Most rich-fen bryophyte species are currently declining and red listed in many European countries. Little is known about their past and current occurrence. We investigated past and recent bryophyte assemblages in mires in the land uplift coast of Finland. The study areas included primary succession areas where mire development started c. 6000 BP. In total, seven mires were studied in two successional transects along the land uplift coast. The past occurrences of rich-fen and other bryophytes were studied in 45 mire stratigraphic peat profiles, and recent occurrences were collected from 158 vegetation plots of 10 m × 10 m. Bryophyte subfossils indicated that the central parts of the basins developed first to wet rich fens with groundwater influence, which developed towards intermediate fens or poorer mire types. Most mire bryophytes occurred in about the same proportion in peat profiles as in recent vegetation. Five rich-fen species (Hamatocaulis lapponicus, H. vernicosus, Meesia longiseta, M. triquetra and Pseudocalliergon trifarium) were clearly more common in peat profiles than in the present mire vegetation, where these species were very rare and appeared only in small patches without sporophytes. These rich-fen species have had markedly wider distributions in the past, probably linked to climate fluctuations, whereas current occurrences are becoming scarce because of multiple anthropogenic factors such mire drainage and climate change.
AartolahtiT (1965) Oberflächenformen von Hochmooren und ihre Entwicklung in Sudwest-Häme und Nord-satakunta. Fennia93: 1–268 + Beil. I–IV (in German).
2.
AlmJSaarnioS (2006) Peatlands and global change-the Finnish case. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Finland: Land of Mires, Series No. 23. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 205–214.
3.
BragazzaL (2006) A decade of plant species changes on a mire in the Italian Alps: Vegetation-controlled or climate-driven mechanisms?Climatic Change77: 415–429.
4.
ClymoRS (1983) Peat. In: GoreAJP (ed.) Mires: Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor, Part A: General Studies. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 159–224.
5.
ClymoRSHaywardPM (1984) The ecology of Sphagnum. In: SmithAJE (ed.) Bryophyte Ecology. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 30–78.
6.
CronbergN (1991) Reproductive biology of Sphagnum. Lindbergia17: 69–82.
7.
DammanAWH (1996) Peat accumulation in fens and bogs: Effects of hydrology and fertility. In: LaihoRLaineJVasanderH (eds) Northern Peatlands in Climatic Change. Proceedings of the International Workshop. Helsinki: Academy of Finland, pp. 213–222.
8.
DicksonJH (1973) Bryophytes of the Pleistocene: The British Record and Its Chorological and Ecological Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256 pp.
9.
EronenM (1991) Jääkausien jäljillä. Helsinki: Ursa, 271 pp.
10.
EronenM (1997) Ilmaston kehitys Pohjois-Euroopassa viime jääkauden loppuvaiheista nykyaikaan. In: SchultzELCarpelanC (eds) Varhain Pohjoisessa – Early in the North (Helsinki Papers in Archaeology No. 10). Helsinki: Department of Archeology, University of Helsinki, pp. 7–18 (in Finnish).
GalkaMLamentowiczLLamentowiczM (2013) Palaeoecology of Sphagnum obtusum in NE Poland. Bryologist116: 238–247.
13.
Geological Survey of Finland (1997) Suomen kallioperä. 1:1000000 [Finnish Bedrock. 1:1000000]. Espoo: Geological Survey of Finland.
14.
GibbardPI (1979) Late Pleistocene Stratigraphy of the Area around Muhos, North Finland (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fenniae Series A, No. 129). Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science, 38 pp.
15.
GriffinKO (1977) Paleoecological aspects of the Red Lake Peatland, Northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Botany55: 172–192.
16.
GunnarssonBLinderholmHWMobergA (2011) Improving a tree-ring reconstruction from west-central Scandinavia: 900 years of warm-season temperatures. Climate Dynamics36: 97–108.
17.
HájekMPleskováZSyrovátkaV. (2014) Patterns in moss element concentrations in fens across species, habitats, and regions. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics16: 203–218.
18.
HájkováPGrootjansALamentowiczM. (2012) How a Sphagnum fuscum-dominated bog changed into a calcareous fen: The unique Holocene history of a Slovak spring-fed mire. Journal of Quaternary Science27: 233–243.
19.
HájkováPHorsakMHájekM. (2015) Using multi-proxy palaeoecology to test a relict status of refugial populations of calcareous-fen species in the Western Carpathians. The Holocene25: 702–715.
20.
HallA (1978) Some new palaeobotanical records for the British Ipswichian interglacial. New Phytologist81: 805–812.
21.
HedenäsLBisangI (2012) Drepanocladus trifarius – An example of unsuspected niche widths among mosses. Nordic Journal of Botany30: 747–753.
22.
