResources – National Research Council, Corso Calatafimi 414, 90129 Palermo, Italy
Gregor Kozlowski*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology and Botanic Garden, University of Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 10, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland Natural History Museum Fribourg, Chemin du Musée 6, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland Eastern China Conservation Centre for Wild Endangered Plant Resources, Shanghai Chenshan Botanical Garden, 3888 Chenhua Road, Songjiang, 201602 Shanghai, China
*
Author for correspondence: Gregor Kozlowski. E-mail: gregor.kozlowski@unifr.ch

Abstract

Trees have a crucial importance in the functioning of ecosystems on Earth. They are among the largest and longest-living taxa and provide habitat and shelter to numerous species belonging to diverse groups of organisms. Relict trees are of particular interest through their history of survival and adaptation, and because they potentially shelter rare or threatened organisms today. We investigated for the first time the diversity and distribution of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes found on the Cretan (Greek) endemic and relict phorophyte Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae). Our results showed that Z. abelicea hosts a high number of epiphytes. The Levka Ori mountain range in western Crete seems to be a hot spot for epiphytic lichens on Z. abelicea. Bryophytes had the highest diversity on Mt Kedros in central Crete but were absent from several other sites. Moreover, 17% of the studied lichens were recorded for the first time for Crete and 5% have never been recorded for Greece. Geographical position and browsing intensity seem to be important factors influencing the epiphytic community encountered. Tree morphology (dwarfed or arborescent) was also significant in influencing community composition although it was not possible to dissociate this factor from the effect of topography. Dwarfed individuals were found to have as much epiphytic diversity as arborescent trees. Ecological indicator values showed that high epiphytic diversity was found in some sites despite signs of eutrophication and disturbance due to pastoral activities and suggest the co-occurrence of both disturbance tolerant and sensitive species. Our results show how little is known about the biodiversity of Cretan phorophytes and highlights the need for further research on the topic.

Type
Standard Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Lichen Society

Relict trees are particularly interesting because they have survived and adapted to changing environmental conditions throughout millions of years and are the only representatives of previously widespread taxa (Kozlowski & Gratzfeld Reference Kozlowski and Gratzfeld2013; Grandcolas et al. Reference Grandcolas, Nattier and Trewick2014). Little research has yet been undertaken to make an inventory of the biodiversity linked specifically with relict trees. However, relict trees have been found to be of crucial importance in maintaining and giving shelter to widespread as well as rare, endemic or other relict taxa. This is the case, for example, with Zelkova sicula Di Pasq. et al. (Barbagallo Reference Barbagallo2002; Barbagallo et al. Reference Barbagallo, Cocuzza and Suma2009) or Dracaena cinnabari Balf.f. (Rejžek et al. Reference Rejžek, Svátek, Šebesta, Adolt, Maděra and Matula2016; Maděra et al. Reference Maděra, Habrová, Šenfeldr, Kholová, Lvončík, Ehrenbergerová, Roth, Nadezhdina, Němec and Rosenthal2019).

Furthermore, relict tree stands often contain very old trees (Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012; Tang et al. Reference Tang, Peng, He, Ohsawa, Wang, Xie, Li, Li, Zhang and Li2013; Camarero et al. Reference Camarero, Sangüesa-Barreda, Montiel-Molina, Seijo and López-Sáez2018), and old trees are known to provide numerous microhabitats (Lindenmayer & Laurance Reference Lindenmayer and Laurance2017; Nordén et al. Reference Nordén, Jordal and Evju2018). These microhabitats (sometimes denominated in literature as ‘tree related microhabitats’; Kraus et al. Reference Kraus, Bütler, Krumm, Lachat, Larrieu, Mergner, Paillet, Rydkvist, Schuck and Winter2016; Larrieu et al. Reference Larrieu, Paillet, Winter, Bütler, Kraus, Krumm, Lachat, Michel, Regnery and Vandekerkhove2018; Bütler et al. Reference Bütler, Lachat, Krumm, Kraus and Larrieu2020) can also be formed by tree-associated taxa such as bryophytes or lichens. Some in turn foster a wide variety of other living organisms (e.g. invertebrates, plants, fungi, birds) and play a key role in maintaining or even increasing biodiversity (Paillet et al. Reference Paillet, Bergès, Hjältén, Ódor, Avon, Bernhardt-Römermann, Bijlsma, de Bruyn, Fuhr and Grandin2010).

The genus Zelkova (Ulmaceae) is a relict from the so-called Arctotertiary geoflora (Mai Reference Mai1991) whose members were important components of forests of the Northern Hemisphere during the Paleogene. Only six extant species of this genus are found today, and they show a remarkable disjunct distribution: Z. serrata (Thunb.) Makino, Z. schneideriana Hand.-Mazz. and Z. sinica Schneid. occur in eastern Asia, Z. carpinifolia (Pall.) Koch grows in the Transcaucasian region and Middle East, while Z. sicula and Z. abelicea (Lam.) Boiss. are endemic to the Mediterranean islands of Sicily (Italy) and Crete (Greece), respectively (Kozlowski & Gratzfeld Reference Kozlowski and Gratzfeld2013).

Zelkova abelicea grows in the mountainous regions of Crete above 900 m a.s.l., in rather cool and not too xeric sites such as north-facing slopes or around dolines (sinkholes), or at high elevations on south-facing slopes (Egli Reference Egli1997; Søndergaard & Egli Reference Søndergaard and Egli2006; Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012; Goedecke & Bergmeier Reference Goedecke and Bergmeier2018). Due mainly to overbrowsing by goats, most individuals have a stunted dwarfed form, with multiple stems, a shrubby morphology and very slow growth (Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012). Such individuals account for up to 95% of all populations, with some stands composed entirely of dwarfed plants (Kozlowski et al. Reference Kozlowski, Frey, Fazan, Egli, Bétrisey, Gratzfeld, Garfì and Pirintsos2014). Dwarfed individuals have been found to reach several hundred years in age and in some cases are older than arborescent trees (Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012). Arborescent, 15–20 m high individuals are much rarer. Old arborescent Z. abelicea trees show signs of having been pollarded in the past, and their leaves were used as summer forage (Rackham & Moody Reference Rackham and Moody1996; Bauer & Bergmeier Reference Bauer and Bergmeier2011). These old trees are often found growing next to abandoned shepherd huts to which they probably provided shade. The recruitment of seedlings is difficult due to the almost permanent overbrowsing during the growing season and dry summer conditions influencing plant growth and seedling establishment (Egli Reference Egli1997; Søndergaard & Egli Reference Søndergaard and Egli2006; Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012; Kozlowski et al. Reference Kozlowski, Frey, Fazan, Egli, Bétrisey, Gratzfeld, Garfì and Pirintsos2014, Reference Kozlowski, Bétrisey, Song, Fazan and Garfì2018).

The overall number of lichen and bryophyte species known for Greece is small, despite significant recent progress in the study of both taxonomic groups. The first and only published lichen checklist of Greece (Abbott Reference Abbott2009) recorded almost 1300 species, while the most recent, online checklist (Arcadia Reference Arcadia2022) already includes c. 1500 taxa. This indicates there is ongoing dedication towards this group of organisms in the region, as supported by the studies in recent years of a dozen lichenologists occasionally working in Greece (Obermayer Reference Obermayer1997; Papp et al. Reference Papp, Lökös, Rajczy, Chatzinikolaki and Damanakis1999; Sipman & Raus Reference Sipman and Raus1999, Reference Sipman and Raus2002; Christensen Reference Christensen2000, Reference Christensen2007, Reference Christensen2014, Reference Christensen2018; Grube et al. Reference Grube, Lindblom and Mayrhofer2001; Spribille et al. Reference Spribille, Schultz, Breuss and Bergmeier2006; Christensen & Svane Reference Christensen and Svane2007; Vondrák et al. Reference Vondrák, Guttová and Mayrhofer2008). Furthermore, although Crete also offers a wide spectrum of habitats, only a small number of lichen species are known from this island (Vondrák et al. Reference Vondrák, Guttová and Mayrhofer2008), only 677 species according to Arcadia (Reference Arcadia2022).

Several authors have recorded bryophytes in Greece throughout the 20th century (e.g. Coppey Reference Coppey1907, Reference Coppey1909; Preston Reference Preston1981, Reference Preston1984; Düll Reference Düll1995), each time with an increasing number of species. In the 1980s, Preston (Reference Preston1984) reported 424 species, whereas more recent national inventories included 525 moss taxa (Sabovljević et al. Reference Sabovljević, Natcheva, Dihoru, Tsakiri, Dragićević, Erdağ and Papp2008) or 690 species when considering both mosses (536 spp.) and liverworts (154 spp.; Blockeel Reference Blockeel2013). Ros-Espin et al. (Reference Ros-Espin, Mazimpaka, Abou-Salama, Aleffi, Blockeel, Brugués, Cros, Dia, Dirkse and Draper2013) reported over 590 moss taxa from mainland Greece and slightly over 280 taxa from Crete, of which c. 25% have been recorded only once. This again shows how little these groups of organisms have been studied until recently and suggests a need for more detailed investigations of lichens and bryophytes on the island.

Studies including or focusing on the phorophyte species of Crete exist but are rare (e.g. Kleinig Reference Kleinig1966; Gradstein Reference Gradstein1971; Werner Reference Werner1998; Grube et al. Reference Grube, Lindblom and Mayrhofer2001; Spribille et al. Reference Spribille, Schultz, Breuss and Bergmeier2006; Christensen Reference Christensen2007, Reference Christensen2014; Vondrák et al. Reference Vondrák, Guttová and Mayrhofer2008), and none has addressed Z. abelicea specifically. The only record of epiphytes growing on Z. abelicea comes from Spribille et al. (Reference Spribille, Schultz, Breuss and Bergmeier2006), which mentions four macrolichen species that are common for Crete.

In this study, we focus on a so far neglected portion of the biodiversity linked with Z. abelicea, by investigating the lichens and bryophytes that use this species as a phorophyte. It is the first time that an attempt to list these groups of organisms has been made by targeting Z. abelicea and covering all mountain ranges where the tree species occurs. More specifically, we aimed to answer the following questions: 1) What is the diversity of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes on Z. abelicea? 2) Do Z. abelicea trees host specific epiphyte taxa that are found nowhere else? 3) What is their distribution on Z. abelicea individuals throughout Crete? 4) Which environmental factors might influence the observed epiphytic diversity and community composition? 5) Does one site or another stand out in terms of ecological indicator values?

