Photosystem II (PSII) activation after hydration with water or humid air was measured in four hydrophilic and a generalist lichen to test the hypothesis that slow activation might explain habitat restriction in the former group. For the hydrophilic species, activation was after 4 h nearly completed in Lobaria amplissima and Platismatia norvegica, while only c. 50% for Bryoria bicolor and Usnea longissima. The generalist Platismatia glauca was activated instantaneously. The effect of this on lichen field performance was investigated using a dynamic model separating the two water sources rain and humid air. Model simulations were made using the species-specific characteristics and climate data from 12 stream microhabitats. For U. longissima, slow PSII activation could reduce realized photosynthesis by a factor of five. Bryoria bicolor was almost as severely affected, while P. norvegica displayed moderate reductions. Lobaria amplissima displayed longer realized activity periods even in unfavourable microclimates, possibly because of a higher water loss resistance. Both close proximity to streams and presence of turbulent water had a positive impact on realized activity among the slowly activated species, coinciding with observed distribution patterns of hydrophilic species. The results presented here may thus partly explain observed habitat restrictions of rare hydrophilic lichens.

A dynamic water and activity model was developed to assess how efficiently lichens can exploit in situ rain and humid air. The capacity to rehydrate and activate photosynthesis [i.e. photosystem II (PSII)] by these water sources was compared among four hydrophilic and one generalist epiphytic lichen. Hydration status, potential (instant activation) and realized (delayed activation) day-light activity were simulated using a model based on species-specific hydration, PSII activation characteristics and in situ water content for Platismatia norvegica in three microclimatic scenarios. The results showed that delayed PSII activation could have profound effects on lichens' ability to exploit environmental water sources. During rain, realized activity was reduced by 19, 34 and 56% compared to simulations assuming instant activation for three hydrophilic lichens in the driest microclimate. During humid air, the reduction was 81% for the most extreme species and scenario, because of slow hydration and low equilibrium water content. Many and brief hydration events may thus hamper species with slow activation and fast desiccation kinetics. No evidence of compensation by a 'water-holding' morphology was observed among studied species. The developed model may provide a tool for identifying suitable habitats for long-term persistence of lichens with physiological constraints.

During the 20th century, forestry practices has adversely affected lichen‐rich habitats. Mat‐forming lichens are important components of the vegetation of boreal and arctic ecosystems and are the main reindeer forage during the winter. To support the long‐term management of lichens in such habitats we developed models for predicting the growth of two common species. The lichens were transplanted across northern Scandinavia along a west‐east gradient varying in precipitation, temperature and irradiance. Growth was recorded seasonally over 16 months and ranged from −4.8 to 34.6% and −12.7 to 34.7% dry weight change for Cetraria stellaris and Cladina islandica, respectively. Growth was light limited below canopies with more than ca 60% cover and highest at the more humid sites when light levels were optimal. The models were based on various meteorological parameters, irradiance, physiological data and lichen hydration status; the latter was derived from a recently developed lichen hydration model. Our models' abilities to predict growth, both annually and seasonally (i.e. in summer), were evaluated in relation to their complexity and their potential usefulness from a management perspective. One parameter related to irradiance (the logarithm of site openness) was valuable in the prediction of annual growth for both species and could, in combination with precipitation, explain 52% of the variation in annual growth for C. stellaris and, in combination with total wet time and the irradiance received while wet, explain 66% of the variation in annual growth for C. islandica. The best simplified model explained 43% of the variation in annual growth for C. stellaris, using stem basal area and the annual normal temperature, and 24% for C. islandica using basal area alone. It is concluded that ensuring sufficient irradiance below the forest canopy is of crucial importance in the long‐term management of mat‐forming lichens and that simplified models can be used to identify appropriate habitats.