Conspectus Borealis

Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 8

4-7-2018

Lichen Abundance and Diversity in Relation to

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.nmu.edu/conspectus_borealis

Recommended Citation
Roper, Theodore (2018) "Lichen Abundance and Diversity in Relation to Host Tree Species and Lakeshore Proximity," Conspectus
Borealis: Vol. 3 : Iss. 1 , Article 8.
Available at: https://commons.nmu.edu/conspectus_borealis/vol3/iss1/8

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Peer-Reviewed Series at NMU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Conspectus Borealis by an authorized administrator of NMU Commons. For more information, please contact Kevin McDonough.
Abstract
Lichens have been recognized and used as biological indicators for a variety of

environmental conditions over the past several decades. This is because they are highly

susceptible to a number of factors that affect their growth, diversity, and abundance. As global

climate and weather patterns rapidly change, gaining a better understanding of the factors that

affect lichen growth, abundance, and diversity will be an indispensable tool for researchers in the

years to come. In this study, epiphytic lichens on the lower two meters of trees were sampled at

three near-shore sites along the upper peninsula of Michigan. For each tree sampled, species,

distance from lakeshore, percentage of bark covered by lichen, and number of lichen species

present were all recorded. The findings showed weak to no relationship between lichen

abundance and diversity relative to lakeshore proximity, but showed significant differences

between deciduous and conifer species in both lichen coverage and lichen diversity. Deciduous

trees had a mean cover of 23.67% and a mean diversity of 4.61 species, while conifers had a

mean cover of 7.73% and a mean diversity of 3.15 species. The results revealed a strong

relationship between host tree species and the abundance and diversity of epiphytic lichen.

Introduction

Lichens have long been used as biological indicators for air pollution, acid rain, nitrogen

deposition, and a number of other environmental conditions. Due to their strategy of obtaining

water and nutrients directly from the surrounding air, lichens are highly susceptible to changes in

air quality and climate, as well as temporal and spatial hydration sources (Gauslaa 2014). As

global climate and weather patterns change, understanding the effects these changes will have on

the structure, function, and composition of ecosystems will be invaluable (Jonsson et al. 2008).

Lichen’s physiological traits, ecological characteristics, and wide global distribution offer an

1
opportunity to gain a better understanding of these changes as they develop (Matos et al. 2015).

Therefore, understanding the various factors that affect lichen abundance and diversity is an

important tool in monitoring such changes in the coming years.

Lichens have a number of overlapping environmental and site-specific factors that affect

their abundance, distribution, and diversity (Hauck 2011). Of these factors, air pollution,

nitrogen deposition, and aridity/ humidity have been extensively studied and monitored over the

past several decades (Niemi and McDonald 2004). Latitude and elevational gradients have also

become areas of interest when trying to use lichen diversity as a means to predict the effects of

changing climate conditions (Bässler et al. 2016). A study by Marini et al. concluded that the

diversity of lichen in response to environmental change depends on their photosynthetic partners,

known as photobionts. Lichens with cyanobacteria as their photobionts showed a positive

correlation between species diversity and amount of rainfall, while those with the filamentous

algae Trentepohlia as the photobiont increased in abundance and diversity with increasing

temperatures (Marini et al. 2011).

With so many factors affecting epiphytic lichen growth patterns, this study aimed to test

how host tree species and near-shore proximity to Lake Superior influence their abundance and

diversity. Gaining a thorough understanding of the factors determining lichen abundance and

diversity can help researchers more accurately employ them as bio indicators for monitoring,

assessing, and predicting changes in environmental conditions.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted at Little Presque Isle Recreation Area, eight miles northwest of

Marquette, Michigan. The three sites that were chosen for this study (Wetmore Landing,

Freeman Landing, and Little Presque Isle Point) are on the Lake Superior shoreline, exposed to

2
the lake towards the east (Figure 1). To determine whether relative humidity could be a factor in

lichen abundance and diversity, preliminary

humidity readings were carried out along

four transects at the Wetmore Landing site

with a Flexzion Digital Hygrometer. The

transects were each 100 meters (m) in length,

running perpendicular to the lakeshore. Each

transect was placed 100 m to the north of the

preceding transect, starting at an arbitrary

point chosen as the reference point for the

Wetmore Landing site.

At each site, five transects were

established for lichen sampling. To determine the locations of the transects, an arbitrary

reference point was chosen at each site and a 100 m measuring tape was run in a northwestern

direction, parallel to shore, along the near-shore tree line. Next, five numbers between 0-100

were generated using a random number generator. These numbers were then marked along the

100 m tape and used as the starting point for each of the transects. From each point, a 100 m tape

measure was run perpendicular to the lakeshore. Along the transects, all trees whose center fell

within one meter of either side of the transect line and whose diameter at breast height (DBH)

was ≥ 15 cm were assessed.

