Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland – diversity, threats, and protection: a literature review 1 of 14Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycologica REVIEW Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland – diversity, threats, and protection: a literature review Daria Zarabska-Bożejewicz* Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences, Bukowska 19, 60-809 Poznań, Poland * Email: zardaria@wp.pl Abstract Agricultural landscapes provide interesting habitats and substrates occupied by lichens. Nevertheless, there are still gaps in knowledge about diversity of lichen- ized fungi in rural areas and factors that determine their occurrence, including anthropogenic impact. The review includes recognition of this topic in the regional context in Poland and presents literature data about species diversity and habitat groups. Human influences in terms of their significance for lichens disappearance as well as preservation of the lichen biota are analyzed. A list of threatened lichens found in rural areas as well as a proposal for protection of the lichen biota are given. Keywords lichenized fungi; rural areas; habitat groups; anthropogenic impact Introduction Although studies of lichens in the agricultural land of Poland are becoming increas- ingly important, diversity of lichenized fungi in rural areas and factors that determine their occurrence, including anthropogenic impact are still weakly recognized. There is a limited number of comprehensive investigations that focus on the lichen biota of rural areas. So far, this topic has been studied in detail during large-scale surveys in the Choszczno Lake District (NW Poland [1,2]) and the Sandr Nowotomys ki (W Poland [3]). However, lichenological inventories of large areas in northern, i.e., the Kashuby Lake District [4] and the Polanowska Upland [5], northwestern, i.e., Western Pomerania [6], and northeastern Poland [7,8], also revealed the presence of many lichens species in agricultural lands. More interesting data concerning lichens in such landscape were also collected at particular locations, e.g., villages and their surround- ings in some regions of Poland, especially Podlasie, Roztocze, and Lubelszczyz na (e.g., [9–35]). Several articles are devoted to the occurrence of lichenized fungi on bark of fruit trees, especially in orchards [3,36–44]. Lichenological studies in some protected areas, i.e., the Popradzki Landscape Park (S Poland [45]), the Wiśnicko-Lipnicki Landscape Park (S Poland [46]), the Chełmy Landscape Park (SW Poland [47]), the Pszczewski Landscape Park (W Poland [48]), the Wdzydzki Landscape Park (N Poland [49]), and the Suwalski Landscape Park (NE Poland [50]) also revealed taxa growing in rural areas. More interesting lichen taxa were found in the agricultural land in Gdańsk Pomerania [49,51–55]. Numerous papers contribute to understand- ing impacts of human activities on the lichen biota in the Polish countryside (e.g., [3,6–8,24,30,31,34,46,56,57]). In this paper, the current knowledge about the lichenized fungi in the agricultural land and its importance for lichen diversity conservation in Poland is presented based on the literature survey. The article also revises threats to lichens and their protection in a man-transformed rural landscape. DOI: 10.5586/am.1076 Publication history Received: 2016-03-31 Accepted: 2016-06-23 Published: 2016-07-26 Handling editor Maria Rudawska, Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland Funding Publishing of the manuscript was financially supported by the statutory funds of the Institute for Agricultural and Forest Environment, Polish Academy of Sciences (IAFE PAS), Poznań. Competing interests No competing interests have been declared. Copyright notice © The Author(s) 2016. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits redistribution, commercial and non- commercial, provided that the article is properly cited. Citation Zarabska-Bożejewicz D. Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland – diversity, threats, and protection: a literature review. Acta Mycol. 2016;51(1):1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/ am.1076 Digital signature This PDF has been certified using digital signature with a trusted timestamp to assure its origin and integrity. A verification trust dialog appears on the PDF document when it is opened in a compatible PDF reader. Certificate properties provide further details such as certification time and a signing reason in case any alterations made to the final content. If the certificate is missing or invalid it is recommended to verify the article on the journal website. mailto:zardaria%40wp.pl?subject=Lichens%20in%20the%20agricultural%20land%20of%20Poland%20%E2%80%93%20diversity%2C%20threats%2C%20and%20protection%3A%20a%20literature%20review http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1076 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1076 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1076 2 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland Species diversity Available data suggest a moderate level of species diversity of lichenized fungi in the agricultural land. In almost completely deforested areas in rural landscape of the Choszczno Lake District, 184 taxa were found [1,2], while 154 taxa were recorded in the agricultural landscape of the Sandr Nowotomyski [3]. In the Polanowska Upland 146 species were collected in open areas covered by meadows, pastures, bounds, fal- low lands, and psamophilous grasslands, while in villages, settlements and gravel pits 116 species were observed [5]. The biota of particular villages and their surround- ings is mainly represented by several dozen lichen species [23,24,26,29–34,44], rarely exceeding 100 taxa [27]. Species diversity is related to, among others, ecological fac- tors of the sampling localities, including their climatic conditions, the availability of suitable habitats and substrates, but also to the land use. Adopted sampling strategies depending on research objectives also affect lichen diversity assessment. Habitat groups of lichens A high species richness of epiphytic lichens in the agricultural land is underlined in many papers. This habitat group comprises heliophilous, nitrophilous, and coniophilous lichens mainly from the genera Physcia, Physconia, Ramalina, and Xanthoria (e.g., [3,6,8,24–27,33,45,57–59]). Bark of roadside and free-standing trees, as well as phorophytes growing in mid-field afforestations and mid-field peat bogs, gardens, orchards, and country parks seem to create favorable habitats for many epiphytes in rural areas (e.g., [1–3,5,7,12,20,27,30–34,38–43,59–68]). The most frequently mentioned phorophytes in the literature are ash (Fraxinus sp.), willow (Salix sp.), poplar (Populus sp.), maple (Acer sp.), linden (Tilia sp.), and alder (Alnus sp.) [3,5,8,10,13,15,16,18,21,23,26,27,29,30–34,39,44,45,58,59,66,68–73]. Fruit trees are a special group of phorophytes in agricultural lands. The lichen biota of fruit trees of the Łącka Valley (S Poland) was already presented in the 1960s [36,37]. Afterwards, these data were supplemented by the information from the Bieszczady Mountains (S Poland [38,39,44]), Poręba Wielka in Gorce [64,65], the Wiśnickie Foothills (S Poland [46]), the commune of Sławno (central Poland [43]), the Nowotomyska Plain (W Poland [3,42]), and the Lower Vistula Valley (N Poland [40,41]). Numerous lichen species were found in orchards located in mountains and foothills [36,38,39], and they were sampled mainly on the bark of apple and pear trees [3,30,31,33,36,38–44,46,64]. More than 60% of threatened and protected species in vanished villages in the Bieszczady Mts were found on bark of fruit trees [44]. Specific microclimate conditions of phorophytes are thought to promote lichen growth in old orchards. Particularly, lichens are more abundant within and under tree crowns, where there is high air humidity and diffuse solar radiation [43]. On the other hand, diversity of trees and their age within an orchard, types and intensity of human activities in this agroecosystem and its surroundings, including levels of air pollution as well as general environmental conditions affect epiphytes. Apple orchards feature favorable light conditions, difficult access to the water on the trunk and higher pH of the bark of Malus sp. [36], and these allow for establishment and persistence of relatively rich and interesting lichen biota in nearly deforested countryside [42]. Some species of lichens were observed to grow preferentially on bark of apple trees [3,42,43]. For example, Bacidia rubella (Hoffm.) A. Massal. was sampled only [3,36,42] or mainly on this phorophyte [39] and it was relatively frequently observed in apple orchards [36,39,49,71]. This lichen species has also been recorded from bark of Malus domestica Borkh. in other studies dealing with rural areas [44,64,65,68]. Łubek [74] observed more diverse lichen biota associated with freestanding apple trees that grow at the edge of forests. Comparative data are found in reports which separately analyzed lichens growing on fruit tress (e.g., [9–11,13–15,17,24,30–32,34,37,46,50,58,59,64,65,68,71,72,74,75]); most of them were obtained during lichenological surveys in southeastern and southern part of Poland. More interesting species growing on bark of fruit trees, besides B. rubella (Hoffm.) A. Massal., are, among others, Bacidia adastra Sparrius & Aptroot, B. subincompta (Nyl.) 3 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland Arnold, Bryoria fuscescens (Gyeln.) Brodo & D. Hawksw., B. implexa (Hoffm.) Brodo & D. Hawksw., Rinodina exigua (Ach.) Gray, Usnea hirta (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg., and U. subfloridana Stirt. [24,36,39,41–43]. Wirth [76] included Caloplaca cerina (Hedw.) Th. Fr. into the group of typical and indicator species for i.a. orchards; its note is known from this type of agroecosystem in the Nowotomyska Plain [42]. This lichen species was frequently found in the association Physcietum ascendentis Ochsner 1928 occurring on roadside apple trees in Łącka valley and its surroundings [37]. Country parks constitute other important habitats that host interesting lichen biota [7,20,62–66,68]. Altogether the presence of 87 species was confirmed in rural parks that were investigated in northeastern part of Poland [20]. In the historical mansion park in Poręba Wielka (Gorce) 73 species were discovered, including threatened and rare lichens, e.g., Bacidina egenula (Nyl.) Arnold and Sarcosagium campestre (Fr.) Po- etsch & Schied. [64,65]. Among 26 species known from the historical mansion park in Gogolewo village (S Wielkopolska region) the most interesting ones were Chaeno- theca brachypoda (Ach.) Tibell and C. trichialis (Ach.) Hellb. [66]. The list of lichens of the manor park in Opiniogóra Górna (N Mazovia) consisted of 59 species and the role of this park as a refugium of forest lichens in the agricultural land was proposed [68]. Rural areas provide habitats that contribute to the expansion of many epixylous lichens. More than half of the species discovered in Narew village and its environs (NE Poland) were represented by epixylic lichens [29]. Timber constructions are common elements of regional architecture in some parts of Poland, e.g., Podlasie, and they are favored by lichens associated with dead and rotting wood [29]. Epixylous lichens are known to occupy fences, posts, bridges, and another man-made constructions [3,7–9,11,13–18,22,24,26,27,29–34,45,46,48,71,72,77–80]. Roadside wooden crosses, being a part of the regional cultural heritage in Polish rural areas, are atypical wooden substrates that are colonized by lichenized fungi [23,26,27,29]. They also grow on thatched roofs [1,9,81,82]; Lipnicki [1,81,82] found mainly common and widespread species. Some records of lichens are also known from similar anthropogenic sub- strates, i.e., wood shingles [17,18,79]. Diederich et al. [83] indicated the following species Lecania cyrtella (Ach.) Th. Fr., Micarea denigrata (Fr.) Hedl. and Strangospora pinicola (A. Massal.) Körb. as lichens associated with wood, which prefer open areas in rural environments and also habitats enriched with nitrogen compounds. All of them were observed on timber constructions in the countryside [3,26,27,29]. Micarea deni- grata (Fr.) Hedl., as well as some other taxa found on wood in rural areas in Poland, i.e., Carbonicola myrmecina (Ach.) Bendiksby & Timdal, Hypogymnia physodes (L.) Nyl., Imshaugia aleurites (Ach.) S.L.F. Mey., Lecanora conizaeoides Nyl. ex Cromb., L. saligna (Schrad.) Zahlbr., L. varia (Hoffm.) Ach., and Parmeliopsis ambigua (Wulfen) Nyl. were included into the group consisting of species associated with wood in the agricultural landscape [84]. Epilythes colonize isolated blocks and stones in open areas, also when they are a part of man-made constructions [1–8,11,19–21,25,31,33,34,39,45,52,57, 58,65,71,72,75,77,79,81,85–88]. Distribution of some epilithic lichens growing on iso- lated blocks were recognized in rural areas in the western foreland of the Białowieża Forest [20]. Many species recorded on similar substrates in open areas in the Trój- miejski Landscape Park and Kaszubski Landscape Park, i.e., fields, meadows, bounds, roadsides, included mostly