A Multi-Scaled Habitat Analysis of Lichen Communities on Granite Rock in the Huron Mountains, Marquette County, Michigan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Northern Michigan University NMU Commons All NMU Master's Theses Student Works 2010 A MULTI-SCALED HABITAT ANALYSIS OF LICHEN COMMUNITIES ON GRANITE ROCK IN THE HURON MOUNTAINS, MARQUETTE OC UNTY, MICHIGAN Ryne Douglas Rutherford Northern Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.nmu.edu/theses Recommended Citation Rutherford, Ryne Douglas, "A MULTI-SCALED HABITAT ANALYSIS OF LICHEN COMMUNITIES ON GRANITE ROCK IN THE HURON MOUNTAINS, MARQUETTE OUNC TY, MICHIGAN" (2010). All NMU Master's Theses. 495. https://commons.nmu.edu/theses/495 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at NMU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All NMU Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of NMU Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. A MULTI-SCALED HABITAT ANALYSIS OF LICHEN COMMUNITIES ON GRANITE ROCK IN THE HURON MOUNTAINS, MARQUETTE COUNTY, MICHIGAN By Ryne Douglas Rutherford THESIS Submitted to Northern Michigan University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of MASTERS OF SCIENCE Graduate Studies office 2010 SIGNATURE APPROVAL FORM This thesis by Ryne Douglas Rutherford is recommended for approval by the student's thesis committee in the Department of Biology and by the Dean of Graduate Studies. ________________________________________________________ Committee Chair: Dr. Alan Rebertus Date ________________________________________________________ First Reader: Dr. Roger M. Strand Date ________________________________________________________ Second Reader: Dr. Donna Becker Date ________________________________________________________ Department Head: Dr. Patrick Brown Date _______________________________________________________ Associate Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies, Grants: Date Research and Continuing Education: Dr. Terry Seethoff 11 OLSEN LIBRARY NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY THESIS DATA FORM In order to catalog your thesis properly and enter a record in the OCLC international bibliographic data base, Olson Library must have the following requested information to distinguish you from others with the same or similar names and to provide appropriate subject access for other researchers. NAME: Rutherford, Ryne D. DATE OF BIRTH: October 15, 1982 12 ABSTRACT A MULTI-SCALED HABITAT ANALYSIS OF LICHEN COMMUNITIES ON GRANITE ROCK IN THE HURON MOUNTAINS, MARQUETTE COUNTY, MICHIGAN By Ryne Douglas Rutherford Few studies have thoroughly investigated the influence of environmental factors in saxicolous lichen communities and the importance of scale awaits discovery. This study examined three scales [micro (cm), meso (meters-10s of meters), macro (km)] in granite rock communities and compared species assemblages and disturbance regimes in Lake Superior shoreline and inland habitats. Percent cover of lichens and environmental variables were measured in 1280 20 x 20-cm plots across 16 sites (8 lakeshore and 8 inland). At a macroscale, lakeshore and inland granite rock communities differed considerably in composition with 68-90% species turnover. Adjacent lakeshore sites were more similar (F = 8.550; df = 1, 26; p = 0.007) to each other than they were to sites further away, while inland sites were not (F = 0.545; df = 1, 26; p = 0.467). Variation in disturbance is likely more important in determining inter-site variation in inland areas. Mesoscale environmental variables such as solar radiation, height above Lake Superior, and an aspect/slope index were better predictors of species assemblages than microscale variables based on the measured environmental variables. However, individual species differed greatly in their associations with specific habitat variables. A host of micro niches were discovered, with some lichens specializing on rock overhangs, quartz veins, cracks, subtle variations in rock texture, and mafic and felsic types of granite. i Copyright by Ryne Douglas Rutherford 2010 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to recognize my advisor, Dr. Alan Rebertus for his involvement in this project. It would have been impossible to complete this project without him and the many hours he spent working with me on this project is invaluable to my future endeavors in the ecology field. I would like to thank my wife, Jenny, for her strong support and valuable help as my field assistant. Without her help I would certainly have lost more field gear than I already have to Lake Superior. Elizabeth May, Doug Ladd, Dr. Richard Harris and Dr. Irwin Brodo deserve many thanks for their help with identifying lichens at the 2008 Tuckerman lichen workshop in Ontario. I would like to thank Dr. Martin Steindler for allowing me to sample lichens on his beautiful property along the lake. I would also like to thank Jing from the biology stockroom for always making field gear readily available and many thanks to my committee members Dr. Mac Strand and Dr. Donna Becker for their positive contributions to this project. Shawn Carlson deserves many thanks for sharing his insights regarding the historical geology of the Huron Mountains. My parents, Doug and Ruth Rutherford, deserve thanks for pushing me to finishing this project. This paper is presented in the preferred format for the journal Lichenologist. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Table ……………………………………………………………………………(vi) List of Figures………………………………………………………………………….(vii) Introduction…………………………………………………………………………....….1 The Importance of Scale…………………………………………………………..1 Important Habitat Variables in Lichen Communities……………………………..1 Disturbance in Bedrock Lakeshore…………………………………………….….3 Disturbance in Inland Bedrock Glades…………………………………………....4 Natural Setting………………………………………………………………….....6 Goals and Hypotheses………………………………………………………….….8 Methods…………………………………………………………………………………...9 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….11 Results…………………………………………………………………………………...13 Macroscale Comparison I: Shoreline vs. Inland………………………………....13 Macroscale Comparison II: Variation between Sites within Inland and Lakeshore………………………………………………………………………...14 Meso and Microscale Variation in Lichen Composition: Inland Sites…………..15 Meso and Microscale Variation in Lichen Compostion: Lakeshore Sites……….17 Meso and Microscale Variation: Individual Species Responses…………………19 iv Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..21 Macroscale Comparison I: Shoreline vs. Inland…………………………………21 Macroscale Comparison II: Variation between Sites within Inland and Lakeshore………………………………………………………………………...23 Meso and Microscale Variation in Lichen Composition…………………………25 Meso and microscale Variation: Individual Species Responses…………………28 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………31 References………………………………………………………………………………..33 Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………68 Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………70 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Habitat variables measured at different scales………………………...……….39 Table 2. Definitions and descriptions of habitat variables at three different scales....….40 Table 3. Diversity measures for lakeshore and inland sites……..……………………...42 Table 4. Average cover and frequency of occurrence for three zones in granite bedrock lakeshore…………………………………………………………………………………43 Table 5. Average cover and frequency of occurrence for xeric and mesic zones in granite bedrock glades…………………………………………………..……………………….46 Table 6. CCA analysis conducted on lakeshore and inland sites.....................................49 Table 7. The most important variables for each species in inland sites as determined by NMPR in HyperNiche……………………………………………...…………………….51 Table 8. Most important variables for each species as determined by NPMR in HyperNiche…………………………………………………………………………...….53 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of study area………………………………………………………….….54 Figure 2. Rock configuration measured at two scales………………………………..…55 Figure 3a. DCA analysis of all sites showing groupings based on species assemblages…………………………………………………………………………..….56 Figure 3b. DCA output showing the plot ordination of lakeshore and inland sites….….57 Figure 4a. PSI vs. distance for inland sites……………………………………………...58 Figure 4b. PSI vs. distance for lakeshore sites……………………………………..…...59 Figure 5a. CCA analysis for inland sites……………………………………………..…60 Figure 5b. CCA analysis for lakeshore sites………………………………………...…..61 Figure 6. CCA analysis for two example inland sites…………………………………...62 Figure 7. CCA analysis for two example lakeshore sites…………………………...…..63 Figure 8. Response curves to various environmental variables from local Gaussian models in HyperNiche for inland sites……………………………………………….......65 Figure 9. Response curves to various environmental variables from local Gaussian models in HyperNiche for lakeshore sites…………………...………………………..…66 Figure A-1. DCA ordination of all plots in the inland sites…………………………….68 Figure A-2. DCA ordination of all plots in the lakeshore sites………………………....69 Figure B-1. CCA analysis for Echo Lake……………………………………………….70 Figure B-2. CCA analysis for Big Blue…………………………………………………71 Figure B-3. CCA analysis for Pine Elfin………………………………………….…….72 Figure B-4. CCA analysis for Blemhuber…………………………………………...…..73 vii Figure B-5. CCA analysis for Hogback……………………………………………..…..74 Figure B-6. CCA analysis for Harlow………………………………………………......75 Figure B-7. CCA analysis for Harkin………………………………………………..….76 Figure B-8. CCA analysis for Remmington…………………………………………….77 Figure B-9. CCA analysis for Wetmore North……………….…………………………78 Figure B-10. CCA analysis for Sauk Head……………………….……………………..79 Figure B-11. CCA analysis for Granite Cove…………………….…………………......80