2014
DOI: 10.12697/fce.2014.51.08
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preferences of epiphytic bryophytes for forest stand and substrate in North-East Latvia

Abstract: Distribution of epiphytic bryophyte species was studied in Woodland Key Habitats (WKH) and in managed forest stands in the NorthEast Latvia (district Gulbene). In total, 32 epiphytic bryophyte species were found in six WKH stands. Five endangered/threatened bryophyte species (Anomodon longifolius, Homalia trichomanoides, Jamesoniella autumnalis, Lejeunea cavifolia, Neckera pennata), that are listed in the Red Data Book of Latvia were recorded. The relation between the total and endangered/threatened epiphytic … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result is in accordance with previous research (Mežaka & Znotiņa, 2006;Mežaka et al, 2012;Putna & Mežaka, 2014). This might arise, however, by the low number of mosses and liverworts in sample plots characterized by relatively short time after disturbance (80-100 years).…”
Section: Figsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…This result is in accordance with previous research (Mežaka & Znotiņa, 2006;Mežaka et al, 2012;Putna & Mežaka, 2014). This might arise, however, by the low number of mosses and liverworts in sample plots characterized by relatively short time after disturbance (80-100 years).…”
Section: Figsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…; Pereira et al. ; Putna & Mezaka ). In particular, differences in moisture‐holding capability, texture and bark pH among substrate species are likely to be responsible for differences in community composition (Culberson ; Hale ; McAlister ; Mills & Macdonald ; Rambo ; Mezaka et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…). Conifer bark is generally more acidic, with pH ranging from 3.0 to 4.5 (Hauck & Javkhlan ; Hauck ; Putna & Mezaka ), as compared to broad‐leaf species having pH generally above 5.0 (Culberson ; Kuusinen ; McAlister ; Mezaka et al. ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations