Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T02:24:58.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Red deer exclusion and saxicolous cryptogam community structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2014

Oliver MOORE
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berks, SL5 7PY, UK. Email: o.moore10@imperial.ac.uk
Michael J. CRAWLEY
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berks, SL5 7PY, UK. Email: o.moore10@imperial.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deer exclosure is an important management strategy for encouraging woodland regeneration in the presence of high numbers of Cervus elaphus L. This could pose a threat to important saxicolous lichen communities as a result of competition from bryophytes and other vegetation. This investigation compared the bryophyte and lichen communities associated with siliceous rock outcrops and boulders inside and outside a number of exclosures in wet heath vegetation at the Gruinard, Letterewe and Little Gruinard estates in Wester Ross. Species cover data were recorded from 6600·2×0·2 m quadrats, allocated to three different aspects of rocks, from 22 pairs of plots (placed either side of a deer fence) with randomization at each level of this hierarchy. The data were analyzed using linear mixed effects models. Mean lichen cover, diversity and species richness were significantly lower in quadrats on rocks within the exclosures. Mean bryophyte cover was significantly higher in quadrats on rocks inside the deer fence and was shown to have a highly significant negative relationship with total lichen cover. Saxicolous lichen species are particularly affected by the increase in shading and litter accumulation from the surrounding plants and the subsequent growth of bryophytes and heath vegetation on rocks within the exclosures. The results of this study have implications for the use of exclosures at locations where there are important saxicolous lichen communities.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © British Lichen Society 2014 
Figure 0

Table 1. Site details for each exclosure within the study area. Information concerning the geology at each exclosure was derived from a map produced by the British Geological Survey (1962). Thirty-year average climatic data came from the Meteorological Office (2013) and three-year average nitrogen deposition data were sourced from the Air Pollution Information System (2013)

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Map showing location of the exclosures (drawn to approximate scale) in the study area, Wester Ross, Scotland.

Map produced in MapMate using Digital Map Data © Bartholomew 2010 and adapted from Moore & Crawley (2014).
Figure 2

Table 2. Mean vegetation height (+SE) within and outside the exclosure at each location in the study area

Figure 3

Table 3. Mean arcsine cover values of selected bryophyte and lichen species between exclosed and grazed levels of red deer treatment following analysis of data from 220 0·04 m2 quadrats on A, the topmost facet, and B, north-east aspect of rocks in a linear mixed effects model. Numbers in brackets correspond to the raw cover data. Significant t values are in bold type

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Variance components analysis showing the percentage unexplained variance, attributable to each of the random effects, following LMER analysis of cryptogam species cover data from quadrats; A, topmost facet of rocks; the fixed effect (deer presence/absence) in the model had already accounted for 44·1% (Lecanora polytropa), 41·2% (Parmelia omphalodes), 24·7% (Pertusaria corallina), 23·8% (Racomitrium lanuginosum), 67·3% (Rhizocarpon reductum) and 50·3% (Sphaerophorus globosus) of the variation (species names are abbreviated from those listed in Table 3A); B, the north-east aspect of rocks, the fixed effect (deer presence/absence) in the model had already accounted for 49·6% (Cladonia portentosa), 50·1% (Fuscidea cyathoides), 58·8% (Hylocomium splendens), 62·6% (Ochrolechia androgyna), 70·7% (Parmelia saxatilis), 62·0% (Pertusaria corallina), 70·7% (Racomitrium fasciculare), 33·6% (Racomitrium lanuginosum) and 50·8% (Rhizocarpon geographicum) of the variation (species names are abbreviated from those listed in Table 3B). , location, , block, , plot, , quadrat.

Figure 5

Table 4. Differences in cryptogam arcsine cover, diversity and dominance values between exclosed and grazed levels of red deer treatment following analysis of data from 220 0·04 m2 in a linear mixed effects model. A, quadrats on the south-west aspect, B, top-most facet, and C, north-east aspect of rocks. Numbers in brackets correspond to the raw cover data. Significant t values are in bold type

Figure 6

Fig. 3. Variance components analysis showing the percentage unexplained variance, attributable to each of the random effects, following LMER analysis of selected response variable data from quadrats on the south-west aspect of rocks. The fixed effect (deer presence/absence) in the model had already accounted for 33·1% (total bryophyte cover), 58·0% (bryophyte diversity) and 37·2% (lichen diversity) of the variation. , location, , block, , plot, , quadrat.

Figure 7

Fig. 4. Variance components analysis showing the percentage unexplained variance, attributable to each of the random effects, following LMER analysis of selected response variable data from quadrats; A, topmost facet of rocks, the fixed effect (deer presence/absence) in the model had already accounted for 39·1% (cryptogam diversity), 30·3% (total bryophyte cover), 31·6% (total lichen cover) and 37·2% (lichen diversity) of the variation; B, on the north-east aspect of rocks, the fixed effect (deer presence/absence) in the model had already accounted for 52·7% (cryptogam diversity), 53·2% (cryptogam dominance), 38·6% (total bryophyte cover), 53·6% (bryophyte dominance), 47·9% (total lichen cover) and 47·9% (lichen diversity) of the variation. , location, , block, , plot, , quadrat.

Figure 8

Table 5. The minimum adequate model for total lichen cover fitted to a linear mixed effects model using data from 660 0·04 m2 quadrats on rocks from 22 pairs of plots (blocks) and 6 exclosures. Selected variables shown. Significant t values are in bold type

Figure 9

Fig. 5. Relationship between total lichen cover within quadrats and A, bryophyte cover, B, total non-cryptogam vegetation cover.

Figure 10

Table 6. The minimum adequate model for lichen diversity fitted to a linear mixed effects model using data from 660 0·04 m2 quadrats on rocks from 22 blocks and 6 exclosures. Selected variables shown. Significant t values are in bold type

Figure 11

Fig. 6. Relationships between lichen diversity and total bryophyte cover (A), total vegetation cover (B), age of exclosure (C) and mean height of vegetation close to rock (D). A, B & D: ▵, quadrats inside the exclosure; • quadrats outside exclosure. C: +, quadrats on the south-west facet; ▵, quadrats from the north-east facet; •, quadrats from the topmost facet. (See Table 6 for more details).

Supplementary material: File

Moore supplementary material

Moore supplementary material

Download Moore supplementary material(File)
File 346.2 KB