Methods

Specimen and data collection

Specimens were collected in autumn 2018 and spring 2019 from eight study sites, covering the whole distribution range of Zelkova abelicea on Crete (Fig. 1). Three study sites were located in the Levka Ori (Omalos, Niato and Impros), one on Mt Kedros (Gerakari), one on Mt Psiloritis (Rouvas), two in the Dikti Mountains (Viannou and Katharo), and one in the Thripti Mountains (Thripti). In each site, two to seven individuals (dwarfed or arborescent; Fig. 2A & B) of Z. abelicea were sampled, giving a total of 36 individuals. In Niato and Thripti, sampling was carried out only on dwarfed trees as no arborescent individuals were present. On non-dwarfed trees, the top layer of bark (Fig. 2C) hosting epiphytes was cut off with a knife, without harming the vital, living parts of the tree trunk. In dwarfed individuals, whole twigs covered with epiphytes were cut off with a knife (Fig. 2D). The collected material was placed in paper bags and kept dry until identification.

Fig. 1. Location of the eight study sites (filled dots) distributed across all five Cretan mountain ranges that contain populations of Zelkova abelicea. Names in bold font indicate mountain ranges with stands of Z. abelicea; summits (m) are indicated with an ‘X’. The names of the study sites are given in italic font. In colour online.

Fig. 2. A, forest fragment with large Zelkova abelicea trees (Omalos). B, dwarfed, heavily browsed individuals (Thripti Mts). C, trunk of a large tree with exfoliating bark (Dikti Mts). D, branches of a heavily browsed individual (Mt Kedros). Examples of different lichen growth forms: E, Lecidella elaeochroma (crustose). F, Xanthoria parietina (foliose). G, Ramalina fraxinea (fruticose). Photographs: G. Kozlowski (A–C), H-R. Siegel (D), W. Fałtynowicz (E–G).

In each of the study sites, the following general information was also collected: geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude), altitude, topography (slope or doline floor) and browsing intensity (Table 1).

Table 1. Environmental characteristics of the study sites in Crete where epiphytic material of Zelkova abelicea was sampled. Temp. = mean annual temperature; Prec. = average sum of annual rainfall (gridded climatic data was extracted for the period 1970–2000 from WorldClim, www.worldclim.com/version2). Browsing intensity = + moderate, ++ strong.

Gridded climatic data (i.e. annual mean temperature and sum of annual precipitation) for the period 1970–2000 were extracted from WorldClim (www.worldclim.com/version2) at a 30 s (i.e. c. 1 km2) resolution (Fick & Hijmans Reference Fick and Hijmans2017) for each study site (Table 1).

Species identification

Epiphytic material was determined using standard stereoscopic and light microscopy. The taxonomic identity of the sampled material was assessed using identification keys. Lichens were determined using keys provided by Clauzade & Roux (Reference Clauzade and Roux1985), Smith et al. (Reference Smith, Aptroot, Coppins, Fletcher, Gilbert, James and Wolseley2009) and Arcadia (Reference Arcadia2022). In a small number of necessary cases, thin-layer chromatography was used. Nomenclature of lichen species followed Index Fungorum (Index Fungorum Partnership 2022). Information on the morphological type of thallus (Cr – crustose, Fo – foliose, Fr – fruticose; Fig. 2EG) was obtained from Arcadia (Reference Arcadia2022).

Bryophytes were determined using the keys provided by Nyholm (Reference Nyholm1965, Reference Nyholm1998), Smith (Reference Smith1978) and Ros-Espin et al. (Reference Ros-Espin, Mazimpaka, Abou-Salama, Aleffi, Blockeel, Brugués, Cros, Dia, Dirkse and Draper2013). Nomenclature of bryophytes followed Ros-Espin et al. (Reference Ros-Espin, Mazimpaka, Abou-Salama, Aleffi, Blockeel, Brugués, Cros, Dia, Dirkse and Draper2013). For each bryophyte taxon, the morphological type (P – pleurocarpous, A – acrocarpous) was obtained from Düll (Reference Düll1979) and Preston (Reference Preston1984).

Authorities for cited lichen and bryophyte species are given in Tables 2 & 3. The analyzed material was deposited in the collections of the University of Wrocław, Poland (lichens) and in the Natural History Collections of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland (bryophytes).

Table 2. List of the epiphytic lichens recorded on Zelkova abelicea in Crete showing the taxonomy, morphological type and occurrence in the study sites. The nomenclature follows Index Fungorum (Index Fungorum Partnership 2022) while the morphological type of thallus (Morph.) follows Arcadia (Reference Arcadia2022) (i.e. Cr – crustose, Fo – foliose, Fr – fruticose). Study sites (Site) are listed following a longitudinal gradient from the west to the east of Crete: O – Omalos, N – Niato, I – Impros, G – Gerakari, R – Rouvas, V – Viannou, K – Katharo, T – Thripti. Number of trees sampled per site (n) is also given. Species recorded for the first time in Greece are in bold, and those recorded for the first time in Crete are marked with *. (*) = species possibly recorded for the first time in Crete but treat with caution due to the uncertainty of their determination or the possible misidentification of previous Cretan records.

Table 3. List of epiphytic bryophyte species recorded on Zelkova abelicea with their distribution at sample sites in Crete. The nomenclature follows Ros-Espin et al. (Reference Ros-Espin, Mazimpaka, Abou-Salama, Aleffi, Blockeel, Brugués, Cros, Dia, Dirkse and Draper2013) and the morphology follows Preston (Reference Preston1984) and Düll (Reference Düll1979). Morph. = morphological type; P – pleurocarpous, A – acrocarpous. Study sites (Site) are listed following a longitudinal gradient from the west to the east of Crete: O – Omalos, N – Niato, I – Impros, G – Gerakari, R – Rouvas, V – Viannou, K – Katharo, T – Thripti. Number of trees sampled per site (n) is also given.

Statistical analyses and selection of environmental variables

Statistical analyses were performed using R (R Core Team 2020). A Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test (Hollander & Wolfe Reference Hollander and Wolfe1973) was carried out in order to determine if species numbers were significantly different between trees from different sites, as well as between mountain ranges.

The ordination method, distance-based redundancy analysis (db-RDA), was used to analyze and compare epiphytic communities (Legendre & Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012; Oksanen Reference Oksanen2012, Reference Oksanen2015). This was performed in R with ‘capscale’ (package vegan; Legendre & Anderson Reference Legendre and Anderson1999; Anderson & Willis Reference Anderson and Willis2003). Since community data were of the type presence-absence (1 or 0), the Jaccard dissimilarity index (Real & Vargas Reference Real and Vargas1996) was selected to quantify the distance between communities. Constrained methods display the variation in the data of the environmental variables and are useful to test hypotheses and discover trends. In addition, permutation tests for the significance of constraints were carried out using ‘anova.cca’ (package vegan; Legendre et al. Reference Legendre, Oksanen and ter Braak2011; Legendre & Legendre Reference Legendre and Legendre2012) with 9999 permutations. The environmental variables were standardized prior to performing the analyses. One tree from Gerakari was excluded from the final analysis because it was very different in terms of community composition to all other sampled trees since it had only four bryophyte species and no lichen species (probably due to a sampling bias) and influenced the analysis too strongly when included.

Spearman's rank correlation (Hollander & Wolfe Reference Hollander and Wolfe1973) was computed between environmental variables to check for codependent variables and exclude highly correlated (Spearman's rho > 0.7) variables that could negatively influence the reliability of the results of the distance-based redundancy analysis (Borcard et al. Reference Borcard, Gillet and Legendre2011). Correlation coefficients for all considered variables are found in Supplementary Material Table S1 (available online). Latitude was highly negatively correlated with longitude (P < 0.001, Spearman's rho = −0.93). Due to the fact that the latitudinal amplitude of the study sites was very low compared to their longitudinal amplitude (0.25° vs 1.97°), latitude was excluded from further analyses. Gridded temperature and precipitation were also excluded from further analyses due to their high correlation with longitude (P < 0.001, Spearman's rho = 0.88) and altitude (P < 0.001, Spearman's rho = 0.97), respectively, and the potential unsuitability and/or unreliability of gridded data in representing localized climatic events in the Cretan mountains due to the absence of weather stations from which to interpolate (Goedecke & Bergmeier Reference Goedecke and Bergmeier2018; Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Remoundou, Dhosn, Nikoli, Pasta, Garfì and Kozlowski2022).

Ecological indicator values

For every lichen species, the following ecological indicator values (EIVs) were obtained from Nimis (Reference Nimis2016) and Nimis & Martellos (Reference Nimis and Martellos2021): pH of substratum, solar irradiation, aridity (i.e. air humidity), eutrophication and poleotolerance (i.e. tolerance to human disturbance). The same was achieved for mosses using the dataset of Düll (Reference Düll, Ellenberg, Weber, Düll, Wirth, Werner and Paulissen1991) for the following EIVs: light, temperature, continentality, humidity and pH of substratum.

EIVs help to provide useful insights into the ecological niche of single species and help to evaluate the habitat quality of species assemblages (Nimis & Martellos Reference Nimis and Martellos2001). For lichens, the values are based on ecological responses of lichens throughout their distributional range in Italy. For mosses, the EIVs focus on Central Europe and more precisely on some areas of Germany. We are aware that the ecological requirements of lichens as well as mosses occurring throughout Greece may differ. However, since no EIVs have yet been developed specifically for Greek lichens and mosses, the datasets of Düll (Reference Düll, Ellenberg, Weber, Düll, Wirth, Werner and Paulissen1991), Nimis (Reference Nimis2016) and Nimis & Martellos (Reference Nimis and Martellos2021) appear to be the best currently available. Furthermore, Christensen (Reference Christensen2014) argues that despite these shortcomings, the Italian dataset of ecological indicators for lichens can be applied to Greece. For lichen species that had more than one given value per indicator due to their broad ecological spectrum, the average value was computed. Values were then averaged by sampled tree and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests (Hollander & Wolfe Reference Hollander and Wolfe1973) were carried out for each EIV in order to see if there were significant differences between study sites.

Results

Epiphytic diversity and distribution

Overall, 70 epiphytic species were recorded on Zelkova abelicea: 60 lichen species belonging to 21 genera and 10 bryophyte species belonging to eight genera (Fig. 3, Tables 2 & 3). Four lichen taxa common in Greece and Europe were the most abundant: Pleurosticta acetabulum (found on 33 trees), Xanthoria parietina (30 trees), Physcia tenella (27 trees) and Lecidella elaeochroma (26 trees). All other species were recorded on 20 or fewer trees. Eighteen species occurred only once. For bryophytes, only moss species were found, and the most abundant mosses were Leucodon sciuroides (10 trees) and Orthotrichum affine (7 trees). The highest epiphytic diversity was found in Impros (42 spp.) while the lowest was found in Psiloritis (15 spp.; Fig. 4). Differences in epiphytic diversity per tree were non-significant among sites and mountains (χ2 = 7.1869, df = 7, P = 0.4097 and χ2 = 5.898, df = 4, P = 0.2069, respectively).

Fig. 3. Frequency of occurrence (%) of epiphytic lichens (dark grey) and bryophytes (white) growing on the investigated Zelkova abelicea trees on Crete.

Fig. 4. Diversity of epiphytic lichen (dark grey) and bryophyte (white) species of sampled Zelkova abelicea trees for each of the eight study sites on Crete. n = number of trees sampled per site.