To assess epiphytic lichen, the bottom two meters of each tree trunk that fit our

parameters was sampled to determine species of lichen, percent cover for each species, and

overall percent of lichen coverage. The percentage of cover was recorded separately for the side

3
of the tree facing the lakeshore and the side of the tree facing away from the lakeshore; these

percentages were later combined to determine total cover. A transparency grid with 100 squares,

each 2x2 cm, was placed over the trunk and used to determine the percentage of cover. A

modified Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale was used when recording and analyzing the

percentage of cover for each tree. In addition to lichen coverage, the DBH, distance from

lakeshore (m), and species were recorded for each tree sampled.

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Data Editor Software.

Microsoft Excel 2016 was used for calculations and arranging data.

Results

The preliminary readings of relative humidity revealed that there was no significant

difference based on proximity to the lakeshore, eliminating that factor in our experiment.

In total, 159 trees were sampled across three sites, yielding fifteen species of lichens. A

one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in mean lichen cover between sites (p=0.009).

A follow up Post-hoc test showed that the Freeman Landing and Little Presque Point sites were

significantly different (p= 0.039), as were the Freeman Landing and Wetmore Landing sites (p=

0.003). There was no significant difference in lichen cover between the Little Presque Point and

the Wetmore Landing sites (p= 0.341). The Freeman Landing site was dominated by eastern

hemlock (Tsuga Canadensis), which represented 81.1% of the trees sampled. At the Little

Presque Point and Wetmore Landing sites, red pine (Pinus resinosa) was the dominant tree

species, comprising 57.8% and 51.9%, respectively.

The trees sampled ranged from 0.5-99 m from the near-shore tree line. A linear

regression showed no relationship between epiphytic lichen coverage and lakeshore proximity

(r2= 0.0282) (Figure 2). A t-test showed a significant difference in mean lichen coverage between

4
the ranges of 0-50 m and 50-100 m from the near-shore tree line (p= 0.001). The mean coverage

was 7.37% in the 0-50 m range and 13.29% in the 50-100 m range. A linear regression showed

no relationship between lichen diversity and lakeshore proximity (r2= 0.0006) (Figure 3). A t-test

showed no significant difference in mean lichen diversity between 0-50 m and 50-100 m from

the near-shore tree line (p= 0.051). The mean number of lichen species was 3.35 per tree in the

0-50 m range and 3.45 in the 50-100 m range.

Figure 2: Scatter plot showing the relationship between percentage Figure 3: Scatter plot showing the relationship between epiphytic
of epiphytic lichen cover and proximity to the Lake Superior lichen diversity and proximity to the Lake Superior shoreline. Data
shoreline. Data are from 159 trees that were sampled from are from 159 trees that were sampled from November 8-13, 2017,
November 8-13, 2017, at Little Presque Isle Recreation Area in at Little Presque Isle Recreation Area in Marquette, Michigan.
Marquette, Michigan.

The 27 white pines (Pinus strobus) sampled ranged from 1.3-94.4 m from the near-shore

tree line. A linear regression, considering only white pines, showed no relationship between

lichen coverage and lakeshore proximity (r2= 0.0113) (Figure 4). A t-test showed no significant

difference in mean lichen coverage on white pines between 0-50 m and 50-100 m from the near-

shore tree line (p= 0.416). The mean coverage, on white pines, was 22.18% from 0-50 m and

23.89% from 50-100 m. A linear regression showed no relationship between lichen diversity on

white pines and lakeshore proximity (r2= 0.1966) (Figure 5). A t-test showed no significant

difference in mean lichen diversity between 0-50 m and 50-100 m from the near-shore tree line

5
(p= 0.193). The mean number of lichen species per white pine was 6.36 from 0-50 m and 5.63

from 50-100 m.

Figure 4: Scatter plot showing the relationship between Figure 5: Scatter plot showing the relationship between epiphytic
percentage of epiphytic lichen cover on white pines (Pinus lichen diversity on white pines (Pinus strobus) and proximity to the
strobus) and proximity to the Lake Superior shoreline. Data are Lake Superior shoreline. Data are from 27 trees that were sampled
from 27 trees that were sampled from November 12-13, 2017, at from November 12-13, 2017, at Little Presque Isle Recreation Area
in Marquette, Michigan.
Little Presque Isle Recreation Area in Marquette, Michigan

In total, 131 of 159 trees sampled were conifers and the remaining 28 were deciduous.

T-tests showed that there was a significant difference in both the lichen coverage (p= 0.000) and

lichen diversity (p= 0.001) between conifers and deciduous trees. Conifers had a mean cover of

7.73% and a mean of 3.15 lichen species per tree. Deciduous trees had a mean cover of 23.67%

and a mean of 4.61 lichen species per tree. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s Post-hoc test

showed significant differences in percentage of cover, as well as lichen diversity, between most

of the five dominant tree species: red pine, eastern hemlock, white pine, red oak (Quercus

rubra), and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis). Of the dominant tree species, red oak had the

greatest mean coverage and number of species per tree at 37.27% and 7.00, respectively (Figures

6 and 7).