calciphilous, nitrophilous, heliophilous, and coniophilous lichen species [88] and these information compiled data known earlier from the Kashuby Lake District [4]. Numerous lichens, also coniophilous and calciphilous spe- cies, were found on isolated blocks in open areas, i.e., field roads and mid-field affor- estations in the surroundings of the “Długogóry” Nature reserve on the Myśliborskie Lakeland (N Poland [89]). Data about species growing on anthropogenic substrates rich in calcium carbonate (e.g., walls of farm buildings, wells, bridges, and posts) [1–5, 7,8,11,18,21,23–26,30–34,39,45–48,59,62,66,70–72,75,77,78,81,87,90] indicate a pos- itive effect of agricultural activities expanding potential habitats for lichenized fungi. Among them, calciphilous species or lichens that tolerate calcium carbonate, e.g., Calogaya decipiens (Arnold) Arup, Frödén & Søchting, C. pusilla (A. Massal.) Arup, Frödén & Søchting, Lecanora albescens (Hoffm.) Branth & Rostr., L. dispersa (Pers.) Röhl., Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr., as well as nitrophilous species from the fam- ily Physciaceae [e.g. Phaeophyscia orbicularis (Neck.) Moberg, P. nigricans (Flörke) 4 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland Moberg, Physcia adscendens (Fr.) H. Olivier, P. caesia (Hoffm.) Hampe ex Fürnr.] are frequently observed [23,26,27,29–32]. Some interesting records of lichens are known from gravestones and crosses, especially old and not renovated, and cemetery fences [2,7,19,20,23,26,27,32,46,80,90,91]. Old gravestones from the nineteenth century in the village of Bociek (NE Poland) have been colonized by 28 species [27]. The list of lichens found in the cemetery in Bogusław (W Poland) consisted of 41 epilythes [90], while the presence of 14 species was documented in the cemetery in Ugoszcz (Nadbużański Landscape Park, E Poland [80]). Other sacral objects also allow inves- tigators to record numerous epilythes. One of them is the monastery complex of the Cistercians in Lubiąż (Lower Silesia, SW Poland); 57 species were found here, and among them the presence of very rare taxa in Poland, i.e., Acarospora umbilicata Bagl., Diplotomma venustum (Körb.) Körb., Lecania rabenhorstii (Hepp) Arnold, Lecidea sarcogynoides Körb., Massjukiella nowakii (S.Y. Kondr. & Bielczyk) S.Y. Kondr., Fedo- renko, S. Stenroos, Kärnefelt, Elix, J.S. Hur & A., Physcia dimidiata (Arnold) Nyl., and Xanthocarpia crenulatella (Nyl.) Frödén, Arup & Søchting [92]. Terricolous lichens seem to play only a minor role among lichenized fungi grow- ing in rural areas. There is a limited amount of information about their diversity or their occurrence in these places, and therefore it is difficult to find out species as- sociated with the agricultural landscape. Available data suggest that the lichen biota occurring on soil is less diverse and interesting species are rarely found. It can be partially explained by the fact that a large part of rural areas is covered by fields and other agroecosystems which do not allow many species to survive. For example, land use activities can prevent terricolous lichens from a successful establishment due to ploughing, fertilization, etc. In the agricultural landscape more terricolous lichens grow in psamophilous grasslands, developed on the slopes of deforested dunes and fallow lands. Surveys in rural areas confirmed the presence of species mainly from the genera Cetraria, Cladonia, Peltigera, and Trapeliopsis; they were observed near roadsides, balks and fallow lands [3,11,14,19,27,70,78,81,85,93,94]. Some records of lichens are known from pastures [3,65,73,95] and mid-field peat bogs commonly re- ferred as agricultural wasteland [67]. However, both trampling, grazing, as well as fertilization induce negative influence on habitat conditions and growth of terrico- lous lichens, especially on pastures [3]. Species from genus Peltigera were sampled in meadows [95], nevertheless high humidity of soil here is indicated as the factor that limits the abundance of terricolous lichens [85]. Among atypical substrates occupied by lichens in the agricultural land are, e.g., metal constructions of gates and fences, hydrants, eternity roof slates, papa, plate bitu- mine, plastic polyester, rubber [8,24,26,27,29–33]. Matwiejuk and Korobkiewicz [29] recorded Candelariella aurella (Hoffm.) Zahlbr., Lecanora albescens (Hoffm.) Branth & Rostr., L. dispersa (Pers.) Röhl., Phaeophyscia orbicularis (Neck.) Moberg, Physcia caesia (Hoffm.) Hampe ex Fürnr, P. dubia (Hoffm.) Lettau, and Xanthoria parietina (L.) Th. Fr. on old abandoned tyres. Some other taxa, i.e., Athallia holocarpa (Hoffm.) Arup, Frödén & Søchting, Candelariella aurella (Hoffm.) Zahlbr, C. vitellina (Hoffm.) Th. Fr., Lecanora conizaeoides Nyl. ex Cromb., Massjukiella polycarpa (Hoffm.) S.Y. Kondr., Fedorenko, S. Stenroos, Kärnefelt, Elix, J.S. Hur & A. Thell, Physcia dubia (Hoffm.) Lettau, P. tenella (Scop.) DC., and Polycauliona candelaria (L.) Frödén, Arup & Søchting were found on corroded metal parts of old farm machines [24]. Threats and protection The intensive agricultural activity is indicated as one of the major threats to lichens in Poland [96]. Farmlands are sometimes described as “lichen desert”, where lichenized fungi disappear due to application of mineral fertilizers and agrochemicals [2,6,84]. Destruction of habitats and substrates through, e.g., removal of old trees growing in orchards, roadsides or mid-field afforestations, timber constructions, isolated blocks, and smaller stones can also have negative effect on lichens and eliminate sensitive species [2,3,18,24,41,88,97]. Special attention should be paid to lichens that colonize bark of free-standing and old phorophytes. Nowadays, their well-preserved lichen biota with rare taxa persists in northern and northeastern part of Poland [4,7,20,97]. 