Full text pdf - Tropical Bryology

Tropical Bryology 31:14-21, 2010
Using data of bryophyte mapping projects for nature
conservation purposes - a case study from Saxony
Frank Müller
Institut für Botanik, Technische Universität Dresden, Mommsenstr. 13, D-01062 Dresden, Germany
(frank.mueller@tu-dresden.de)
Abstract: The results of a bryophyte mapping project carried out in Saxony between 1980 and 2004 were
evaluated in cases of nature conservation. The following questions were analysed: the relation of frequency and
threat of species; the threat of species in different biotope types; differences in the ecological characteristics of
Red List species in comparison with unthreatened species using the Ellenberg’s indicator values and the
hemerobie status; main reasons for decline and threat of Red List species; changes in the classification in the
different editions of the Red Lists of Saxony and their reasons, mainly the decline and increase of species; the
allocation of distribution centres of threatened bryophytes of selected biotope types.
Keywords: Nature conservation, Red List, bryophytes, Saxony.
Introduction
In the years from 1980 to 2004 in Saxony a bryophyte
mapping project was carried out. The results,
distribution maps and comments to distribution,
ecology, threat, and protection for each species were
published in Müller (2004). The occurrence of the
bryophytes was recorded using grids with a cell size
of approximately 5*5 km. Altogether the bryophyte
inventory of 636 grids was investigated. In addition,
all available historic records were included. To get
this information herbarium specimens, literature
records and unpublished records of registers were
evaluated. In Saxony in the past years the threat of
bryophytes was regularly evaluated by Red Lists
(Borsdorf & Müller 1991, Müller 1998, Müller 2004,
Müller 2008). Unfortunately, the results of such
mapping projects are seldom thoroughly evaluated in
terms of conservation issues, although the analysis
options are very high.
In the following few examples the possibilities of the
evaluation of data of mapping projects and Red Lists
is demonstrated by the example of Saxony. This can
be addressed only on selected questions.
For a better understanding of the subject it is
particularly important to note that the evaluation of
the threat of species and the creation of Red Lists in
Germany are not made according to the guidelines of
the IUCN. In Germany for this purpose there is used
its own methodology developed by a team of experts
from the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
(Ludwig et al. 2005). There are characteristics of the
new IUCN Criteria System (IUCN 2001, 2003)
hampering its application in Germany. Among this is
the IUCN criteria “rarity as an extinction risk". A rare
species does not necessarily be an endangered species.
In Germany there is used for the creation of Red Lists
a four-level system including the factors current
situation, long-term trend, short-term trend, and risk
factors (Ludwig et al. 2006). The evaluation of the
species of Saxony has been done according to these
regional guideline and not according the IUCN
criteria.
Statistical analysis was deliberately omitted, since
there are regardless of the good mapping stand many
uncertainties (mapping gaps in terms of the historic
distribution, taxonomic problems, low staff for
mapping). For these reasons in many cases only an
expert's classification of the species to Red List
categories was possible to done. But why it prohibits
supplement the results obtained by statistics.
Relation of frequency and threat of species
In Figure 1 the bryophytes recorded in Saxony are
arranged in groups in relation of their frequency. In
addition, in each group the share of Red List species
and unthreatened species is given. The general
information of this figure is: the rarer a species the
higher is their threat. Nearly all of the very rare
species recorded in only one to four grids are assigned
as endangered, whereas all species recorded in about
more as half of the grids of Saxony are all
unthreatened.
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)

species number
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
1‐4 5‐20 21‐40 41‐300 301‐500 501‐636
frequency
0 1 2 3 R unthreatened
Figure 1. Correlation between frequency of the
bryophytes of Saxony and threat. The frequency is
ordered in groups according the number of grids with
records. Abbreviations: 0 – extinct, 1 – critically
endangered, 2 – endangered, 3 – vulnerable, R – rare.
The most frequent species in Saxony are Dicranum
scoparium, Brachythecium salebrosum, Aulacomnium
androgynum, Eurhynchium praelongum,
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus, Brachythecium albicans,
Plagiomnium affine, Mnium hornum, Lophocolea
heterophylla, Polytrichum formosum, Tortula muralis,
Amblystegium serpens var. serpens, Bryum
argenteum, Brachythecium velutinum, Atrichum
undulatum, Dicranella heteromalla, Hypnum
cupressiforme var. cupressiforme, Pohlia nutans,
Brachythecium rutabulum, and Ceratodon purpureus.