6
 Figure 6: Mean percentage of lichen cover on five most abundant Figure 7: Mean number of lichen species present on the five most
tree species sampled from November 8-13, 2017, at Little Presque abundant tree species sampled from November 8-13, 2017, at Little
Isle Recreation Area in Marquette, Michigan. Presque Isle Recreation Area in Marquette, Michigan.

Discussion

The study showed that the most important factor in epiphytic lichen coverage and

diversity is tree species. The results showed significant differences between tree species, with red

oak and white pine being much higher in coverage and diversity than red pine, eastern hemlock,

and yellow birch. One likely cause of low lichen counts on red pine and yellow birch is the

characteristic shedding of bark that these two species routinely undergo. Another potential factor

in lichen preference for tree species could be differences in bark acidity. The results also showed

a difference in lichen cover and diversity between deciduous trees and conifers. Even though the

white pine had the second highest mean cover and species diversity, the conifers had much less

coverage and diversity overall. The differences in lichen cover between the Freeman Landing

site and the other two sites sampled (Little Presque Point and Wetmore Landing), was likely due

to the composition of tree species. The Freeman Landing site was dominated by eastern hemlock

(81.1%) and yellow birch (15.1%) which together comprised 51 of the 53 trees sampled at the

7
site. The sites at Little Presque Point and Wetmore Landing were dominated by red pine but had

a greater diversity of trees than Freeman Landing, particularly red oak and white pine, which

were the species with the greatest lichen cover and diversity.

Across all sites, there was no significant relationship between lichen cover and proximity

to the lakeshore, with cover increasing only slightly with increased distance from shore. No

relationship was found between species diversity and lakeshore proximity. In order to eliminate

potential differences in lichen preference for particular tree species, some statistical tests were

performed using only data from white pines. This species was chosen because it was well

distributed from near-shore to away-from-shore and displayed both high lichen coverage and

diversity. The relationship between lichen cover on white pines and proximity to lakeshore was

also very weak and trended in the opposite direction of the data set as a whole, with greater

coverage near-shore as opposed to away-from-shore. The relationship between lichen diversity

and lakeshore proximity, on white pines, was more noticeable but still very weak, with a trend

towards more species diversity near-shore.

Based on the results of this study, tree species were a much stronger factor in the

diversity and abundance of epiphytic lichens than was proximity to the lakeshore. In a study

performed in the Netherlands in 2010, Spier et al. concluded that tree species was the most

important factor in lichen colonization. Further studies on the bark acidity in different species of

trees could potentially lend more information on why epiphytic lichens prefer some trees to

others. One such study concluded that lichens have a close relationship to the pH of the bark they

inhabit, and that only a very low percentage of lichens were indifferent to the pH of their host

trees (Pereira et al. 2014). Understanding the multiple factors that affect lichen growth and

abundance is vital, due to their high value as biological indicator species. Findings from this

8
study help build on the body of knowledge that will allow researchers to use epiphytic lichens

more accurately when assessing, monitoring, and predicting changing environmental conditions

in the years to come.

9
Literature Cited

Bässler, C., M. W. Cadotte, B. Beudert, C. Heibl, M. Blaschke, J. H. Bradtka, T. Langbehn, S. Werth, and

J. Müller. 2016. Contrasting patterns of lichen functional diversity and species richness across an

elevation gradient. Ecography 39:689–698.

Gauslaa, Y. 2014. Rain, dew, and humid air as drivers of morphology, function and spatial distribution in

epiphytic lichens. The Lichenologist 46:1–16.

Hauck, M. 2011. Site factors controlling epiphytic lichen abundance in northern coniferous forests. Flora

- Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 206:81–90.

Jonsson, A. V., J. Moen, and K. Palmqvist. 2008. Predicting Lichen Hydration Using Biophysical

Models. Oecologia 156:259–273.

Marini, L., J. Nascimbene, and P. L. Nimis. 2011. Large-scale patterns of epiphytic lichen species

richness: Photobiont-dependent response to climate and forest structure. Science of The Total

Environment 409:4381–4386.

Matos, P., P. Pinho, G. Aragón, I. Martínez, A. Nunes, A. M. V. M. Soares, and C. Branquinho. 2015.

Lichen traits responding to aridity. Journal of Ecology 103:451–458.

Niemi, G. J., and M. E. McDonald. 2004. Application of Ecological Indicators. Annual Review of

Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:89–111.

Pereira, I., F. Müller, and M. Moya. 2014. Influence of Nothofagus bark pH on the lichen and bryophytes

richness, Central Chile/Influencia del pH de la corteza de Nothofagus sobre la riqueza de líquenes

y briófitos, Chile central. Gayana. Botanica; Concepcion 71:120–130.

Spier, L., H. van Dobben, and K. van Dort. 2010. Is bark pH more important than tree species in

determining the composition of nitrophytic or acidophytic lichen floras? Environmental Pollution

158:3607–3611.

10