5 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland In the other part of the country epiphytes of free-standing trees are declining due to gradual removal of phorophytes [97]. Lichen diversity in orchards is related, among others, to type and intensity of human activities [41,42]. At present there is a trend toward denser and more intensive orchards and it poses growing threats for survival of the lichen biota in farmlands. Bleaching trunks of fruit trees and rubbing of tree bark by farm animals can result in a significant loss of epiphytes in the affected agro- ecosystem [41]. Studies conducted in the Bieszczady Mts revealed that localization of investigated orchards at less frequently visited areas and far away from main routes positively influences lichen diversity [39]. Similar observations in the same mountain range have been made in vanished villages; investigated anthropogenic habitats were indicated as important refuges of rare lichen species [44]. According to Zielińska [87], agricultural activities impoverish epilithic lichens communities on isolated blocks. Disappearance of some species that inhabit boulders in open areas is associated with, e.g., their dust impregnation, which enables for colonization by nitrophilous and co- niophilous species such as Acarospora fuscata (Nyl.) Th. Fr., Candelariella vitellina (Hoffm.) Müll. Arg., Lecanora alpigena (Ach.) Cl. Roux., Physcia adscendens (Fr.) H. Olivier, and P. dubia (Hoffm.) Lettau [6,7]. Epilythes are negatively affected by clean- ing and renovation of gravestones as well as other cemetery elements [35]. Air pollu- tion, also generated by household fuel combustion is other important threat for the lichen biota [3,17,41,43]. Impacts of human activity in the agricultural land are also analyzed based on obser- vations of lichens growing on anthropogenic substrates [3,6–8,24,30,31,34,46,56,57]. More than 60% of species recorded in Klewinowo and Hermanówka villages repre- sented synanthropic lichens [31,34] according to Olech [98]. Providing new habitats, e.g., by planting trees near roads, houses, in gardens, orchards, cemeteries enables for expansion of heliophilous, nitrophilous, and coniophilous species in the agricul- tural land [6,7]. Many hemerophilous lichens are nitrophilous, e.g., from the genera Physcia, Xanthoria, and Ramalina, thus they commonly colonize habitats and sub- strates enriched with nitrogen compounds. Calciphilous lichens are other frequently recorded group in rural areas; they are found on the anthropogenic substrates that are rich in calcium carbonate, e.g., walls of farm buildings, wells, bridges, and posts. The presence of many valuable and interesting taxa in the Polish countryside in- creases the conservation value of many areas. Studies devoted to protected and threat- ened lichens in the agricultural land of Podlasie were conducted by Matwiejuk [35], and among them epiphytes and terricolous species were more frequent. Their diver- sity was similar in forest and mid-field afforestations and near rivers. Also Kapek [44] paid special attention to threatened lichens during lichenological surveys in vanished villages in the Bieszczady Mts. Among 97 recognized taxa of epiphytes, 37% repre- sented species that had been included into the red-listed categories in Poland [96]. In- formation about threatened lichens in rural areas can be also found in papers by, e.g., Lipnicki and Tobolewski [2], Zarabska [3], Kolanko and Matwiejuk [23], Szymczyk and Zalewska [24], Matwiejuk [26–28], Matwiejuk and Korobkiewicz [29], Kiercul [30,33], Łubek and Biskup [43], Kowalewska et al. [51], Kukwa [53–55], Kubiak et al. [68], and Popiel and Szczepańska [92]. Their records after publication of the current red list of lichens in Poland in 2006 are presented in Tab. 1. Most of them have been put on the red list of extinct and vulnerable lichens of Poland [96] in the endangered categories EN, NT, and VU. Numerous studies conducted in the agricultural land revealed also protected spe- cies (e.g., [3,24,26–31,35,41,43,44,49,80]). Lichen conservation extends beyond spe- cies protection and it includes efforts to preserve ecosystems and landscapes at least in unimpaired conditions. Considering the presence of some rare species that required better protection in Jabłonka Stara, lichenologist postulated to include the village into the Pszczewski Landscape Park (W Poland) [48]. Records of interesting lichen spe- cies in the agricultural land in the central part of the Sandr Nowotomyski, especially in psamophilous grasslands in Nowy Tomyśl surroundings and the rich lichen biota on alders (Alnus sp.) and willows (Salix sp.), i.e., phorophytes that grow frequently in mid-field afforestations characteristic for the region, should support the establish- ment of the Sandr Nowotomyski Landscape Park [3]. 6 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland Tab. 1 Bibliography of threatened lichens in Poland noted in the agricultural landscape after 2006 r. Species Category of threatenes Source of literature data Acarospora umbilicata Bagl. NT [92] Acrocordia gemmata (Ach.) A. Massal. VU [44,68] Alyxoria varia (Pers.) Ertz & Tehler NT [3,42,44,68] Anaptychia ciliaris (L.) Körb. ex A. Massal. EN [24,27–29,31,68] Arthonia vinosa Leight. NT [5] Arthothelium ruanum (A. Massal.) Körb. NT [31,44] Athallia cerinella (Nyl.) Arup, Frödén & Søchting EN [49] Bacidia arnoldiana Körb. NT [92] B. rubella (Hoffm.) A. Massal. VU [3,5,42,44,49,68] B. subincompta (Nyl.) Arnold EN [44] Biatora globulosa (Flörke) Fr. VU [5,49] Bryoria fuscescens (Gyeln.) Brodo & D. Hawksw. VU [5,27,29,33,49] B. implexa (Hoffm.) Brodo & D. Hawksw. CR [41] Calicium abietinum Pers. VU [5] C. adspersum Pers. EN [5] C. glaucellum Ach. VU [44] C. salicinum Pers. VU [5] C. viride Pers. VU [5] Caloplaca cerina (Hedw.) Th. Fr. VU [26,28,42] C. obscurella (J. Lahm) Th. Fr. NT [24] Catapyrenium squamulosum (Ach.) Breuss NT [26] Cetraria ericetorum Opiz NT [5,28,49] C. islandica (L.) Ach. VU [5,27,28,49] C. sepincola (Ehrh.) Ach. EN [5,26,27] Cetrelia olivetorum (Nyl.) W.L. Culb. & C.F. Culb. EN [44] Chaenotheca brachypoda (Ach.) Tibell EN [5] C. furfuracea (L.) Tibell NT [3,5] C. phaeocephala (Turner) Th. Fr. EN [49,68] C. stemonea (Ach.) Müll. Arg. EN [3] C. trichialis (Ach.) Hellb. NT [3,5,24,68] C. xyloxena Nádv. VU [49] Chrysothrix candelaris (L.) J.R. Laundon CR [5] Circinaria gibbosa (Ach.) A. Nordin, Savić & Tibell EN [28] Dibaeis baeomyces (L. f.) Rambold & Hertel NT [5,28] 7 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland Tab. 1 Continued Species Category of threatenes Source of literature data Diplotomma alboatrum (Hoffm.) Flot. VU [92] D. venustum (Körb.) Körb. VU [92] Endocarpon pusillum Hedw. VU [26,28] Evernia prunastri (L.) Ach. NT [3,5,24,26–35,41,43,44,49,68] Flavoparmelia caperata (L.) Hale EN [3,44] Graphis scripta (L.) Ach. NT [44] Hypogymnia farinacea Zopf VU H. tubulosa (Schaer.) Hav. NT [3,5,24,26,27,29,31,33–35,41,43, 44,49,68] Hypotrachyna revoluta (Flörke) Hale EN [44] Lecania rabenhorstii (Hepp) Arnold DD [92] Lecanora argentata (Ach.) Röhl. LC [44] L. intumescens (Rebent.) Rabenh. EN [5,44] L. persimilis (Th. Fr.) Arnold DD [3,24,43,49,55] L. subcarpinea Szatala DD [44] Lecidea sarcogynoides Körb. RE [92] Lecidella scabra (Taylor) Hertel & Leuckert NT [24,55] Leimonis erratica (Körb.) R.C. Harris & Lendemer NT [49] Melanelia subargentifera (Nyl.) Essl. VU [3,5,24,26–29,44,68] Melanohalea elegantula (Zahlbr.) O. Blanco, A. Crespo, Divakar, Essl., D. Hawksw. & Lumbsch VU [5] Myriolecis sambuci (Pers.) Clem. DD [3] Normandina pulchella (Borrer) Nyl. EN [44] Ochrolechia arborea (Kreyer) Almb. VU [44,49] O. subviridis (Høeg) Erichsen VU [5,68] Oxneria fallax (Arnold) S.Y. Kondr. & Kärnefelt VU [31,44] Pachyphiale fagicola (Arnold) Zwackh VU [49] Parmelina pastillifera (Harm.) Hale DD [44] P. tiliacea (Hoffm.) Hale VU [3,24,27,29,31,32,68] Peltigera canina (L.) Willd. VU [3,5,28,31] P. hymenina (Ach.) Delise DD [5,49] P. polydactylon (Neck.) Hoffm. DD [5] P. praetextata (Flörke ex Sommerf.) Zopf VU [3,5,44] Pertusaria coccodes (Ach.) Nyl. NT [5,49] P. flavida (DC.) J.R. Laundon EN [5] P. pertusa (L.) Tuck. VU [3,5] 8 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland Tab. 1 Continued Species Category of threatenes Source of literature data Phaeophyscia chloantha (Ach.) Moberg VU [44] P. endophoenicea (Harm.) Moberg EN [44] P. hirsuta (Mereschk.) Essl. EN [44] P. sciastra (Ach.) Moberg LC [49] Physcia aipolia (Ehrh. ex Humb.) Fürnr. NT [3,27,28,44,49] P. dimidiata (Arnold) Nyl. VU [41,92] Physconia distorta (With.) J.R. Laundon EN [5,41,44,49] P. perisidiosa (Erichsen) Moberg EN [3,24,27,28,41,42,49,68] Piccolia ochrophora (Nyl.) Hafellner VU [24,43] Placynthium nigrum (Huds.) Gray NT [26] Pleurosticta acetabulum (Neck.) Elix & Lumbsch EN [3,5,24,27–29,49,68] Porpidia cinereoatra (Ach.) Hertel & Knoph LC [92] P. macrocarpa (DC.) Hertel & A.J. Schwab LC [5] Pseudoschismatomma rufescens (Pers.) Ertz & Tehler VU [44] Psilolechia lucida (Ach.) M. Choisy LC [5,92] Punctelia jeckeri (Roum.) Kalb DD [44] P. subrudecta (Nyl.) Krog VU [44] Ramalina farinacea (L.) Ach. VU [3,5,24,26–33,44,49,68] R. fastigiata (Pers.) Ach. EN [5,24,26,27,29,44,68] R. fraxinea (L.) Ach. EN [3,5,24,26–33,49,68] R. pollinaria (Westr.) Ach. VU [5,26,27,29,30,44,92] Rinodina exigua (Ach.) Gray VU [24,27] Stereocaulon condensatum Hoffm. VU [5] S. tomentosum Th. Fr. EN [5] Strangospora pinicola (A. Massal.) Körb. LC [3,5,24,27,42,49,68] Tuckermanopsis chlorophylla (Willd.) Hale VU [3,5,26–28,30,34,35,41,49] Umbilicaria polyphylla (L.) Baumg. LC [5] Usnea filipendula Stirt. VU [27,29,30,49] U. hirta (L.) Weber ex F.H. Wigg. VU [3,5,26,27,29,30,32,34,35,49] U. subfloridana Stirt. EN [3,5] Varicellaria hemisphaerica (Flörke) I. Schmitt & Lumbsch VU [5] Vulpicida pinastri (Scop.) J.-E. Mattsson & M.J. Lai NT [3,5,31,41] Xanthoparmelia mougeotii (Schaer.) Hale VU [5] 9 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland The continuously increase in farming intensity can lead to the loss of habitats and substrates important for the persistence of lichenized fungi. Some proposals that could support protection of lichens in the agricultural landscape are given below: ■ preservation of existing habitats which offer suitable growing conditions for li- chens, restoration of degraded agroecosystems, and providing new substrates for expansions of potentially valuable and interesting species in rural areas, e.g., tim- ber constructions, concrete, mortar and other anthropogenic substrates promoting the occurrence of epilithic lichens, especially calciphilous species, preservation of old trees in orchards, gardens, mid-field afforestations and roadsides [3,29–33]; ■ partial removal of shrubs growing around trees to increase light availability on trunks. Under favorable conditions heliophilous and xerophilous lichens should be observed [3]; ■ prevention of further losing of old traditional orchards and alleys with fruit trees. In the rural landscape old orchards must be conserved because they provide unique habitats for survival of many rare, protected, and threatened species [3,39–41,44]. Their role as local regulators of microclimatic conditions in deforested rural areas is also known [41]. Establishment of young plantations in environs of old ones could allow for expansions of epiphytic lichens growing on old fruit trees [3]. The lichen biota of old orchards could be a source of vegetative, symbiotic diaspores, or sexual ascospores that could develop into adults on bark of younger phorophytes; ■ preservation of the cultural heritage which can be related, among others, with pro- motion of regional architecture. The significant use of wood for several purposes in the countryside could also provide potential habitats occupied by lichens. Every effort or task undertaken to maintaining timber constructions in the rural vicinity will allow for establishment and conservation of numerous epixylous lichens; ■ the legal protection in the form of recognizing isolated blocks and old trees, also alleys of trees that host the rich lichen biota as natural monuments; ■ education of local communities by, e.g., popular science articles, brochures, and easily accessible educational boards that promote the current state of knowledge about the lichen biota, its occurrence in the agricultural landscape and proposals of its protection; ■ country parks and mid-field afforestations in nearly deforested rural areas enable for the presence of lichen associated with forest communities. Kubiak et al. [68] indicated the importance of older trees, the limited occurrence of acclimated tree species, diversification of habitat conditions and lack of larger industrial plants in the vicinity of study area for preservation of the lichen biota in the investigated manor park in Opiniogóra Górna (N Mazovia). They also suggested that introduc- tion of new plantings into park tree stand should include phorophytes, e.g,. maple and ash that create favorable substrate conditions for lichens. It should be underlined that strategies of protection in order to prevent biodiver- sity loss in rural areas are mainly adjusted to needs of particular groups of organ- isms, e.g., birds. In fact, these recommendations should be confronted with proposals of activities undertaken to preserve other groups of organisms, e.g., lichens. It will enable to develop a consistent and effective approach to solve the problems of pro- tection, conservation, and restoration of the natural heritage. Regional differences in Poland are related, among others, to land history and use, as well as the intensity of Tab. 1 Continued Species Category of threatenes Source of literature data X. pulla (Ach.) O. Blanco, A. Crespo, Elix, D. Hawksw. & Lumbsch NT [26,27] Xanthoria ulophyllodes Räsänen VU [44,49,55] Category of threatens according to Cieśliński et al. [96]: CR – critically endangered; EN – endangered; VU – vulnerable; NT – near threatened; LC – least concern; DD – data deficient. Nomenclature was checked according to Index Fungorum [99]. 