The last one is the commonest one recorded in nearly
all of the investigated grids.
The threat of species in different biotope types
The information of the ecology of each species were
evaluated and to each species the mean biotope types
of their occurrences were assigned (Fig. 2). Due to
multiple selections the total sum exceeds the number
of the 712 species recorded in Saxony. Most species,
nearly 70%, are able to inhabit rock and immature soil
biotopes. In Saxony these formations play the most
important role for bryophyte biodiversity. A
comparative high proportion of bryophytes are
characteristic for forest biotopes. All the other biotope
types are characterized by relative low species
diversity. The species inventory of the biotope types
“bogs and fens”, “bodies of standing water”, and
“bodies of flowing waters” is limited, but contain a
high proportion of specialized species, whereas the
inventory of the biotope types “settlements,
infrastructure and industrial areas’, “arable land,
gardens, areas with specialised cultivations”,
“heathlands and neglected grassland”, “populations of
perennial herbs”, “grassland”, “shrubberies,
hedgerows and bosks” are also limited, but contains
mostly species with a wide ecological range.
It should be noted here that a part of the bryophytes
recorded in Saxony show a very limited ecological
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)
range and some are only known from man-made
substrates. Only on open soil on paths were recorded
the species Bryum oblongum, Bryum knowltonii (the
recent record), Campylopus subulatus, Jungermannia
paroica, and Meesia uliginosa (the recent record).
Only from walls there are known Didymodon
cordatus (the recent records), Didymodon luridus,
Didymodon umbrosus, Ditrichum flexicaule (the
recent record), Grimmia crinita, Isopterygiopsis
pulchella, Jungermannia confertissima, Scapania
cuspiduligera, and Tortella densa. Restricted in their
occurrence to mining areas, e. g. quarries, opencast
pits, there are Aloina aloides, Bryum funckii (the
recent records), Bryum radiculosum, Cephaloziella
massalongi, Cephaloziella phyllacantha, Dicranella
crispa, Lophozia guttulata, Nardia insecta,
Palustriella commutata var. falcata (the recent
record), Pohlia tundrae, and Riccia ciliata (the recent
record).
Figure 3 shows the share of unthreatened and Red List
species for each mean biotope type. The share of Red
List species is remarkably high in bog and fen
biotopes. More then two-thirds of the species
occurring in this biotope type are listed in the Red
List. In the biotope types “forests”, “rock and
immature soil biotopes”, “bodies of standing water”,
“bodies of flowing waters”, “heathlands and neglected
grassland” the share of Red List species and
unthreatened species is nearly identical. The share of
Red List species is significantly low in the biotope
types “settlements, infrastructure and industrial
areas”, “arable land, gardens, areas with specialised
cultivations”, “populations of perennial herbs”,
“grassland”, and “shrubberies, hedgerows and
bosques”.
Differences in the ecological characteristics of Red
List species in comparison with unthreatened
species
As one example to estimate the different ecological
amplitude of Red List species in comparison with
unthreatened species the Ellenberg’s indicator values
of both groups were compared (Ellenberg et al. 2002).
The Ellenberg's indicator values are simple ordinal
classes of plants with a similar realized ecological
niche along a gradient. The latest edition of
Ellenberg's indicator values contains values on a 9
point scale for soil acidity, soil humidity,
continentality, temperature, and light.
The evaluation of the diagrams (Figs. 4–8) shows that
in all five examined indicator values differences in in
the spectrums between Red List species and
unthreatened species exist. Under extreme habitat
conditions the proportion of Red List species in
comparison with unthreatened species is usually
higher. Under average habitat conditions, the
15

16
arable land, gardens, areas with specialised cultivati ons
biotope type
settlements, infrastructure and industrial areas
MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
rock and immature soil biotopes
heathland and neglected grassland
populations of perennial herbs
grassland
bogs and fens
bodies of standing water
bodies of flowing water
shrubberies, hedgerows and bosks
forests
42
76
79
100
98
112
126
127
159
325
species number
Figure 2. Species number of bryophytes in the eleven
main biotope types of Saxony.
species number in %
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
indicator value for temperature
unthreatened species red list species
Figure 4. Indicator values for temperature of Red List
bryophytes in comparison with unthreatened
bryophytes in Saxony.
species number in %
25
20
15
10
5
0
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9
indicator value for soil acidity
unthreatened species red list species
Figure 6. Indicator values for soil acidity of Red List
bryophytes in comparison with unthreatened
bryophytes in Saxony.
523
species number
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
180
forests
143
50
shrubberies, hedgerows and bosks
28
54 57
bodies of flowing water
38 37
bodies of standing water
50
bogs and fens
108
73
biotope type
grassland
52
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)
39
populations of perennial herbs
2
48 47
heathland and neglected grassland
unthreatened species red list species
263
253
Figure 3. Comparison of the share of unthreatened
and Red List species for each of the eleven main
biotope types of Saxony.
species number in %
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9
indicator value for light
unthreatened species red list species
Figure 5. Indicator values for light of Red List
bryophytes in comparison with unthreatened
bryophytes in Saxony.
species number in %
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
indicator value for soil humidity
unthreatened species red list species
Figure 7. Indicator values for soil humidity of Red
List bryophytes in comparison with unthreatened
bryophytes in Saxony
rock and immature soil biotopes
67
arable land, gardens, areas with specialised
cultivati ons
32
103
settlements, infrastructure and industrial areas
21

species number in %
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9
indicator value for continentality
unthreatened species red list species
Figure 8. Indicator values for continentality of Red
List bryophytes in comparison with unthreatened
bryophytes in Saxony.
succession
drainage
intensive forestry
eutrophication of waterbodies and bogs
intensive utilisatio n of grassland
measures of rock and slope protection
decline of humidity
air pollution
unexpected events
hydro‐engineering measures
specifics of species and areal/biological risk factors
clean‐up of walls
diffuse nutrient contaminatio n and eutrophication
elemination of trees
removal by science and teaching
mining
intensive fish farming
soil sealing and house building
deletion of stone walls and drywalls
intensive agriculture
tourism
flood
changes of macroclimate
reason of decline unknown
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)
8
6
6
6
23
19
41
40
38
34
34
33
75
69
66
65
61
59
percentage of species
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hemerobie
red list species unthreatened species
Figure 9. Hemerobic status of Red List bryophytes
in comparison with unthreatened bryophytes in
Saxony.
87
98
species number
0 50 100 150 200 250
Figure 10. Reasons for the decline and the threat of the Red List bryophytes of Saxony.
proportion of unthreatened species in comparison
with endangered species is higher. The Red List
species are often specialists restricted in their
distribution to extreme habitats, such as very dry or
very wet sites, very base rich soils, poor alkaline soils,
very shaded sites, very light-rich sites, very cold sites,
very warm sites, sites with atlantic climate, and sites
with continental climate. The conservation of such
extreme habitats is therefore of particular importance
to protect endangered mosses.
In addition, differences between both groups exist in
the hemerobie (Fig. 9). The ratio of a-hemerob and
oligo-hemerob species, that means species
characterized for habitats with none or low influence
by man, is higher among the Red List species,
whereas the share of meso-hemerob, eu-hemerob and
113
109
129
poly-hemerob is higher among the unthreatened
bryophytes.
Reasons for decline and threat of species
For each species listed in the Red List of Saxony the
main reasons for decline and threat were analysed
(Fig. 10). In a few cases these reasons are unknown.
The most important factor in this relation is the
succession of habitats. A high proportion of
bryophytes is characteristic for open habitats not
colonized by vascular plants. These habitats are often
of short life, and will, if management measures are
stopped, become colonised by vascular plants which
will displace the bryophytes. Regularly measures of
biotope conservation are e.g. essential for the biotope
types arid and semi-arid grasslands, grassland, fen,
193
17

18
MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
and heathland to stop the succession and to conserve
the characteristic species inventory.
To rank second there is drainage as a further reason
for threat. By this action, especially the many species
of moist sites are negatively affected. Another
important reason of threat is intensive forestry. This
has especially negative effects on species of rotten
wood, species of matured forest, epiphytic species and
species characterized for humid forests.
Changes in the classification in the different
editions of the Red Lists of Saxony
Since 1991, the threat of the bryophytes of Saxony is
documented by different editions of Red Lists
(Borsdorf & Müller 1991, Müller 1998, Müller 2004,
Müller 2008). Figure 11 gives an overview of the
development of the shares of the different categories
of the Red Lists over the years. By the evaluation of
these data it is important to note that the values from
2008 are not directly comparable with the values of
the editions of the previous years since they were
created using a new methodology (Ludwig et al.
2006).
Over the years there can be seen an increase of rare
species, but this increase does not reflect the real
situation of threat. It is more caused by an
intensification of the research of the bryophyte flora
of Saxony during the last years whereby many species
originally classified as extinct were rediscovered.
Among the species of the category critically
endangered an increase in the number of species is
noticeable. Many species originally classified in the
category rare had to be regrouped in category
critically endangered, because their habitats are more
species number
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2
red list category
3 R G
1991 1998 2004 2008
Figure 11. Changes in the numbers of bryophytes of
the different Red List categories in the different
editions of the Red Lists of Saxony (Borsdorf &
Müller 1991, Müller 1998, Müller 2004, Müller
2008). Abbreviations: 0 – extinct, 1 – critically
endangered, 2 – endangered, 3 – vulnerable, R – rare,
G – indeterminate.
threatened then previously thought. This applies
particularly for many rare rock bryophytes which are
more threatened in recent years by route protection
measurements. Bryophytes on siliceous rocks are
further more threatened in recent years by
measurements of liming of forests.
Positive developments have mainly arisen due to an
improvement of air quality through measures of
prevention of air pollution (Tab. 1). Saxony belonged
until 1990 to the areas of Germany most affected by
acidic air pollution, so that especially the epiphytic
bryophytes have been strongly limited in their
distribution. In the last years a lot of epiphytic species
were able to recolonise the area in relation to
improvement of air quality. A sample of species of
this ecological group, e. g., Orthotrichum pulchellum,
O. rogeri, and Zygodon dentatus, were first
recognized in Saxony during the past years. A spread
of species and a downgrading of their threat in the
Red Lists in connection with a better air quality were
also noted for selected bryophytes on forest floor and
for selected rotten wood inhabitants.
An increase of threat often associated with a decrease
of localities or a decrease in population sizes, is
especially observed for calciphile bryophytes,
bryophytes of sources, species of bogs and fens, on
silicate rocks and of arid and semi-arid grasslands
(Tab. 2).
Distribution centres of threatened bryophytes of
selected biotope types
Coniferous forests. Pure coniferous forests in Saxony
are by nature rare. The natural range of the principal
coniferous trees, Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies, has
been substantially increased by the work of forestry,
so that nowadays in the Saxon forests conifers are the
dominant forest trees. Fig. 12 shows the weighted
distribution of species of the Red List of Saxony,
which are typical for coniferous forests. An
accumulation can be seen in the high altitude areas of
the western Erzgebirge. Weaker accumulations are
situated in the central Erzgebirge, in the Saxon
Switzerland, and in the upper Vogtland. In this
context, it is interesting to point out, that the centres
of occurrences of rare and endangered species of
coniferous forests are located mainly in areas with
natural coniferous forests. These are in the areas
mentioned above high altitude forests of Norway
spruce. Threatened species with their centres of
distribution in this habitat are e. g., Anastrepta
orcadensis, Barbilophozia kunzeana, Scapania
umbrosa, and in wet forests Sphagnum affine, S.
riparium, Splachnum sphaericum, and S.
ampullaceum.
The pine forests on sand dunes in the lowland of the
Upper Lusatia are not characterised by a particular
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)

MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
Table 1. Decline of bryophytes in Saxony as
expressed by the different evaluation of their threat in
the different editions of the Red Lists of Saxony
(Borsdorf & Müller 1991, Müller 1998, Müller 2004,
Müller 2008). Abbreviations: 0 – extinct, 1 – critically
endangered, 2 – endangered, 3 – vulnerable, R – rare,
V – near threatened, - – not recorded, G –
indeterminate, * – least concern, n.e. – not evaluated.
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)
Red List of Saxony 1991
Red List of Saxony 1998
Distribution atlas 2004
Species of calcareous habitats
Amblystegium confervoides R 1 1 1
Anomodon longifolius 3 R R 1
Bryum funckii R R 1 1
Conardia compacta - R R 3
Eucladium verticillatum R R R 2
Palustriella commutata var. commutata 3 2 2 2
Philonotis calcarea 3 2 2 1
Rhynchostegiella teneriffae
Species of spring habitats
R R R 1
Hookeria lucens 2 1 1 1
Philonotis seriata
Species of bogs
3 2 2 2
Cephalozia pleniceps 3 G 0 0
Sphagnum fuscum
Species on rocks
2 1 1 1
Cynodontium tenellum 0 R 1 1
Grimmia laevigata * 3 2 2
Grimmia longirostris n.e. R 3 2
Pohlia elongata * 2 1 1
Grimmia ovalis * * 3 3
Reboulia hemisphaerica 1 R 1 1
Tortula atrovirens
Species of arid and semi-arid grasslands
R 1 1 1
Entodon concinnus 2 1 1 1
Rhytidium rugosum 2 1 1 1
Thuidium abietinum R 2 2 2
Red List of Saxony 2008
Table 2. Increase of bryophytes in Saxony as
expressed by the different evaluation of their threat in
the different editions of the Red Lists of Saxony
(Borsdorf & Müller 1991, Müller 1998, Müller 2004,
Müller 2008). Abbreviations: 0 – extinct, 1 – critically
endangered, 2 – endangered, 3 – vulnerable, R – rare,
V – near threatened, - – not recorded, G –
indeterminate, * – least concern, n.e. – not evaluated.
Red List of Saxony 1991
Red List of Saxony 1998
Distribution atlas 2004
Epiphytes
Dicranoweisia cirrata 3 * * *
Dicranum flagellare 2 3 3 V
Dicranum montanum 3 * * *
Frullania dilatata 1 1 3 3
Hypnum pallescens 0 0 2 2
Orthotrichum affine 1 2 * *
Orthotrichum lyellii 0 0 3 *
Orthotrichum obtusifolium 1 1 3 *
Orthotrichum pallens 0 0 3 *
Orthotrichum patens 0 - 3 *
Orthotrichum pulchellum - - 3 *
Orthotrichum pumilum 1 2 * *
Orthotrichum rogeri - - 1 *
Orthotrichum scanicum 0 - 1 3
Orthotrichum speciosum 0 0 3 *
Orthotrichum stramineum 1 1 3 *
Orthotrichum striatum 1 1 3 *
Orthotrichum tenellum 0 0 2 *
Pterigynandrum filiforme 2 3 3 V
Ptilidium pulcherrimum 2 3 3 *
Pylaisia polyantha 1 2 3 V
Radula complanata 2 2 3 V
Tortula papillosa 0 0 3 V
Ulota bruchii 0 2 3 *
Ulota coarctata 0 0 1 1
Ulota crispa s.str.
Species on rotten wood
0 1 3 *
Riccardia latifrons
Species on the forest floor and on slopes
0 1 2 2
Buxbaumia aphylla 2 3 3 3
Hylocomium splendens 2 3 3 V
Hylocomium umbratum 0 0 1 2
Plagiothecium undulatum 2 3 3 *
Ptilium crista-castrensis 1 2 3 V
Rhytidiadelphus loreus 1 2 3 *
Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus
Species on rocks
2 2 3 V
Hedwigia ciliata var. ciliata 2 3 * *
19
Red List of Saxony 2008

20
MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
Figure 12. Weighted frequence of Red List species
of the biotope type coniferous forest in Saxony.
Grid records of critically endangered species are
included in the calculation with the factor three,
records of endangered and rare species with the
factor two, records of vulnerable species with the
factor one, and records of near threatened species
with the factor 0.5.
Figure 14. Weighted frequence of Red List species
of the biotope type calcareous fen in Saxony. Grid
records of critically endangered species are
included in the calculation with the factor three,
records of endangered and rare species with the
factor two, records of vulnerable species with the
factor one, and records of near threatened species
with the factor 0.5.
richness of rare or Red List species. The higher values
of individual grids in this area are based in particular
by a few occurrences of Dicranum spurium.
Bogs. Focus for the protection of bog bryophytes in
Saxony are the high altitude areas of the western and
central Erzgebirge (Fig. 13). In the high altitude areas
of the eastern Erzgebirge, characterised by lower
precipitation, bogs are less common and the condition
of the few remaining ones is not optimal due to
different negative influences in the past (drainage,
peat cutting, high sulphur dioxide emissions).
Correspondingly lesser is in them the proportion of
Figure 13. Weighted frequence of Red List species of
the biotope type bog in Saxony. Grid records of
critically endangered species are included in the
calculation with the factor three, records of
endangered and rare species with the factor two,
records of vulnerable species with the factor one, and
records of near threatened species with the factor 0.5.
Figure 15. Weighted frequence of Red List species of
the biotope type arid and semi-arid grasslands in
Saxony. Grid records of critically endangered species
are included in the calculation with the factor three,
records of endangered and rare species with the
factor two, records of vulnerable species with the
factor one, and records of near threatened species
with the factor 0.5.
endangered species. Outside the high altitude areas of
the Erzgebirge there exists three areas in the Saxon
lowland with a higher proportion of threatened bog
species: the Dübener Heide with the bogs
Zadlitzbruch and Wildenhainer Bruch, the
Königsbrück-Ruhlander Heide with a high quantity of
small bogs, and the Muskauer Heide with a couple of
bogs situated in dune valleys.
Calcareous fens. Calcareous fens were in the Saxony,
an area mainly characteristic by soils with insufficient
base nutrients, never very common. By melioration,
intensification of land use and afforestation, they
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)

MÜLLER: BRYOPHYTE MAPPING PROJECTS FOR NATURE CONSERVATION PURPOSES
belong nowadays to the rarest fen and bog biotopes of
Saxony. With the decline of the biotope type
underwent a decline of bryophytes typical for it.
Formerly more widespread species such as Paludella
squarrosa, Tomentypnum nitens, Hamatocaulis
vernicosus etc. are therefore now of absolute rarity
and their survival is in extreme danger. The few
remaining remnants of this biotope type are usually
characterized by the occurrence of a whole set of
highly endangered species on a very limited space.
Most of the reported remaining calcareous fens are
located in the mountainous areas of the Erzgebirge
and Vogtland (Fig. 14). In the Saxon lowland one fen
in the Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond area is
conspicuous by a particular richness of species of this
ecological group.
Arid and semi-arid grasslands. Arid and semi-arid
grasslands are in Saxony in comparison with
neighbouring regions (Bohemia, Thuringia,
Brandenburg) relatively rare and are mostly
developed in only small quantities. This is due mainly
to the fact that in Saxony extremely low rainfall areas
(at or below 500 mm rainfall per year) will reach
nowhere. The region of Saxony characterized by the
least precipitation, with rainfall about 550 mm per
year, is the Elbe Valley and its side valleys, especially
the Ketzerbachtal, below Meissen. The occurrence of
loess is another reason for the enrichment of the
existing arid and semi-arid grasslands of this area
with rare short-living bryophytes (Fig. 15). In this
area there is one of two occurrences of Hilpertia
velenovskyi in Germany (Müller 2000), along with
sites of other characteristic species, e. g.,
Pterygoneurum subsessile, P. lamellatum, Acaulon
triquetrum, and Aloina ambigua.
The other small areas characterized on the map by the
occurrence of threatened bryophytes of this biotope
type are small limestone areas with occurrences of
bryophytes of limestone arid and semi-arid
grasslands, for example with Entodon concinnus,
Rhytidium rugosum, and Thuidium abietinum. The
occurrences of these species are less connected with
low precipitation, rather than with the limestone
substrate as subsoil.
TROPICAL BRYOLOGY 31 (2010)
References
Ellenberg, H., H. E. Weber, R. Düll, V. Wirth & W.
Werner. 2002. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in
Mitteleuropa. 3th ed., Scripta Geobotanica 18.
IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria:
Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission.
Gland – Cambridge. ii + 30 p.
IUCN 2003. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List
Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN
Species Survival Commission. Gland –
Cambridge. ii +26 p.
Ludwig, G., H. Haupt, H. Gruttke & M. Binot-Hafke
2005. Methodische Weiterentwicklung der Roten
Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze in
Deutschland – Eine Übersicht. Natur und
Landschaft 80: 257–265.
Ludwig, G., H. Haupt, H. Gruttke & M. Binot-Hafke.
2006. Methodische Anleitung zur Erstellung Roter
Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze. BfN-
Skripten 191.
Müller, F. 1998. Rote Liste Moose Sachsens. Naturschutz
und Landschaftspflege, Sächs. Landesamt f.
Umwelt und Geologie, Dresden.
Müller, F. 2000. Das Laubmoos Hilpertia velenovskyi
(Schiffn.) Zander (Pottiaceae) - eine für die Flora
Deutschlands neue Moosart. Limprichtia 14: 49–
58.
Müller, F. 2004. Verbreitungsatlas der Moose Sachsens.
Tauer: lutra.
Müller, F. 2008. Rote Liste Moose Sachsens. Naturschutz
und Landschaftspflege, Sächs. Landesamt f.
Umwelt und Geologie, Dresden.
Müller, F. & W. Borsdorf. 1991. Rote Liste der Moose
Sachsens. In: Rote Liste der Großpilze, Moose,
Farn- und Blütenpflanzen... im Freistaat Sachsen,
p. 34–50. Institut für Landschaftsforschung und
Naturschutz, Dresden.
21