Ten lichen species (i.e. 17%, namely Anisomeridium polypori, Candelaria concolor, Candelariella efflorescens, Huneckia pollinii, Ochrolechia androgyna, Physcia dubia, Physconia enteroxantha, Polycauliona polycarpa, Polyozosia populicola and Scoliciosporum chlorococcum were previously unrecorded for Crete. Three of these (i.e. 5%, namely Anisomeridium polypori, Candelariella efflorescens and Polycauliona polycarpa) were also previously unpublished for Greece and were found in our study on two different trees in Impros and on a single tree in Thripti (Table 2). All the sampled bryophyte species have been previously recorded for Crete or Greece.

All but one of the sampled trees hosted lichens, with variable species numbers (6–20 spp., with an average of 13 lichen spp. per tree; Fig. 5A). Trees with the highest diversity of lichen species were located in the three sites of the Levka Ori, as well as in Kedros. Trees from Psiloritis, Dikti and Thripti had lower species numbers, while one tree from Gerakari (Kedros) hosted no lichens. However, differences in number of lichens per tree between sites or mountain ranges were non-significant (χ2 = 4.4481, df = 7, P = 0.727 and χ2 = 3.6547, df = 4, P = 0.455, respectively). More lichen species were recorded in the Levka Ori sites compared to the other regions (Fig. 4). With 40 species, Impros had the highest lichen diversity, followed by Omalos (33 spp.), Niato, Kedros and Viannou (27 spp.), Thripti (24 spp.), Katharo (23 spp.) and Rouvas (15 spp.) (Table 4). Overall, 53 spp. of lichen were recorded in Levka Ori compared to 35 in Dikti, 27 in Kedros, 24 in Thripti and 15 in Psiloritis (Fig. 4, Table 2). However, differences in lichen diversity between sites or mountains were not significant (χ2 = 7, df = 7, P = 0.4289 and χ2 = 53958, df = 4, P = 0.249, respectively).

Fig. 5. Boxplots of the number of lichen (A) and bryophyte (B) species found on Zelkova abelicea trees in each of the eight study sites on Crete. n = number of trees per site. Grey dots represent individual trees. The midlines of the boxplots show the median, the boxes show the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Table 4. Proportion in percentage of lichens and bryophytes recorded on Cretan Zelkova abelicea trees per site. The number of epiphytes per site is given in brackets. Thallus morph. = proportion of lichens based on the morphological form of their thallus (Cr – crustose, Fo – foliose, Fr – fruticose). Morph. = proportion of bryophytes based on their morphology (P – pleurocarpous, A – acrocarpous).

Bryophytes were found only on 16 out of 36 (i.e. 44%) sampled trees, and the number of species per tree varied from 1–4 with an average of 2.25 spp. (Fig. 5B). The number of bryophytes per tree was significantly different among sites, as well as among mountain ranges (χ2 = 16.166, df = 7, P = 0.02364 and χ2 = 13.99, df = 4, P = 0.007328, respectively). Bryophytes were most abundant at Gerakari on Mt Kedros, where 8 spp. were counted, followed by Omalos and Niato (both 4 spp.), Katharo (3 spp.) and Impros (2 spp.); no bryophytes at all were recorded on trees at Rouvas, Viannou and Thripti (Fig. 4, Table 4). Total bryophyte diversity was not significantly different among sites or mountain ranges (χ2 = 7, df = 7, P = 0.4289 and χ2 = 5.4641, df = 4, P = 0.2429, respectively).

The most frequently recorded lichen thallus morphology (i.e. 52%, 31 spp.) was crustose, while 40% (24 spp.) of lichens had a foliose and only 8% (5 spp.) a fruticose thallus morphology (Table 4). Half of the 10 most abundant lichen species were foliose, one was fruticose while the remaining four were crustose. Crustose lichens dominated in Omalos, Niato, Impros and Thripti, foliose lichens dominated in Rouvas and Viannou, and both co-occurred in Gerakari and Katharo. Fruticose lichens were always in the minority (Table 4). Half of the recorded bryophyte species were acrocarpous, the other half were pleurocarpous but with local disparities. A majority of pleurocarpous species were found in Niato and Gerakari, while acrocarpous species dominated in Katharo and no pleurocarpous species were found in Omalos. In Impros, both co-occurred (Table 4).

Influence of environmental variables on the epiphytic communities of Zelkova abelicea

The permutation tests for the distance-based redundancy analysis (see Supplementary Material Table S2, available online) showed that among the selected environmental variables, longitude, topography and browsing intensity were significant (P < 0.05) with regard to epiphytic composition, while altitude was not significant (P = 0.21) and was thus excluded from further analyses. Figure 6 shows the results of the distance-based redundancy analysis of epiphytic lichen and bryophyte communities on Z. abelicea. Several clusters of trees stand out. A first group includes all trees from Thripti. A second group includes all trees from Niato. A third group consists of five trees from Impros and one tree from Gerakari. A fourth group is composed of all individuals from Rouvas and one tree each from Viannou and Katharo. The remaining trees, and all those from Omalos, are grouped between these four clusters.

Fig. 6. Ordination plot of the distance-based redundancy analysis of epiphytic lichen and bryophyte communities on Zelkova abelicea trees on Crete. Each symbol represents the community found on a single Z. abelicea tree. Each mountain range is represented by a different shape ( Levka Ori, Mt Kedros, Mt Psiloritis, Dikti Mts, Thripti Mts) and each study site by a different colour. Significant environmental variables are fitted (represented by arrows). Arrow lengths are proportional to the significance of the variables in the permutation test.

Ecological indicator values

EIVs of lichens for the eight study sites are shown in Fig. 7 and Supplementary Material Table S3 (available online). Significant, or close to significant (P < 0.1), differences among study sites exist for the following indicators: pH of substratum (χ2 = 18.971, df = 7, P = 0.008), aridity (χ2 = 12.7, df = 7, P = 0.08) and eutrophication (χ2 = 20.743, df = 7, P = 0.004).

Fig. 7. Ecological indicator values for lichens recorded on Zelkova abelicea trees at different study sites on Crete following Nimis (Reference Nimis2016) and Nimis & Martellos (Reference Nimis and Martellos2021). Detailed information is found in these publications and Supplementary Material Table S3 (available online). Only the observed values are described here. A, pH of substratum; 2 = acid substrata, 3 = subacid to subneutral substrata, 4 = slightly basic substrata. B, solar irradiation; 3 = in sites with plenty of diffuse light but scarce direct solar irradiation, 4 = in sun-exposed sites without extreme solar irradiation, 5 = in sites with very high direct solar irradiation. C, aridity (air humidity); 2 = rather hygrophytic, intermediate between 1 and 3, 3 = mesophytic, 4 = xerophytic but absent from extremely arid stands. D, eutrophication (including deposition of dust and nitrogen compounds); 2 = resistant to very weak eutrophication, 3 = resistant to weak eutrophication, 4 = occurring in rather highly eutrophicated situations. E, poleotolerance (i.e. tolerance to human disturbance); 1 = species occurring in natural or semi-natural habitats, 2 = species occurring in moderately disturbed areas (e.g. agricultural areas, small settlements, etc.). The midlines of the boxplots show the median, the boxes show the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the interquartile range while values exceeding this threshold are plotted as open circles.

The lichen biota living on Z. abelicea showed a wide range of bark pH preferences (Fig. 7A), with species tolerating very acid substrata (value 1) to species preferring basic substrata (value 5), although the most frequently distributed lichen biota showed preferences for acid to slightly basic bark conditions (values 2–4). No species linked to very shaded conditions (value 1) were found, and only one species restricted exclusively to shaded sites (value 2; Anisomeridium polypori) was found on one tree from Impros (Fig. 7B). All other species are light demanding species and occur in sites with diffuse light (value 3), sun exposed sites (value 4) or with very high direct solar irradiation (value 5). The majority and most frequent species are mesophytic to xerophytic species in terms of air humidity (Fig. 7C). Only two species are indicators of relatively hygrophytic conditions (value 1; Ramalina farinacea and Tephromela atra), while three species are tolerant to very arid conditions (values 4 or 5 only; Diplotomma alboatrum, Diplotomma pharcidium and Polyozosia dispersa). The most frequently occurring lichens were adapted to weak to high eutrophication (values 2–4; Fig. 7D). Only two species are strict indicators of no eutrophication (value 1; Ochrolechia androgyna and Ochrolechia szatalaensis), found only on three trees from Impros and one from Omalos, while six species are strict indicators of high eutrophication (values 4 or 5 only; Candelariella efflorescens, Phaeophyscia nigricans, P. orbicularis, Physcia dubia, Physconia grisea and Polyozosia semipallida). The most frequently recorded lichens have a wide poleotolerance scale (values 1–3) and tolerate anthropogenic disturbance (Fig. 7E). Species indicating low or null human disturbance were often found only on single trees. Only one species found on one tree in Viannou is indicative of old trees growing in ancient, undisturbed forest stands (value 0; Leptogium cf. cochleatum), while 10 species are strict indicators of natural or semi-natural habitats with low disturbance (value 1; Anisomeridium polypore, Candelariella efflorescens, Huneckia pollinii, Melanohalea laciniatula, Ochrolechia androgyna, O. szatalaensis, Physconia venusta, Polyozosia populicola, P. semipallida and Ramalina fraxinea).

EIVs for mosses for the five study sites in which mosses are present are shown in Fig. 8 and Supplementary Material Table S4 (available online). None of the differences among study sites were significant for the different EIVs. The moss species present on Z. abelicea are mainly light-tolerant species (value 8), although one half-shade species (value 5; Nogopterium gracile) and two intermediate (values 6 & 7; Habrodon perpusillus and Orthotrichum lyellii) were also present. Both Niato and Gerakari have, in addition to light-tolerant mosses, species that prefer more shaded conditions (values 5 & 6) and which were not found elsewhere. The temperature tolerance range of mosses growing on Z. abelicea was rather wide but most species were indicative of moderately warm conditions (values 4 & 5), with only two species indicative of rather cool conditions (values 2 & 3; Homalothecium sericeum and Orthotrichum rupestre) and two species tolerating hot to extremely hot temperatures (value 8; Habrodon perpusillus and Leptodon smithii). Gerakari was the only site in which species tolerating hot temperatures (value 8) were found, while also hosting at the same time cool and intermediate species. For continentality, all species show values between oceanic to subcontinental (values 3–5). However, species with value 3 were found only in Gerakari. Regarding humidity, species are indicative of arid conditions (values 2 & 3) to humid (values 4 & 5) but not wet conditions. The species with the highest value (5; Habrodon perpusillus) was found only in Gerakari, but this latter site also hosted the full range of values. As for pH of substratum, species are indicative of moderately acidic substrata (value 5) to weakly acidic to weakly basic (value 7) substrata.

Fig. 8. Ecological indicator values for mosses recorded on Zelkova abelicea trees at different study sites on Crete following Düll (Reference Düll, Ellenberg, Weber, Düll, Wirth, Werner and Paulissen1991). Detailed information can be found in that publication and Supplementary Material Table S4 (available online). Only the observed values are described here. A, light; 5 = half-shade, 6 = between 5 and 7, 7 = half-light, 8 = light. B, temperature; 1 = cold, 2 = between 1 and 3, 3 = cool, 4 = between 3 and 5, 5 = moderately warm, 6 = between 5 and 7, 7 = warm. C, continentality; 2 = oceanic, 3 = between 2 and 4, 4 = suboceanic, 5 = intermediate. D, humidity; 1 = strongly arid, 2 = between 1 and 3, 3 = arid, 4 = between 3 and 5, 5 = humid. E, pH of substratum; 5 = moderately acidic, 6 = between 5 and 7, 7 = weakly acidic to weakly basic. The midlines of the boxplots show the median, the boxes show the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the interquartile range while values exceeding this threshold are plotted as open circles.

Discussion

Diversity and distribution of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes

The diversity of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes growing on Zelkova abelicea was investigated in this study for the first time, and over the whole distribution range of the phorophyte tree species.

Our study revealed that the diversity of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes growing on Z. abelicea was rather high, with a total of 70 species recorded (60 lichen and 10 bryophyte species). Individual records included up to 20 lichen and four bryophyte species per tree. All previous studies focusing on or including epiphytic lichens or bryophytes of other Cretan phorophytes reported lower species numbers (e.g. Gradstein Reference Gradstein1971; Spribille et al. Reference Spribille, Schultz, Breuss and Bergmeier2006; Christensen Reference Christensen2007, Reference Christensen2014; Vondrák et al. Reference Vondrák, Guttová and Mayrhofer2008). However, higher or equivalent species counts are known from several phorophytes in other areas of the Mediterranean (e.g. Zedda & Sipman Reference Zedda and Sipman2001; Aragón et al. Reference Aragón, Sarrión and Martínez2004). This suggests that insufficient attention has been given to Cretan epiphytes and that probably more species are still to be recorded after further in-depth sampling. Indeed, the discovery of 10 lichen species previously unrecorded for Crete, of which three are also new for the whole Greek territory, shows how little is known about the epiphytic biodiversity of phorophytes on Crete, as already emphasized by Christensen (Reference Christensen2007, Reference Christensen2014). However, the present study did not reveal any epiphyte taxa exclusively restricted to Z. abelicea and most of the epiphytes recorded in this study are also encountered on other phorophyte species in Greece or the Mediterranean (Ros-Espin et al. Reference Ros-Espin, Mazimpaka, Abou-Salama, Aleffi, Blockeel, Brugués, Cros, Dia, Dirkse and Draper2013; Arcadia Reference Arcadia2022).

The three newly reported species for Greece (Anisomeridium polypori, Candelariella efflorescens and Polycauliona polycarpa) are all species that are found in other nearby countries of the Mediterranean (see e.g. Yazici & Aptroot Reference Yazici and Aptroot2008; Bilovitz et al. Reference Bilovitz, Stešević and Mayrhofer2010; Yavuz & Çobanoğlu Reference Yavuz and Çobanoğlu2018; John et al. Reference John, Güvenç and Türk2020; Nimis & Martellos Reference Nimis and Martellos2021), and therefore their presence in Greece is not surprising. Two other potentially new species for Crete, Leptogium cf. cochleatum and Ochrolechia szatalaensis, were recorded. The identity of the former is uncertain, whereas O. szatalaensis was considered by Kukwa (Reference Kukwa2011) to be a synonym of O. macrospora Vers., a species that was previously recorded from Crete by Christensen & Svane (Reference Christensen and Svane2007). However, their specimen was reported as having large spores (68–100 μm) whereas the specimen we examined had spores that were smaller, less than 60 μm, which is typical for O. szatalaensis. The chemical reactions of our specimen were consistent with the diagnosis of O. szatalaensis reported by Kukwa (Reference Kukwa2011). Therefore, we believe that the O. macrospora specimen of Christensen & Svane (Reference Christensen and Svane2007) may belong to another taxon, and that our specimen is the first record of O. szatalaensis for Crete, but further investigations are needed to clarify this.

Lichen and bryophyte richness is influenced by a multitude of factors which are often difficult to disentangle, such as precipitation, temperature, light, air humidity, water availability, substratum characteristics, land-use and landscape history, stand structure and size, phorophyte species and surrounding vegetation (Nascimbene et al. Reference Nascimbene, Marini, Motta and Nimis2009; Pinho et al. Reference Pinho, Bergamini, Carvalho, Branquinho, Stofer, Scheidegger and Máguas2012; Aranda et al. Reference Aranda, Gabriel, Borges, Santos, de Azevedo, Patiño, Hortal and Lobo2014; Medina et al. Reference Medina, Albertos, Lara, Mazimpaka, Garilleti, Draper and Hortal2014; Cardós et al. Reference Cardós, Martínez, Calvo and Aragón2016; Henriques et al. Reference Henriques, Borges, Ah-Peng and Gabriel2016). Extensive pasturelands have been found to have high lichen biodiversity because of the simultaneous presence of sensitive species which would disappear in more eutrophicated sites, and of nitrophytic species associated with locally higher atmospheric ammonia due to the activity of grazing animals (Śliwa Reference Śliwa and Godzik2006; Pinho et al. Reference Pinho, Bergamini, Carvalho, Branquinho, Stofer, Scheidegger and Máguas2012). Tree age is known to be an important factor in sustaining lichen and bryophyte biodiversity since epiphytes have had more time to establish on older trees and/or because of age-dependent changes in bark qualities (Johansson et al. Reference Johansson, Rydin and Thor2007; Ranius et al. Reference Ranius, Johansson, Berg and Niklasson2008; Fritz et al. Reference Fritz, Brunet and Caldiz2009; Lie et al. Reference Lie, Arup, Grytnes and Ohlson2009; Nascimbene et al. Reference Nascimbene, Marini, Motta and Nimis2009; Király et al. Reference Király, Nascimbene, Tinya and Ódor2013). A study of the demographic structure of Z. abelicea populations showed that not only arborescent trees but also dwarfed individuals can be several centuries old (Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012), and thus dwarfed individuals may act as important, but often overlooked, phorophytes.

There were also spatial patterns of richness. Zelkova abelicea of the Levka Ori mountain range show the highest diversity of epiphytes since 53 out of 60 species of lichen and 7 out of 10 species of bryophyte were found there. However, this may be expected since the highest number of trees (17 trees, i.e. 47% of the total), including both arborescent and dwarfed individuals, was sampled there. This mountain range (with its suitable climatic conditions; Goedecke & Bergmeier Reference Goedecke and Bergmeier2018) hosts the most developed and abundant number of Z. abelicea stands (Kozlowski et al. Reference Kozlowski, Frey, Fazan, Egli, Bétrisey, Gratzfeld, Garfì and Pirintsos2014) and Cardós et al. (Reference Cardós, Martínez, Calvo and Aragón2016) has found that well-developed and large tree stands tend to have higher lichen and bryophyte diversity than small, fragmented or isolated tree patches. Furthermore, in the Levka Ori, a higher lichen diversity than elsewhere was found on individual trees, with up to 20 species per tree (Fig. 5). There are no previous comparisons of epiphytic flora between mountain ranges of Crete. However, Christensen (Reference Christensen2014) found a higher diversity of lichens on Platanus orientalis L. in western Crete compared to trees situated in central Crete, which he attributed to the higher precipitation occurring in western Crete compared to more eastern sites, and in some cases also differences in land-use practices. The Levka Ori is the highest rainfall area of the island (Varouchakis et al. Reference Varouchakis, Corzo, Karatzas and Kotsopoulou2018; Agou et al. Reference Agou, Varouchakis and Hristopulos2019) and an increased lichen diversity due to a positive correlation with precipitation has also been noticed by other researchers (e.g. Giordani Reference Giordani2006; Svoboda et al. Reference Svoboda, Peksa and Veselá2010).

With regard to the bryophyte flora, Gerakari on Mt Kedros appears to be the most suitable place in our study and contained by far the highest diversity of bryophytes, with eight out of 10 species recorded there, as well as the highest number of bryophytes per tree. On Mt Kedros, the sampling site is located in an open forest on a steep and shaded north-facing slope at the foot of a cliff. This site has a relatively high precipitation and high potential run-off or percolation (Goedecke & Bergmeier Reference Goedecke and Bergmeier2018) and had the lowest heat load value (following McCune & Keon Reference McCune and Keon2002) of all analyzed Z. abelicea sites, conditions that seem to be favourable to the development of a rich moss community.

The lowest epiphytic diversity (only 15 species of lichen and no bryophytes) was found at Rouvas on Mt Psiloritis, although this is also the site in which the lowest number of trees (n = 2) was sampled. Some areas of Mt Psiloritis have been previously found to have a low number of endemic vascular species due to a supposedly stronger human impact on the vegetation there than elsewhere (Legakis & Kypriotakis Reference Legakis and Kypriotakis1994). This strong anthropogenic impact coupled with locally adverse microclimatic conditions could account for the low epiphytic diversity recorded for this area.

Only mosses and no liverworts were found during our study. This almost certainly reflects the more pronounced drought intolerance of most epiphytic liverworts (Bischler Reference Bischler2004). Three of the four most frequently recorded bryophyte species have a widespread distribution in temperate Europe (Düll Reference Düll1984, Reference Düll1985). The largest areas on the trunks of Z. abelicea were occupied by Leucodon sciuroides which was also the most frequently recorded species. Several of the less frequently recorded bryophytes are oceanic or sub-oceanic species (Düll Reference Düll1984, Reference Düll1985) and occur throughout the Mediterranean basin (Ros-Espin et al. Reference Ros-Espin, Mazimpaka, Abou-Salama, Aleffi, Blockeel, Brugués, Cros, Dia, Dirkse and Draper2013). The majority of bryophytes growing on the trunk of Z. abelicea trees are light-loving species (Düll Reference Düll, Ellenberg, Weber, Düll, Wirth, Werner and Paulissen1991) and are not found in densely forested areas.

Bryophytes did not occur at all in three sites (Rouvas, Viannou, Thripti), all situated in central or eastern Crete, whereas all sites in western Crete recorded bryophytes. With the exception of Katharo, all sampled trees east of Mt Kedros hosted no bryophytes. As suggested for the lichen flora, Gradstein (Reference Gradstein1971) evokes the west-east decreasing gradient in precipitation as a major factor influencing the distribution of bryophytes in Crete, although in his study some bryophytes were found uniquely in the central or eastern Cretan mountains. This explanation seems to be verified by our study. It is possible that the three sites without epiphytic bryophytes present environmental conditions that are not suitable for their growth, although further field investigations and more in-depth sampling should be undertaken to confirm this finding. Katharo stands out amongst the other eastern sites because the sampled trees were located on the border of a cultivated plateau, and thus epiphytic bryophytes there could possibly benefit from agricultural activities or moisture due to irrigation.

Factors influencing the species composition of epiphytic communities on Zelkova abelicea

The permutation tests for the db-RDA showed that longitude, topography and browsing pressure were significant in differentiating epiphytic communities whereas altitude was not. The db-RDA showed that the three sites of Impros, Niato and Thripti were clearly distinguished in terms of composition of epiphytic community. Moreover, Rouvas with the addition of one tree from Viannou and one from Katharo were also differentiated.

Altitude was not significant in influencing species composition of the epiphytic community, despite the fact that it is known, alongside precipitation, to be a major factor influencing species composition in the Mediterranean (see e.g. Loppi et al. Reference Loppi, Pirintsos and De1997; Mucina et al. Reference Mucina, Valachovic, Dimopoulos, Tuibsch and Pisut2000; Matos et al. Reference Matos, Pinho, Aragón, Martínez, Nunes, Soares and Branquinho2014; Medina et al. Reference Medina, Albertos, Lara, Mazimpaka, Garilleti, Draper and Hortal2014; Vieira et al. Reference Vieira, Aguiar, Portela, Monteiro, Raven, Holmes, Cambra, Flor-Arnau, Chauvin and Loriot2016; Sevgi et al. Reference Sevgi, Yılmaz, Çobanoğlu Özyiğitoğlu, Tecimen and Sevgi2019). This is probably because all investigated sites were situated within a narrow altitudinal range (i.e. only 170 m between the highest and lowest sites). Furthermore, longitude, or geographical position on Crete, is highly reflective of precipitation patterns, with a general west to east decreasing trend (Varouchakis et al. Reference Varouchakis, Corzo, Karatzas and Kotsopoulou2018; Agou et al. Reference Agou, Varouchakis and Hristopulos2019), although small-scale climatic conditions such as orographic effects, cloud and dew accumulation and snow cover (see Goedecke & Bergmeier Reference Goedecke and Bergmeier2018) also probably play an important role. Niato and Impros have completely different precipitation patterns despite being geographically close (Fig. 1). Niato is located on the windward side of the Levka Ori, in a doline surrounded by mountains where pockets of fog may persist and in an area which receives abundant levels of rainfall. Impros is on the dry leeward southern side of the same mountain range, on a slope overlooking the Libyan Sea. The importance of nocturnal dew or humidity rising from the sea is unknown for all sites and might be an important and overlooked factor that explains the compositional differences between these nearby sites. Indeed, the lichen community of Impros, although showing a wide range of EIVs, includes several lichen taxa that are highly sensitive to air humidity and solar irradiation (Fig. 7 and see below).

Local effects such as topography (i.e. slope or doline) may also play an important role in community composition. Niato and Thripti are the only two sampling sites situated on a flat mountain doline and not on a slope. However, coincidentally, these two sites were the only two places visited during the study where no arborescent trees were found, and thus only dwarfed shrubby Z. abelicea individuals were sampled. As a result, we cannot disentangle the influence of topography from that of tree morphology here. However, dolines have different pedological conditions (e.g. deeper soils, different soil pH and nutrient content) than sloped areas (Egli Reference Egli1993) and dwarfed individuals have a different architecture than arborescent trees; the former may host epiphytic lichens and bryophytes found necessarily closer to the ground and living under different microclimatic and biotic (e.g. browsing) influences. Dwarfed trees or otherwise low-growing shrubs seem to have been often overlooked in previous studies. Here, neither Niato nor Thripti showed lower epiphytic species numbers compared to other sites where arborescent trees were sampled. This is particularly true for Niato where 31 lichen species and four bryophyte species were found, showing a relatively high overall diversity. These results underline the importance of dwarfed, overbrowsed individuals as refugia for epiphytic floras. This is consistent with the results of Spribille et al. (Reference Spribille, Schultz, Breuss and Bergmeier2006) who found species-rich epiphytic lichen communities on trees in overbrowsed and dwarfed communities, and of Grube et al. (Reference Grube, Lindblom and Mayrhofer2001) who state that thorny cushion plants provide interesting microhabitats for epiphytic lichens. Moreover, Pirintsos et al. (Reference Pirintsos, Loppi, Dalaka and De Dominicis1998) showed that lichen community composition in overbrowsed dwarfed shrublands was influenced mainly by shrub height and shrub density (i.e. gaps between shrubs) which influence microclimatic conditions for lichen growth, but also depended on the phorophyte species present. Furthermore, epiphytic lichen communities have been found to change depending on the height at which they grew on the trunk (e.g. Pirintsos et al. Reference Pirintsos, Diamantopoulos and Stamou1993; Asplund et al. Reference Asplund, Sandling, Kardol and Wardle2014). Epiphytic communities living on dwarfed Z. abelicea individuals may benefit from microclimatic conditions linked with this specific tree morphology and which are probably different to those of arborescent trees. Despite their small size, dwarfed Z. abelicea individuals were also found to be in some cases older than arborescent trees (Fazan et al. Reference Fazan, Stoffel, Frey, Pirintsos and Kozlowski2012), and old trees are known to have more developed and more species-rich epiphyte communities (Nascimbene et al. Reference Nascimbene, Marini and Nimis2010). This could be explained by the fact that they offer more diverse microhabitats (Nordén et al. Reference Nordén, Jordal and Evju2018), provide more time for the colonization and establishment of species-rich communities or possess different substratum qualities (Lie et al. Reference Lie, Arup, Grytnes and Ohlson2009). Nevertheless, our study contains a bias, since epiphytes were collected only from the trunk on arborescent trees and not from the canopy, while being collected from both the trunk and canopy of dwarfed individuals. Trunk and canopy epiphytic communities have been shown to be quite different in many cases (e.g. McCune et al. Reference McCune, Rosentreter, Ponzetti and Shaw2000; Ellis Reference Ellis2012; Maceda-Veiga & Gómez-Bolea Reference Maceda-Veiga and Gómez-Bolea2017), and therefore further sampling should be undertaken to assess if this could also be the case for Z. abelicea and whether this could lead to different results than those presented here.

Ecological indicator values

Since no database including Greece has been compiled so far, the EIVs used in this study were those compiled for Italy (lichens) and Central Europe (mosses). Some authors have successfully used EIVs for vascular plants outside of their original range (e.g. Körner et al. Reference Körner, Dupouey, Dambrine and Benoit1997). In addition, Christensen (Reference Christensen2014) argues that, at least for lichens, the Italian database can also be used in a Greek context. However, other authors (e.g. Godefroid & Dana Reference Godefroid and Dana2006) have shown differences in EIVs for vascular plants between Mediterranean countries, and this is important to keep in mind when interpreting the data presented in this paper.

Significant differences in lichen assemblages in terms of bark pH, air humidity and eutrophication were recorded among sites. These differences are most probably related to variations in intensity of pastoral activities. Indeed, an increased presence of browsing animals will trigger a rise in eutrophication levels through higher deposition of nitrogen which in turn will raise bark pH. Bark pH is known to be an important factor in determining epiphytic lichen composition (van Herk Reference van Herk2001) and will increase through the emission of ammonia (NH3) as a result of practices such as animal husbandry (Paoli et al. Reference Paoli, Pirintsos, Kotzabasis, Pisani, Navakoudis and Loppi2010), but also due to dust deposition and dry conditions (Loppi & De Dominicis Reference Loppi and De1996; Loppi et al. Reference Loppi, Pirintsos and De1997). However, bark pH also depends on phorophyte species, tree age, position of epiphytes on the tree and soil type (Kermit & Gauslaa Reference Kermit and Gauslaa2001). Paoli et al. (Reference Paoli, Pirintsos, Kotzabasis, Pisani, Navakoudis and Loppi2010) state that due to the intense and widespread livestock grazing that occurs throughout Crete, the whole island is affected to some extent by habitat eutrophication through the deposition of nitrogen, but it is clear that local disparities exist among sites. Furthermore, the presence of species tolerant to lower air humidity in some areas may be explained not only by more xeric growth conditions but also by the prevalence of nitrogen-tolerant species, since nitrogen-sensitive species are also often sensitive to air humidity (Hauck & Wirth Reference Hauck and Wirth2010).

Despite the effects of grazing and localized eutrophication, Pinho et al. (Reference Pinho, Bergamini, Carvalho, Branquinho, Stofer, Scheidegger and Máguas2012) found that extensive pasturelands could maintain high lichen species diversity due to the concomitant presence of nitrophilous and non-nitrophilous (sensitive) lichen species. However, the maintenance of the latter, albeit with a decrease in abundance, occurs only up to a certain degree of land use intensity, after which these species disappear. This phenomenon can be observed, for example, in Omalos where lichen assemblages signal the highest values of bark pH and aridity, rather high values of eutrophication and high values of poleotolerance. This all tends to point toward a strong influence of pastoral activities on the local lichen assemblages, with the predominance of eutrophication- and poleotolerant species. The values of aridity that are higher than elsewhere and the high proportion of nitrogen-tolerant species are probably linked in Omalos. However, the presence of species such as Ochrolechia szatalaensis, a strict indicator of no eutrophication, and of several species with low poleotolerance or low to medium aridity tolerance demonstrates that sensitive species can still be maintained locally, and possibly thrive in Cretan Z. abelicea stands.

No significant differences were found between sites when considering the EIVs of mosses, but most sites contained only a small number of species, from which it is difficult to extract conclusions. Nevertheless, compared to the other study sites, Gerakari showed a moss community that included, besides generalists, more shade-tolerant species, oceanic species and species tolerating less arid conditions. Although these features could be a sampling artefact since Gerakari also hosts the highest number of moss species (8 out of 10 species), it is probably reflective of local site conditions. Indeed, Gerakari also hosts lichen species indicative of higher air humidity in comparison with the rest of the study sites. These findings are probably due to the fact that the site is situated on a shaded north-facing slope at the foot of a cliff. Goedecke & Bergmeier (Reference Goedecke and Bergmeier2018) previously stated that the site had the lowest heat load value of all analyzed Z. abelicea sites.

The sites of Niato, Thripti and to a lesser extent Impros have some particularities in terms of lichen EIVs and confirm the db-RDA results (Fig. 6). Niato and Thripti show lower values of bark pH and eutrophication. In addition, Niato has a lichen assemblage that is more sensitive to air humidity and human disturbance than Thripti, although the latter also contains lichens that are very sensitive to human disturbance. At Impros, lichen EIVs point towards a wider range of tolerance to solar irradiation compared to all other sites. Both lichens preferring more shaded conditions and lichens tolerant to high solar irradiation are found there. These findings could reflect the dwarfed nature of some of the sampled trees (Niato and Thripti) but could also be an indicator of lower than expected pastoral activities, possibly resulting from the remoteness of the three sites.

Rouvas, on the contrary, seems to have lost its most sensitive lichens. The site is distinguished by the low number of lichen species (only 15 spp.) found there, an absence of bryophytes as well as its levels of poleotolerance that are higher than elsewhere, comparatively high eutrophication level and presence of lichens tolerating high air aridity levels. These results might be explained by a locally sparser forest cover, a more arid environment or, as suggested by Legakis & Kypriotakis (Reference Legakis and Kypriotakis1994), Lyrintzis (Reference Lyrintzis1996) and Hostert et al. (Reference Hostert, Röder, Hill, Udelhoven and Tsiourlis2003), could be indicative of a stronger disturbance than elsewhere due to locally intensive agropastoral practices or other human activities. In our study, the site of Rouvas seems to be the least favourable site for epiphytic lichens on Z. abelicea, although sampling more trees in Rouvas would be needed to confirm this finding.

Conclusions

The diversity and distribution of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes using Zelkova abelicea as a phorophyte were studied for the first time over the whole distribution range of this tree species. The rather high diversity of epiphytes recorded and the number of previously unrecorded species for Greece and Crete alike show how much is still unknown about epiphytes on Crete in general, but also about the epiphytic communities hosted by Z. abelicea. Differences in community composition and species diversity between sites was reflective of many differences in local conditions, across scales relating to climate, topography, land use, pastoral activities and tree morphology (dwarfed or arborescent). Our study also highlighted the importance of possibly very old, dwarfed trees as key hosts of specific epiphytic communities. Dwarfed trees were found to have different but equally rich communities as arborescent Z. abelicea trees. We were able to show that although some areas seem to experience a relatively strong influence of human activities, they nevertheless maintained a high diversity of species due to the co-occurring presence of both eutrophication-tolerant and -sensitive species. Our study paves the way for further and more in-depth research to explain the patterns observed.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank H.-R. Siegel for permission to use his photograph in Fig. 2. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers who greatly helped to improve the quality of the previous versions of this paper. Study permits were granted by the Greek Ministry of Environment under permit nos 174101/5060 and 155924/1184.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: D. Gwiazdowicz, G. Kozlowski and L. Fazan; plant material collection: D. Gwiazdowicz, D. Ghosn and H. Remoundou; data analyses: Y. Fragnière, G. Kozlowski, W. Fałtynowicz and L. Fazan; bryophyte identification: A. Rusińska and P Urbański; lichen identification: W. Fałtynowicz; writing, review and editing: L. Fazan, G. Kozlowski, D. Gwiazdowicz, G. Garfì, S. Pasta, W. Fałtynowicz, A. Rusińska. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Author ORCIDs

Laurence Fazan, 0000-0002-2981-1806; Yann Fragnière, 0000-0003-4167-379X; Dariusz J. Gwiazdowicz, 0000-0002-0064-2316; Wiesław Fałtynowicz, 0000-0003-3636-6218; Dany Ghosn, 0000-0003-1898-9681; Paweł Urbański, 0000-0002-5199-8021; Guiseppe Garfì, 0000-0003-0466-4288; Salvatore Pasta, 0000-0003-3265-9072; Gregor Kozlowski, 0000-0003-4856-2005.

Availability of Data and Material

The raw dataset is available online as Supplementary Material Table S5.

Funding

This research was partially funded by Fondation Franklinia.

Supplementary Material

To view Supplementary Material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282922000159.