10 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland agricultural practices. The role of these factors on the lichen biota could be recognized through gathering data from different parts of the country. Improving the knowledge on lichens growing in agricultural landscapes should be pivotal for the establishment of conservation strategies. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who made valuable suggestions on the manuscript. References 1. Lipnicki L. Udział porostów w zbiorowiskach leśnych i na siedliskach silnie zmienionych przez człowieka. In: Andrzejewski R, editor. Taktyka adaptacyjna populacji i biocenoz poddanych antropopresji. Warszawa: Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego – Akade- mia Rolnicza w Warszawie; 1990. p. 94–113. 2. Lipnicki L, Tobolewski Z. Porosty Pojezierza Choszczeńskiego. Acta Mycol. 1992;27(1):7– 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1992.002 3. Zarabska D. Porosty w krajobrazie rolniczym Sandru Nowotomyskiego [PhD thesis]. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University; 2011. 4. Fałtynowicz W, Tobolewski Z. The lichenized Ascomycotina (Ascomycetes lichenisati) of the Kashuby Lake District in northern Poland. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1989;34(3–4):445–521. 5. Izydorek I. Porosty (grzyby lichenizowane) Wysoczyzny Polanowskiej. Słupskie Prace Bio- logiczne. 2010;7:51–78. 6. Fałtynowicz W. Porosty Pomorza Zachodniego. Studium ekologiczno-geograficzne. Gdańsk: Uniwersytet Gdański; 1991. 7. Cieśliński S. Atlas rozmieszczenia porostów (Lichenes) w Polsce północno-wschodniej. Warszawa: Białowieska Stacja Geobotaniczna UW; 2003. (Phytocoenosis – Supplementum Cartographiae Geobotanicae; vol 15). 8. Zalewska A. Ecology of lichens of the Puszcza Borecka Forest (NE Poland). Cracow: W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences; 2012. 9. Bystrek J. Przyczynek do poznania porostów Suwalszczyzny. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1964;19(15):261–272. 10. Bystrek J. Materiały do flory porostów Roztocza Środkowego. Fragm. Flor. Geobot. 1967;13(1):101–106. 11. Fabiszewski J. Materiały do flory porostów północnej części Wysoczyzny Siedleckiej. Frag- menta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1964;10(2):249–262. 12. Rydzak J. Badania na stanem ilościowym flory porostów nadrzewnych na Roztoczu. An- nales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1969;24:41–63. 13. Bystrek J, Bystrek J. Materiały do flory porostów okolic Suśca na Roztoczu Środkowym. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1972;27(16):169–183. 14. Bystrek J, Motyka-Zgłobicka M. Gatunki rodzaju Parmelia Ach. na Lubelszczyźnie. An- nales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1972;27:159–168. 15. Bystrek J, Ożóg K. Materiały do flory porostów okolic Krasnobrodu na Roztoczu Środkowym. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1974;20(2):259–270. 16. Bystrek J, Górzyńska K. Porosty Pojezierza Łęczyńsko-Włodawskiego. Annales Universi- tatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1977;32(3):53–68. 17. Bystrek J, Górzyńska K. Porosty Roztocza. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1981;27(1–2):213–237. 18. Bystrek J, Flisińska Z. Porosty Wyżyny Lubelskiej. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1981;27(1–2):239–260. 19. Cieśliński S, Tobolewski Z. Porosty (Lichenes) Puszczy Białowieskiej i jej zachodniego przedpola. Warszawa: Białowieska Stacja Geobotaniczna UW; 1988. (Phytocoenosis – Supplementum Cartographiae Geobotanicae; vol 1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1992.002 11 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland 20. Cieśliński S, Tobolewski Z. Porosty Polski północno-wschodniej. I. Acta Mycol. 1989;25(1):57–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1989.003 21. Cieśliński S, Zielińska J, editors. Materiały do flory porostów Puszczy Knyszyńskiej. Frag- menta Floristica et Geobotanica – Series Polonica. 1994;1:49–61. 22. Bystrek J, Kolanko K. Porosty okolic Gugien w Biebrzańskim Parku Narodowym. Fragm. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica – Series Polonica. 1997;4:245–251. 23. Kolanko K, Matwiejuk A. Porosty Królowego Mostu i jego okolic w Puszczy Knyszyńskiej. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2001;8:237–244. 24. Szymczyk R, Zalewska A. Lichens in the rural landscape of the Warmia Plain. Acta Mycol. 2008;43(2):215–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.2008.026 25. Matwiejuk A, Kolanko K. Lichens of Ciechanowiec and its environs (eastern Poland). Roczni ki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu. Botanika-Steciana. 2007;11:85–93. 26. Matwiejuk A. Lichens of Mielnik on Bug River (Podlasie, eastern Poland). Opole Scientific Society Nature Journal. 2008;41:5–18. 27. Matwiejuk A. Porosty miejscowości Boćki i okolic na Podlasiu (NE Polska). Opole Scien- tific Society Nature Journal. 2009;42:49–61. 28. Matwiejuk A. Wpływ warunków siedliskowych na występowanie porostów chronionych i zagrożonych w krajobrazie rolniczym na Podlasiu (Polska północno-wschodnia). In: Łaska G, editor. Różnorodność biologiczna – od komórki do ekosystemu. Zagrożenia środowiska a ochrona gatunkowa roślin i grzybów. Białystok: Polskie Towarzystwo Botanicz ne; 2014. p. 189–201. 29. Matwiejuk A, Korobkiewicz K. Lichens of Narew and its surroundings (Podlasie, north-eastern Poland). Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w Poznaniu. Botanika-Steciana. 2012;16:93–100. 30. Kiercul S. Materiały do bioty porostów Podlasia I. Wieś Krynickie, gmina Zabłudów (Pol- ska północno-wschodnia). In: Ciereszko I, Bajguz A, editors. Różnorodność biologiczna od komórki do ekosystemu. Rośliny i grzyby w zmieniających się warunkach środowiska. Białystok: Polskie Towarzystwo Botaniczne; 2013. p. 307–318. 31. Kiercul S. Zróżnicowanie gatunkowe porostów (Fungi lichenisati) wsi Klewinowo i okolic (Polska północno-wschodnia). Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody. 2013;32(4):77–88. 32. Kiercul S. Materiały do bioty porostów Podlasia. II. Wieś Tryczówka, gmina Juchnowiec Kościelny (Polska północno-wschodnia). In: Łaska G, editor. Różnorodność biologiczna – od komórki do ekosystemu. Zagrożenia środowiska a ochrona gatunkowa roślin i grzy- bów. Białystok: Polskie Towarzystwo Botaniczne; 2014. p. 61–70. 33. Kiercul S. Notes on the distribution of lichen biota of Podlasie. III. Nowosady village, Podlaskie province (north-eastern Poland). Acta Mycol. 2015;50(1):1053. http://dx.doi. org/10.5586/am.1053 34. Kiercul S. Bogactwo gatunkowe porostów wsi Hermanówka. Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą. 2015;71(2):116–121. 