References

Abbott, BFM (2009) Checklist of the lichens and lichenicolous fungi of Greece. Bibliotheca Lichenologica 103, 1368.Google Scholar
Agou, VD, Varouchakis, EA and Hristopulos, DT (2019) Geostatistical analysis of precipitation in the island of Crete (Greece) based on a sparse monitoring network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 191, 353.10.1007/s10661-019-7462-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, MJ and Willis, TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84, 511525.10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0511:CAOPCA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragón, G, Sarrión, FJ and Martínez, I (2004) Epiphytic lichens on Juniperus oxycedrus L. in the Iberian Peninsula. Nova Hedwigia 78, 4556.10.1127/0029-5035/2004/0078-0045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aranda, SC, Gabriel, R, Borges, PAV, Santos, AMC, de Azevedo, EB, Patiño, J, Hortal, J and Lobo, JM (2014) Geographical, temporal and environmental determinants of bryophyte species richness in the Macaronesian Islands. PLoS ONE 9, e101786.10.1371/journal.pone.0101786CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arcadia, L (2022) The lichens and lichenicolous fungi of Greece. Online draft version dated 11 January 2022. URL www.lichensofgreece.com. [Accessed 28 January 2022].Google Scholar
Asplund, J, Sandling, A, Kardol, P and Wardle, DA (2014) The influence of tree-scale and ecosystem-scale factors on epiphytic lichen communities across a long-term retrogressive chronosequence. Journal of Vegetation Science 25, 11001111.10.1111/jvs.12149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbagallo, S (2002) Zelkovaphis trinacriae, a new Eriosomatine aphid genus and species living on Zelkova in Sicily (Rhynchota: Aphididae). Bolletino di Zoologia Agraria e Bachicoltura 34, 281301.Google Scholar
Barbagallo, S, Cocuzza, GE and Suma, P (2009) Zelkovaphis trinacriae, an Eriosomatine aphid relict living in Sicily on Zelkova sicula. Redia 92, 141142.Google Scholar
Bauer, EM and Bergmeier, E (2011) The mountain woodlands of western Crete – plant communities, forest goods, grazing impact and conservation. Phytocoenologia 41, 73105.10.1127/0340-269X/2011/0041-0482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilovitz, P, Stešević, D and Mayrhofer, H (2010) Epiphytic lichens and lichenicolous fungi from the northern part of Montenegro. Herzogia 23, 249256.10.13158/heia.23.2.2010.249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bischler, H (2004) Liverworts of the Mediterranean. Ecology, diversity and distribution. Bryophytorum Bibliotheca 61, 1252.Google Scholar
Blockeel, TL (2013) Mountains and islands: in search of bryophytes in Greece. Field Bryology 109, 1625.Google Scholar
Borcard, D, Gillet, F and Legendre, P (2011) Numerical Ecology with R. New York: Springer Science.10.1007/978-1-4419-7976-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bütler, R, Lachat, T, Krumm, F, Kraus, D and Larrieu, L (2020) Guide de Poche des Dendromicrohabitats. Description et Seuil de Grandeur pour leur Inventaire. Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL.Google Scholar
Camarero, JJ, Sangüesa-Barreda, G, Montiel-Molina, C, Seijo, F and López-Sáez, JA (2018) Past growth suppressions as proxies of fire incidence in relict Mediterranean black pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 413, 920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardós, JLH, Martínez, I, Calvo, V and Aragón, G (2016) Epiphyte communities in Mediterranean fragmented forests: importance of the fragment size and the surrounding matrix. Landscape Ecology 31, 19751995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, SN (2000) Lichens from thickets of Buxus, Carpinus and Juniperus on Mt Vourinos, Makedhonia, North Central Greece. Willdenowia 30, 375385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, SN (2007) Lichens of Cupressus sempervirens on the Aegean islands of Kriti and Kos, Greece. Willdenowia 37, 577585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, SN (2014) The epiphytic lichen flora of Platanus orientalis stands in Greece. Willdenowia 44, 209227.10.3372/wi.44.44203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, SN (2018) New or rarely reported lichens for Thrace, Greece. Herzogia 31, 390394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, SN and Svane, S (2007) Contribution to the knowledge of the lichen flora of Crete (Kriti), Greece. Willdenowia 37, 587593.10.3372/wi.37.37218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clauzade, G and Roux, C (1985) Likenoj de Okcidenta Europo. Illustrata determinlibro. Saint-Sulpice-de-Royan: Société Botanique du Centre Ouest.Google Scholar
Coppey, A (1907) Matériaux pour servir à l’étude de la flore et la géographie botanique de l'Orient. Troisième fascicule. Contribution à l’étude des muscinées de la Grèce. Bulletin des Sciences de la Société des Sciences de Nancy 8, 293360.Google Scholar
Coppey, A (1909) Matériaux pour servir à l’étude de la flore et la géographie de l'Orient. Cinquième fascicule. Deuxième contribution à l’étude des muscinées de la Grèce. Bulletin des Sciences de la Société des Sciences de Nancy 10, 83130.Google Scholar
Düll, R (1979) Neue Übersicht zur Moosflora der Insel Kreta (Aegaeis). Journal of Bryology 10, 491509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Düll, R (1984) Distribution of the European and Macaronesian mosses (Bryophytina), Part I. Bryologische Beitrage 4, 1109.Google Scholar
Düll, R (1985) Distribution of the European and Macaronesian mosses (Bryophytina), Part II. Bryologische Beitrage 5, 110233.Google Scholar
Düll, R (1991) Zeigerwerte von Laub-und Lebermoosen. In Ellenberg, H, Weber, HE, Düll, R, Wirth, V, Werner, W and Paulissen, D (eds), Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. (Scripta Geobotanica, Band 18, 2). Göttingen: Verlag Erich Goltze KG, pp. 175215.Google Scholar
Düll, R (1995) Moose Griechenlands (Bryophytes of Greece). Bryologische Beitrage 10, 1229.Google Scholar
Egli, B (1993) Ökologie der dolinen im gebirge Kretas (Griechenland). Ph.D. thesis, University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Egli, B (1997) A project for the preservation of Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae), a threatened endemic tree species from the mountains of Crete. Bocconea 5, 505510.Google Scholar
Ellis, CJ (2012) Lichen epiphyte diversity: a species, community and trait-based review. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 14, 131152.10.1016/j.ppees.2011.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazan, L, Stoffel, M, Frey, DJ, Pirintsos, S and Kozlowski, G (2012) Small does not mean young: age estimation of severely browsed trees in anthropogenic Mediterranean landscapes. Biological Conservation 153, 97100.10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazan, L, Remoundou, I, Dhosn, D, Nikoli, T, Pasta, S, Garfì, G and Kozlowski, G (2022) Understanding the factors influencing the growth of Zelkova abelicea in browsing exclosures. Global Ecology and Conservation 34, e02031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fick, SE and Hijmans, RJ (2017) WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37, 43024315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, Ö, Brunet, J and Caldiz, M (2009) Interacting effects of tree characteristics on the occurrence of rare epiphytes in a Swedish beech forest area. Bryologist 112, 488505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordani, P (2006) Variables influencing the distribution of epiphytic lichens in heterogeneous areas: a case study for Liguria, NW Italy. Journal of Vegetation Science 17, 195206.10.1111/j.1654-1103.2006.tb02438.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godefroid, S and Dana, E (2006) Can Ellenberg's indicator values for Mediterranean plants be used outside their region of definition? Journal of Biogeography 34, 6268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goedecke, F and Bergmeier, E (2018) Ecology and potential distribution of the Cretan endemic tree species Zelkova abelicea. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 16, 1526.Google Scholar
Gradstein, SR (1971) New or otherwise interesting bryophytes from Crete. Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum en Herbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht 355, 663679.Google Scholar
Grandcolas, P, Nattier, R and Trewick, S (2014) Relict species: a relict concept? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 29, 655663.10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grube, M, Lindblom, L and Mayrhofer, H (2001) Contribution to the lichen flora of Crete: a compilation of references and some new records. Studia Geobotanica 20, 4159.Google Scholar
Hauck, M and Wirth, V (2010) Preference of lichens for shady habitats is correlated with intolerance to high nitrogen levels. Lichenologist 42, 475484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriques, DSG, Borges, PAV, Ah-Peng, C and Gabriel, R (2016) Mosses and liverworts show contrasting elevational distribution patterns in an oceanic island (Terceira, Azores): the influence of climate and space. Journal of Bryology 38, 183194.10.1080/03736687.2016.1156360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, M and Wolfe, DA (1973) Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hostert, P, Röder, A, Hill, J, Udelhoven, T and Tsiourlis, G (2003) Retrospective studies of grazing-induced land degradation: a case study in central Crete, Greece. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24, 40194034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Index Fungorum Partnership (2022) Index Fungorum. [WWW resource] URL http://www.indexfungorum.org [Accessed 4 February 2022].Google Scholar
Johansson, P, Rydin, H and Thor, G (2007) Tree age relationships with epiphytic lichen diversity and lichen life history traits on ash in southern Sweden. Ecoscience 14, 8191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, V, Güvenç, S and Türk, A (2020) Additions to the checklist and bibliography of the lichens and lichenicolous fungi of Turkey. Archive for Lichenology 19, 132.Google Scholar
Kermit, T and Gauslaa, Y (2001) The vertical gradient of bark pH of twigs and macrolichens in a Picea abies canopy not affected by acid rain. Lichenologist 33, 353359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Király, I, Nascimbene, J, Tinya, F and Ódor, P (2013) Factors influencing epiphytic bryophyte and lichen species richness at different spatial scales in managed temperate forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 209223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinig, H (1966) Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Flechtenflora von Kreta. Nova Hedwigia 11, 513526.Google Scholar
Körner, W, Dupouey, JL, Dambrine, E and Benoit, M (1997) Influence of past land use on the vegetation and soils of present day forest in the Vosges Mountains, France. Journal of Ecology 85, 351358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, G and Gratzfeld, J (2013) Zelkova – an Ancient Tree. Global Status and Conservation Action. Fribourg: Natural History Museum Fribourg.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, G, Frey, D, Fazan, L, Egli, B, Bétrisey, S, Gratzfeld, J, Garfì, G and Pirintsos, S (2014) The Tertiary relict tree Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae): distribution, population structure and conservation status on Crete. Oryx 48, 8087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, G, Bétrisey, S, Song, YG, Fazan, L and Garfì, G (2018) The Red List of Zelkova. Fribourg: Natural History Museum Fribourg.Google Scholar
Kraus, D, Bütler, R, Krumm, F, Lachat, T, Larrieu, L, Mergner, U, Paillet, Y, Rydkvist, T, Schuck, A and Winter, S (2016 ) Catalogue of tree microhabitats. Reference field list. Integrate+ technical paper. Freiburg: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
Kukwa, M (2011) The Lichen Genus Ochrolechia in Europe. Gdansk: Fundacaja Rozwoju Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego.Google Scholar
Larrieu, L, Paillet, Y, Winter, S, Bütler, R, Kraus, D, Krumm, F, Lachat, T, Michel, AK, Regnery, B and Vandekerkhove, K (2018) Tree related microhabitats in temperate and Mediterranean European forests: a hierarchical typology for inventory standardization. Ecological Indicators 84, 194207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legakis, A and Kypriotakis, Z (1994) A biogeographical analysis of the Island of Crete, Greece. Journal of Biogeography 21, 441445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P and Anderson, MJ (1999) Distance-based redundancy analysis: testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecological Monographs 69, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, P and Legendre, L (2012) Numerical Ecology, 3rd Edn. Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Legendre, P, Oksanen, J and ter Braak, CJF (2011) Testing the significance of canonical axes in redundancy analysis. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, 269277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lie, MH, Arup, U, Grytnes, JA and Ohlson, M (2009) The importance of host tree age, size and growth rate as determinants of epiphytic lichen diversity in boreal spruce forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 35793596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, DB and Laurance, WF (2017) The ecology, distribution, conservation and management of large old trees. Biological Reviews 92, 14341458.10.1111/brv.12290CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loppi, S and De, Dominicis V (1996) Lichens as long-term biomonitors of air quality in central Italy. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 45, 563570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loppi, S, Pirintsos, SA and De, Dominicis V (1997) Analysis of the distribution of epiphytic lichens on Quercus pubescens along an altitudinal gradient in a Mediterranean area (Tuscany, central Italy). Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 45, 5358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyrintzis, GA (1996) Human impact trend in Crete: the case of Psilorites Mountain. Environmental Conservation 23, 140148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maceda-Veiga, A and Gómez-Bolea, A (2017) Small, fragmented native oak forests have better preserved epiphytic lichen communities than tree plantations in a temperate sub-oceanic Mediterranean climate region. Bryologist 120, 191201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maděra, P, Habrová, H, Šenfeldr, M, Kholová, I, Lvončík, S, Ehrenbergerová, L, Roth, M, Nadezhdina, N, Němec, P, Rosenthal, J, et al. (2019) Growth dynamics of endemic Dracaena cinnabari Balf. f. of Socotra Island suggest essential elements for a conservation strategy. Biologia 74, 339349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mai, DH (1991) Palaeofloristic changes in Europe and the confirmation of the Arctotertiary-Palaeotropical geofloral concept. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 68, 2936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matos, P, Pinho, P, Aragón, G, Martínez, I, Nunes, A, Soares, AMVM, Branquinho, C (2014) Lichen traits responding to aridity. Journal of Ecology 103, 451458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B and Keon, D (2002) Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load. Journal of Vegetation Science 13, 603606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B, Rosentreter, R, Ponzetti, JM and Shaw, DC (2000) Epiphyte habitats in an old conifer forest in western Washington, U.S.A. Bryologist 103, 417427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, NG, Albertos, B, Lara, F, Mazimpaka, V, Garilleti, R, Draper, D and Hortal, J (2014) Species richness of epiphytic bryophytes: drivers across scales on the edge of the Mediterranean. Ecography 37, 8093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mucina, L, Valachovic, M, Dimopoulos, P, Tuibsch, A and Pisut, I (2000) Epiphytic lichen and moss vegetation along an altitude gradient on Mount Aenos (Kefallinia, Greece). Biologia, Bratislava 55, 4348.Google Scholar
Nascimbene, J, Marini, L, Motta, R and Nimis, PL (2009) Influence of tree age, tree size and crown structure on lichen communities in mature Alpine spruce forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 18, 15091522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nascimbene, J, Marini, L and Nimis, PL (2010) Epiphytic lichen diversity in old-growth and managed Picea abies stands in Alpine spruce forests. Forest Ecology and Management 260, 603609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimis, PL (2016) The Lichens of Italy. A Second Annotated Catalogue. Trieste: EUT.Google Scholar
Nimis, PL and Martellos, S (2001) Testing the predictivity of ecological indicator values. A comparison of real and ‘virtual’ relevés of lichen vegetation. Plant Ecology 157, 165172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimis, PL and Martellos, S (2021) ITALIC: the information system on Italian lichens. Version 5.0. Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste. [WWW document] URL http://dryades.units.it/italic. [Accessed 25 February 2021].Google Scholar
Nordén, B, Jordal, JB and Evju, M (2018) Can large unmanaged trees replace ancient pollarded trees as habitats for lichenized fungi, non-lichenized fungi and bryophytes? Biodiversity and Conservation 27, 10951114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyholm, E (1965) Illustrated Moss Flora of Fennoscandia II, Musci. Fasc. 5. Lund: Botanical Society of Lund, CWK Gleerup, pp. 406647.Google Scholar
Nyholm, E (1998) Illustrated Flora of Nordic Mosses. Fasc, 4. Copenhagen and Lund: Nordic Bryological Society, pp. 249405.Google Scholar
Obermayer, W (1997) Lichenes Graecensis, Fasc. 5 (Nos 81–100). Fritschiana 11, 16.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J (2012) Constrained ordination: tutorial with R and vegan. [WWW document] URL https://www.mooreecology.com/uploads/2/4/2/1/24213970/constrained_ordination.pdf. [Accessed 3 December 2020].Google Scholar
Oksanen, J (2015) Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial. [WWW document] URL https://www.mooreecology.com/uploads/2/4/2/1/24213970/vegantutor.pdf. [Accessed 3 December 2020].Google Scholar
Paillet, Y, Bergès, L, Hjältén, J, Ódor, P, Avon, C, Bernhardt-Römermann, M, Bijlsma, RJ, de Bruyn, L, Fuhr, M, Grandin, U, et al. (2010) Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology 24, 101112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paoli, L, Pirintsos, SA, Kotzabasis, K, Pisani, T, Navakoudis, E and Loppi, S (2010) Effects of ammonia from livestock farming on lichen photosynthesis. Environmental Pollution 158, 22582265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papp, B, Lökös, L, Rajczy, M, Chatzinikolaki, E and Damanakis, M (1999) Bryophytes and lichens of some phrygana and maquis stands of Crete (Greece). Studia Botanica Hungarica 29, 6978.Google Scholar
Pinho, P, Bergamini, A, Carvalho, P, Branquinho, C, Stofer, S, Scheidegger, C and Máguas, C (2012) Lichen functional groups as ecological indicators of the effects of land-use in Mediterranean ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 15, 3642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirintsos, SA, Diamantopoulos, J and Stamou, GP (1993) Analysis of the vertical distribution of epiphytic lichens on Pinus nigra (Mount Olympos, Greece) along an altitudinal gradient. Vegetatio 109, 6370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirintsos, SA, Loppi, S, Dalaka, A and De Dominicis, V (1998) Effects of grazing on epiphytic lichen vegetation in a Mediterranean mixed evergreen sclerophyllous and deciduous shrubland (northern Greece). Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 46, 303307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, CD (1981) A check-list of Greek liverworts. Journal of Bryology 11, 537553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, CD (1984) A check-list of Greek mosses. Journal of Bryology 13, 4395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020) R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [WWW resource] URL https://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rackham, O and Moody, J (1996) The Making of the Cretan Landscape. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Ranius, T, Johansson, P, Berg, N and Niklasson, M (2008) The influence of tree age and microhabitat quality on the occurrence of crustose lichens associated with old oaks. Journal of Vegetation Science 19, 653662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Real, R and Vargas, JM (1996) The probabilistic basis of Jaccard's index of similarity. Systematic Biology 45, 380385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejžek, M, Svátek, M, Šebesta, J, Adolt, R, Maděra, P and Matula, R (2016) Loss of a single tree species will lead to an overall decline in plant diversity: effect of Dracaena cinnabari Balf. f. on the vegetation of Socotra Island. Biological Conservation 196, 165172.10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ros-Espin, RM, Mazimpaka, V, Abou-Salama, U, Aleffi, M, Blockeel, TL, Brugués, M, Cros, RM, Dia, MG, Dirkse, GM, Draper, I, et al. (2013) Mosses of the Mediterranean, an annotated checklist. Cryptogamie Bryologie 34, 99283.Google Scholar
Sabovljević, M, Natcheva, R, Dihoru, G, Tsakiri, E, Dragićević, S, Erdağ, A and Papp, B (2008) Check-list of mosses of SE Europe. Phytologia Balcanica 14, 207244.Google Scholar
Sevgi, E, Yılmaz, OY, Çobanoğlu Özyiğitoğlu, G, Tecimen, HB and Sevgi, O (2019) Factors influencing epiphytic lichen species distribution in a managed Mediterranean Pinus nigra Arnold Forest. Diversity 11, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipman, HJM and Raus, T (1999) A lichenological comparison of the Paros and Santorini island groups (Aegean, Greece), with annotated checklist. Willdenowia 29, 239297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sipman, HJM and Raus, T (2002) An inventory of the lichen flora of Kalimnos and parts of Kos (Dodecanisos, Greece). Willdenowia 32, 351392.10.3372/wi.32.32216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Śliwa, L (2006) Lichen survey on pastures in the Tatra National Park (Poland) – methods and preliminary results. In Godzik, B (ed.), Tatry National Park and Other Mountains Protection Areas. 2. Kraków–Zakopane: Tartrzański Park Narodowy, Polskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk o Ziemi Oddział w Krakowie, pp. 4750. [in Polish with English summary]Google Scholar
Smith, AJE (1978) The Moss Flora of Britain & Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, CW, Aptroot, A, Coppins, BJ, Fletcher, A, Gilbert, OL, James, PW and Wolseley, PA (2009) The Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. London: British Lichen Society.Google Scholar
Søndergaard, P and Egli, B (2006) Zelkova abelicea (Ulmaceae) in Crete: floristics, ecology, propagation and threats. Willdenowia 36, 317322.10.3372/wi.36.36126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spribille, T, Schultz, M, Breuss, O and Bergmeier, E (2006) Notes on the lichens and lichenicolous fungi of western Crete (Greece). Herzogia 19, 125148.Google Scholar
Svoboda, D, Peksa, O and Veselá, J (2010) Epiphytic lichen diversity in central European oak forests: assessment of the effects of natural environmental factors and human influences. Environmental Pollution 158, 812819.10.1016/j.envpol.2009.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tang, CQ, Peng, MC, He, LY, Ohsawa, M, Wang, CY, Xie, TH, Li, WS, Li, JP, Zhang, HY, Li, Y, et al. (2013) Population persistence of a Tertiary relict tree Tetracentron sinense on the Ailao Mountains, Yunnan, China. Journal of Plant Research 126, 651659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Herk, CM (2001) Bark pH and susceptibility to toxic air pollutants as independent causes of changes in epiphytic lichen composition in space and time. Lichenologist 33, 419442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varouchakis, EA, Corzo, GA, Karatzas, GP and Kotsopoulou, A (2018) Spatio-temporal analysis of annual rainfall in Crete, Greece. Acta Geophysica 66, 319328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vieira, C, Aguiar, FC, Portela, AP, Monteiro, J, Raven, PJ, Holmes, NTH, Cambra, J, Flor-Arnau, N, Chauvin, C, Loriot, S, et al. (2016) Bryophyte communities of Mediterranean Europe: a first approach to model their potential distribution in highly seasonal rivers. Hydrobiologia 812, 2743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vondrák, J, Guttová, A and Mayrhofer, H (2008) A further contribution to the knowledge of lichen-forming and lichenicolous fungi in Crete. Herzogia 21, 105124.Google Scholar
Werner, J (1998) Didymodon cordatus and some other bryophytes from Crete. Journal of Bryology 20, 249251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yavuz, M and Çobanoğlu, G (2018) Lichen diversity of Gölcük Nature Park (Isparta), including new records for Turkey. Muzeul Olteniei Craiova. Oltenai, Studii si Comunicari, Stiintele Naturii 34, 5766.Google Scholar
Yazici, K and Aptroot, A (2008) Corticolous lichens of the city of Giresun with descriptions of four species new to Turkey. Mycotaxon 105, 95104.Google Scholar
Zedda, L and Sipman, H (2001) Lichens and lichenicolous fungi on Juniperus oxycedrus L. in Campu Su Disterru (Sardinia, Italy). Bocconea 13, 309328.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location of the eight study sites (filled dots) distributed across all five Cretan mountain ranges that contain populations of Zelkova abelicea. Names in bold font indicate mountain ranges with stands of Z. abelicea; summits (m) are indicated with an ‘X’. The names of the study sites are given in italic font. In colour online.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. A, forest fragment with large Zelkova abelicea trees (Omalos). B, dwarfed, heavily browsed individuals (Thripti Mts). C, trunk of a large tree with exfoliating bark (Dikti Mts). D, branches of a heavily browsed individual (Mt Kedros). Examples of different lichen growth forms: E, Lecidella elaeochroma (crustose). F, Xanthoria parietina (foliose). G, Ramalina fraxinea (fruticose). Photographs: G. Kozlowski (A–C), H-R. Siegel (D), W. Fałtynowicz (E–G).