35. Matwiejuk A, Łapińska M. Porosty zabytkowego cmentarza w Wasilkowie w wojewódz- twie podlaskim (Polska NE). Acta Botanica Cassubica. 2014;13:17–26. 36. Kuziel S. Porosty epifityczne drzew owocowych w Kotlinie Łącka i okolicy. Łódź: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe; 1964. (Prace Wydziału III. Nauk Matematyczno- Przyrodniczych, Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe; vol 98). 37. Kuziel S. Zespoły porostów epifitycznych na drzewach owocowych w sadach doliny Dunaj ca. Acta Agrobot. 1964;16:55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/aa.1964.016 38. Kościelniak R. Porosty drzew owocowych w Bieszczadach Niskich. In: Miądlikowska J, editor. Botanika polska u progu XXI wieku. Materiały konferencji i obrad sekcji 51. Zjazdu PTB; 1998 Sep 15–19; Gdańsk, Poland. Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe; 1998. p. 228. 39. Kościelniak R. Porosty (Lichenes) Bieszczadów Niskich. Kraków: Instytut Botaniki im. W. Szaflera, Polska Akademia Nauk; 2004. (Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica, Supplementum; vol 5). 40. Lipnicki L. Porosty nadrzewne w starych sadach przydomowych. In: Sobieralska R, editor. Poradnik sadowniczy starych odmian drzew owocowych. Świecie: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Dolnej Wisły; 2003. p. 77–82. 41. Lipnicki L, Sobieralska R. Porosty epifityczne w starych sadach w Dolinie Dolnej Wisły. Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody. 2009;28(1):37–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1989.003 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.2008.026 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1053 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1053 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/aa.1964.016 12 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland 42. Zarabska D, Guttová A, Cristofolini F, Giordani P, Lackovičová A. Epiphytic lichens of apple orchards in Poland, Slovakia, and Italy. Acta Mycol. 2009;44(2):151–163. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.2009.013 43. Łubek A, Biskup E. Porosty epifityczne i grzyby naporostowe drzew owocowych w gminie Sławno (Polska Środkowa). Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą. 2012;68(3):186–197. 44. Kapek N. Opuszczone wsie w Bieszczadach jako ostoje zagrożonych i chronionych gatunków porostów w Polsce. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2014;21(1):147–164. 45. Śliwa L. Porosty. In: Staszkiewicz J, editor. Przyroda Popradzkiego Parku Krajobrazowego. Stary Sącz: Popradzki Park Krajobrazowy; 2000. p. 205–216. 46. Stolarczyk P. Porosty Wiśnicko-Lipnickiego Parku Krajobrazowego na Pogórzu Wiśnickim. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2003;10:241–252. 47. Szczepańska K. Porosty Parku Krajobrazowego Chełmy na Pogórzu Kaczawskim (Sudety Zachodnie). Annales Silesiae. 2009;36:119–127. 48. Lipnicki L, editor. Porosty (Lichenes) Pszczewskiego Parku Krajobrazowego. In: Lipnicki L, editor. V Zjazd Lichenologów Polskich; 1988 Sep 12–16; Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland. Gorzów Wielkopolski: Instytut Badań i Ekspertyz Naukowych; 1991. p. 5–32. 49. Kukwa M, Kowalewska A, Śliwa L, Czarnota P, Czyżewska K, Flakus A, et al. Porosty i grzyby naporostowe Wdzydzkiego Parku Krajobrazowego (Pomorze Gdańskie, N Pol- ska). Acta Botanica Cassubica. 2012;11:75–103. 50. Zalewska A, Fałtynowicz W, Krzysztofiak A, Krzysztofiak L, Picińska-Fałtynowicz J. Li- chens of Suwalski Landscape Park. In: Zalewska A, Fałtynowicz W, editors. Lichens of the protected areas in the Euroregion Niemen. Suwałki: Stowarzyszenie “Człowiek i Przy- roda”; 2004. p. 5–50. 51. Kowalewska A, Kukwa M, Jando K. Nowe stanowiska rzadkich gatunków porostów w re- gionie gdańskim. Acta Botanica Cassubica. 2000;1:127–134. 52. Czarnota P. Porosty z rodzaju Micarea Fr. na Pomorzu Gdańskim. Acta Botanica Cas- subica. 2005;5:77–94. 53. Kukwa M. Nowe stanowiska rzadkich i interesujących porostów na Pomorzu Gdańskim. Część I. Acta Botanica Cassubica. 2005;5:95–111. 54. Kukwa M. Nowe stanowiska rzadkich i interesujących porostów na Pomorzu Gdańskim. Część II. Sorediowane i izydiowane porosty skorupiaste. Acta Botanica Cassubica. 2005;5:113–125. 55. Kukwa M. Nowe stanowiska rzadkich i interesujących porostów na Pomorzu Gdańskim. Część III. Acta Botanica Cassubica. 2006;6:141–152. 56. Fałtynowicz W. Propozycja klasyfikacji porostów synantropijnych. Wprowadzenie do dys- kusji. Arboretum Bolestraszyce. 1994;2:21–30. 57. Grochowski P. Przemiany lichenoflory zachodniego odcinka Pradoliny Toruńsko- Eberswaldzkiej na przestrzeni wieku. In: Lipnicki L, editor. Ochrona zasobów naturalnych województwa lubuskiego. Walory przyrodnicze regionu. Materiały na konferencję; 2005 Oct 26; Gorzów Wielkopolski, Poland. Gorzów Wielkopolski: Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu; 2005. p. 9–23. 58. Nowak J. Materiały do flory porostów Beskidów Zachodnich. I. Porosty pasma Policy. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1967;13(1):107–139. 59. Szczepańska K. Antropogeniczne przemiany bioty porostów Masywu Śnieżnika i Gór Bialskich. Wrocław: Zakład Bioróżnorodności i Ochrony Szaty Roślinnej; 2008. (Acta Bo- tanica Silesiaca; vol 4). 60. Glanc K. Flora porostów Arboretum w Gołuchowie. Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych i Komisji Nauk Leśnych. Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. 1969;28:127–141. 61. Rydzak J. Flora i ekologia porostów drzew przydrożnych. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1970;25:149–157. 62. Piórecki J, Rydzak J. Flora porostów parku w Krasiczynie. Rocznik Przemyski 1970;13/14:369–373. 63. Glanc K, Kapuściński R, Król I. Flora porostów Okręgu Baryckiego w Krainie Wielko- polsko-Kujawskiej. Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych i Komisji Nauk Leśnych. Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. 1971;32:23–38. 64. Czarnota P. Porosty zabytkowego parku dworskiego w Porębie Wielkiej w Gorcach. Frag- menta Floristica et Geobotanica – Series Polonica. 1994;1:91–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.2009.013 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.2009.013 13 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland 65. Czarnota P. Porosty Gorczańskiego Parku Narodowego. Cz. I. Wykaz i rozmieszczenie gatun ków. Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody. 2000;19(1):3–73. 66. Kubiak D, Sucharzewska E. Porosty parku wiejskiego w Gogolewie (południowa Wielkopol- ska). Badania Fizjograficzne nad Polską Zachodnią. Seria B – Botanika. 2004;53:147–151. 