Figure 2

Table 1. Environmental characteristics of the study sites in Crete where epiphytic material of Zelkova abelicea was sampled. Temp. = mean annual temperature; Prec. = average sum of annual rainfall (gridded climatic data was extracted for the period 1970–2000 from WorldClim, www.worldclim.com/version2). Browsing intensity = + moderate, ++ strong.

Figure 3

Table 2. List of the epiphytic lichens recorded on Zelkova abelicea in Crete showing the taxonomy, morphological type and occurrence in the study sites. The nomenclature follows Index Fungorum (Index Fungorum Partnership 2022) while the morphological type of thallus (Morph.) follows Arcadia (2022) (i.e. Cr – crustose, Fo – foliose, Fr – fruticose). Study sites (Site) are listed following a longitudinal gradient from the west to the east of Crete: O – Omalos, N – Niato, I – Impros, G – Gerakari, R – Rouvas, V – Viannou, K – Katharo, T – Thripti. Number of trees sampled per site (n) is also given. Species recorded for the first time in Greece are in bold, and those recorded for the first time in Crete are marked with *. (*) = species possibly recorded for the first time in Crete but treat with caution due to the uncertainty of their determination or the possible misidentification of previous Cretan records.

Figure 4

Table 3. List of epiphytic bryophyte species recorded on Zelkova abelicea with their distribution at sample sites in Crete. The nomenclature follows Ros-Espin et al. (2013) and the morphology follows Preston (1984) and Düll (1979). Morph. = morphological type; P – pleurocarpous, A – acrocarpous. Study sites (Site) are listed following a longitudinal gradient from the west to the east of Crete: O – Omalos, N – Niato, I – Impros, G – Gerakari, R – Rouvas, V – Viannou, K – Katharo, T – Thripti. Number of trees sampled per site (n) is also given.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Frequency of occurrence (%) of epiphytic lichens (dark grey) and bryophytes (white) growing on the investigated Zelkova abelicea trees on Crete.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Diversity of epiphytic lichen (dark grey) and bryophyte (white) species of sampled Zelkova abelicea trees for each of the eight study sites on Crete. n = number of trees sampled per site.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Boxplots of the number of lichen (A) and bryophyte (B) species found on Zelkova abelicea trees in each of the eight study sites on Crete. n = number of trees per site. Grey dots represent individual trees. The midlines of the boxplots show the median, the boxes show the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Figure 8

Table 4. Proportion in percentage of lichens and bryophytes recorded on Cretan Zelkova abelicea trees per site. The number of epiphytes per site is given in brackets. Thallus morph. = proportion of lichens based on the morphological form of their thallus (Cr – crustose, Fo – foliose, Fr – fruticose). Morph. = proportion of bryophytes based on their morphology (P – pleurocarpous, A – acrocarpous).

Figure 9

Fig. 6. Ordination plot of the distance-based redundancy analysis of epiphytic lichen and bryophyte communities on Zelkova abelicea trees on Crete. Each symbol represents the community found on a single Z. abelicea tree. Each mountain range is represented by a different shape ( Levka Ori, Mt Kedros, Mt Psiloritis, Dikti Mts, Thripti Mts) and each study site by a different colour. Significant environmental variables are fitted (represented by arrows). Arrow lengths are proportional to the significance of the variables in the permutation test.

Figure 10

Fig. 7. Ecological indicator values for lichens recorded on Zelkova abelicea trees at different study sites on Crete following Nimis (2016) and Nimis & Martellos (2021). Detailed information is found in these publications and Supplementary Material Table S3 (available online). Only the observed values are described here. A, pH of substratum; 2 = acid substrata, 3 = subacid to subneutral substrata, 4 = slightly basic substrata. B, solar irradiation; 3 = in sites with plenty of diffuse light but scarce direct solar irradiation, 4 = in sun-exposed sites without extreme solar irradiation, 5 = in sites with very high direct solar irradiation. C, aridity (air humidity); 2 = rather hygrophytic, intermediate between 1 and 3, 3 = mesophytic, 4 = xerophytic but absent from extremely arid stands. D, eutrophication (including deposition of dust and nitrogen compounds); 2 = resistant to very weak eutrophication, 3 = resistant to weak eutrophication, 4 = occurring in rather highly eutrophicated situations. E, poleotolerance (i.e. tolerance to human disturbance); 1 = species occurring in natural or semi-natural habitats, 2 = species occurring in moderately disturbed areas (e.g. agricultural areas, small settlements, etc.). The midlines of the boxplots show the median, the boxes show the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the interquartile range while values exceeding this threshold are plotted as open circles.

Figure 11

Fig. 8. Ecological indicator values for mosses recorded on Zelkova abelicea trees at different study sites on Crete following Düll (1991). Detailed information can be found in that publication and Supplementary Material Table S4 (available online). Only the observed values are described here. A, light; 5 = half-shade, 6 = between 5 and 7, 7 = half-light, 8 = light. B, temperature; 1 = cold, 2 = between 1 and 3, 3 = cool, 4 = between 3 and 5, 5 = moderately warm, 6 = between 5 and 7, 7 = warm. C, continentality; 2 = oceanic, 3 = between 2 and 4, 4 = suboceanic, 5 = intermediate. D, humidity; 1 = strongly arid, 2 = between 1 and 3, 3 = arid, 4 = between 3 and 5, 5 = humid. E, pH of substratum; 5 = moderately acidic, 6 = between 5 and 7, 7 = weakly acidic to weakly basic. The midlines of the boxplots show the median, the boxes show the 1st and 3rd quartiles and the whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the interquartile range while values exceeding this threshold are plotted as open circles.

Supplementary material: File

Fazan et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S4

Download Fazan et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.7 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Fazan et al. supplementary material

Table S5

Download Fazan et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 254.3 KB