67. Wójciak H, Urban D. Small mid-forest and mid-field peat bogs as a refuge or rare and pro- tected lichen species. In: Lipnicki L, editor. Lichen protection – protected lichens species. Gorzów Wielkopolski: Sonar Literacki; 2012. p. 133–141. 68. Kubiak D, Biedunkiewicz A, Koźniewski D. Porosty epifityczne parku przypałacowego w Opinogórze Górnej (Północne Mazowsze). Chrońmy Przyrodę Ojczystą. 2015;71(4):257–265. 69. Bystrek J. Gatunki z rodzaju Ramalina na Lubelszczyźnie. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1966;21(15):189–202. 70. Izydorek I. Materiały do flory porostów nadleśnictwa Smolarz. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1978;24(1):147–156. 71. Kiszka J, Piórecki J. Porosty (Lichenes) Pogórza Przemyskiego. Warsaw: Uniwa; 1991. 72. Kiszka J, Piórecki J. Waloryzacja przyrodnicza porostów (Lichenes) projektowanego Tur- nickiego Parku Narodowego. Arboretum Bolestraszyce. 1994;2:95–122. 73. Śliwa L. Additions to the lichen flora of the Tatry National Park and its surroundings (Pol- ish Carpathians). In: Lackovičová A, Guttová A, Lisická E, Lizoň P, editors. Central Euro- pean lichens – diversity and threat. Ithaca, NY: Mycotaxon Ltd.; 2006. p. 305–314. 74. Łubek A. Antropogeniczne przemiany bioty porostów Świętokrzyskiego Parku Narodo- wego i otuliny. Kraków: Instytut Botaniki im. W. Szafera. Polska Akademia Nauk. (Frag- menta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica, Supplementum; vol 10). 75. Śliwa L. Antropogeniczne przemiany lichenoflory Beskidu Sądeckiego. Kraków: Nakładem Instytutu Botaniki Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego; 1998. (Prace Botaniczne; vol 31). 76. Wirth V. Indicator Flechte. Naturschutz aus der Flechten-Perspektive. Sttutgart: Stuttgar- ter Beiträge zur Naturkunde; 2002. (Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde / C; vol 50). 77. Tobolewski Z. Porosty epifityczne okolic Łagowa ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem flory buka. Prace Komisji Biologicznej. Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. 1952;13(6):1–24. 78. Halicz B, Kuziel S. Materiały do flory porostów Wyżyny Łódzkiej. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersy tetu Łódzkiego. Seria 2, Nauki Matematyczno-Przyrodnicze. 1958;4:101–125. 79. Olech M. Porosty pasma Radziejowej. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1972;18(3–4):359–398. 80. Jastrzębska B. Porosty cmentarza w Ugoszczy oraz jego okolicy (Nadbużański Park Krajo- brazowy. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2005;12(1):194–197. 81. Lipnicki L. Porosty Borów Tucholskich. Acta Mycol. 1990;26(1):119–175. http://dx.doi. org/10.5586/am.1990.006 82. Lipnicki L. Formowanie się flory porostów na słomianych strzechach budynków. Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Botaniczne; 1998. (Monographiae Botanicae; vol 84). http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/mb.1998.005 83. Diederich P, Ertz D, Stapper N, Sérusiaux E, van den Broeck D, van den Boom P, Ries C. The lichens and lichenicolous fungi of Belgium, Luxembourg and northern France [Inter- net]. 2016 [cited 2016 Mar 03]. Available from: http://www.lichenology.info 84. Gilbert O. Lichens. London: HarperCollinsPublishers; 2000. 85. Dziabaszewski B. Porosty wyspy Wolina ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem Parku Narodo- wego. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk; 1962. [Prace Komisji Biologicz- nej; vol 22(5)]. 86. Nowak J. Porosty Beskidu Małego. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1965;11(3):421–462. 87. Zielińska J. Porosty głazów narzutowych Wysoczyzn Podlaskich. Acta Mycol. 1980;16(2):257–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1980.020 88. Fałtynowicz W. Porosty głazów narzutowych Parków Krajobrazowych Trójmiejskiego i Kaszubskiego. Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Botaniczne; 1998. (Monographiae Bo- tanicae; vol 81). http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/mb.1997.002 89. Lipnicki L. Porosty głazów narzutowych rezerwatu “Długogóry” i jego okolic na Pojezie- rzu Myśliborskim. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica – Series Polonica. 1994;1:63–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1990.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1990.006 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/mb.1998.005 http://www.lichenology.info http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/am.1980.020 http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/mb.1997.002 14 of 14© The Author(s) 2016 Published by Polish Botanical Society Acta Mycol 51(1):1076 Zarabska-Bożejewicz / Lichens in the agricultural land of Poland 90. Grochowski P. Porosty cmentarza w Bogusławiu (północno-zachodnia Polska). Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica Polonica. 2001;8:231–235. 91. Kozik R. Porosty epilityczne na pomnikach cmentarzy z I wojny światowej (1914–1915) rozmieszczonych na Pogórzu Karpackim. Arboretum Bolestraszyce. 1994;2:47–53. 92. Popiel M, Szczepańska K. Porosty kompleksu klasztornego w Lubiążu. Acta Botanica Sile- siaca. 2014;10:155–168. 93. Cieśliński S. Nowe i bardziej interesujące gatunki porostów naziemnych na Wyżynie Kielecko-Sandomierskiej i jej pobrzeżach. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1981;27(3):527–539. 94. Cieśliński S. Porosty muraw kserotermicznych na kemach w północnej części Równiny Bielskiej. Fragmenta Floristica et Geobotanica. 1986;29(3–4):435–449. 95. Bystrek J, Motyka-Zgłobicka M. Gatunki rodzaju Peltigera Willd. na Lubelszczyźnie. An- nales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C, Biologia. 1974;29:403–412. 96. Cieśliński S, Czyżewska K, Fabiszewski J. Red list of the lichens in Poland. In: Mirek Z, Zarzycki K, Wojewoda W, Szeląg Z, editors. Red list of plants and fungi in Poland. Cracow: W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences; 2006. p. 71–89. 97. Cieśliński S, Czyżewska K. Problemy zagrożenia porostów w Polsce. Wiad Bot. 1992;36:5–17. 98. Olech M. Apophytes in the lichen flora of Poland. In: Faliński JB, Adamowski W, Jackowiak B, editors. Synanthropization of plant cover in new Polish research. Warsaw: Wydawnic- twa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego; 1998. p. 251–255. (Phytocoenosis / Supplementum Cartographiae Geobotanicae; vol 9). 99. Index Fungorum [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.index- fungorum.org/names/names.asp http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/names.asp http://www.indexfungorum.org/names/names.asp Abstract Introduction Species diversity Habitat groups of lichens Threats and protection Acknowledgments References 2016-07-26T10:37:08+0100 Piotr Otręba