HeikkiläHKukko-ojaKLaitinenJ. (2001) Arvio Viinivaaran pohjavedenottohankkeen vaikutuksesta Olvassuon Natura-2000 alueen luontoon [Evaluation of potential impacts of Viinivaara groundwater utilization plan for the nature of Olvassuo Natura 2000-area]. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja799: 1–99 (in Finnish).
23.
HofmannHUrmiEBisangI. (2007) Retrospective assessment of frequency changes in Swiss bryophytes over the last two centuries. Lindbergia32: 18–32.
24.
HughesPDMDumayne-PeatyL (2002) Testing theories of mire development using multiple successions at Crymlyn Bog, West Glamorgan, South Wales, UK. Journal of Ecology90: 456–471.
25.
HutsemekersVDopagneCVanderpoortenA (2008) How far and how fast do bryophytes travel at the landscape scale?Diversity Distribution14: 483–492.
26.
HuttunenA (1990) Vegetation and palaeoecology of a bog complex in S. Finland. Aquilo Ser. Botanica28: 27–37.
27.
HuttunenATolonenK (2006) Mire development history in Finland. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Finland: Land of Mires, Series No. 23. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 79–88.
28.
JanssensJA (1983a) A quantitative method for stratigraphic analysis of Bryophytes in Holocene peat. Journal of Ecology71: 189–196.
29.
JanssensJA (1983b) Past and extent distribution of Drepanocladus in North America with notes on the differentiation of fossil fragments. Journal of Hattori Botanical Laboratory54: 251–298.
30.
KooijmanAM (2012) ‘Poor rich fen mosses’: Atmospheric N-deposition and P-eutrophication in base-rich fens. Lindbergia35: 42–52.
31.
KooijmanAMBeltmanBWesthoffV (1994) Extinction and reintroduction of the bryophyte Scorpidium scorpioides in a rich-fen spring site in The Netherlands. Biological Conservation69: 87–97.
32.
KurscherHDDjamaliM (2008) Meesia triquetra in Iran-evidence from Quaternary. Nova Hedwigia87(3–4): 501–508.
33.
LaitinenJRehellSHuttunenA. (2007) Mire systems of Finland – Specific reference to aapa mires and their flow pattern. Suo58(1): 1–26.
34.
LamentowiczMLamentowiczŁPayneRJ (2013) Towards quantitative reconstruction of peatland nutrient status from fens. The Holocene23(12): 1661–1665.
35.
LinderholmHWBjörklundJASeftigenK. (2010) Dendroclimatology in Fennoscandia – From past accomplishment to future potential. Climate of the Past6: 93–114.
36.
LindholmT (1990) Growth dynamics of the peat moss Sphagnum fuscum on hummocks on a raised bog in southern Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici27: 67–78.
37.
LindholmTHeikkiläR (2006) Destruction of mires in Finland. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Finland: Land of Mires, Series No. 23. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 179–192.
38.
LongtonRE (1992) Reproduction and rarity in British Mosses. Biological Conservation59: 89–98.
39.
LongtonREHeddersonTA (2000) What are rare species and why conserve them?Lindbergia25: 53–61.
40.
LunkkaJ-P (2008) Maapallon ilmastohistoria. Helsinki: Gaudeamus (in Finnish).
41.
MälsonKBackéusIRydinH (2008) Long-term effects of drainage and initial effects of hydrological restoration on rich fen vegetation. Applied Vegetation Science11: 99–106.
42.
MarkkolaJMeriläE (1982) Hailuodon niittykulttuuri ja sen romahdus [The traditional use of meadows in Hailuoto and its falldown]. Oulun luonnonystävien yhdistys ry Tiedotuksia7(1): 23–26 (in Finnish).
43.
MauquoyDHughesPDMvan GeelB (2010) A protocol for plant macrofossil analysis of peat deposits. Mires and Peat7: 1–5.
44.
RehellS (1985) Oulun Pilpasuon ja sen ympäristön vesitalopudesta ja turpeen ominaisuuksista [The hydrology and peat characters in Pilpasuo area, Oulu]. MSc Thesis, University of Oulu (in Finnish).
45.
RehellSHeikkiläR (2009) Aapasoiden nuoret sukkessiovaiheet Pohjois-Pohjanmaan maankohoamisrannikolla [Summary: Young successional stages of aapa mires on the land uplift coast of northern Ostrobothnia, Finland]. Suo60: 1–22.
46.
RehellSLaitinenJ (2014) Vascular plant and moss species across successional mire basins on the land-uplift coast of Northern Ostrobothnia, Finland. Memoranda Societas pro Fauna Flora Fennica90: 33–54.
47.
RehellSHuttunenAKondelinH (2012a) The development of patterning on a succession series of aapa-mire systems on the land-uplift coast of Northern Ostrobothnia. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Mires from Pole to Pole, Series No. 38. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 51–64.
48.
RehellSHuttunenAKondelinH. (2012b) Development of the large-scale hydrotopography of aapa-mires on the land-uplift coastland in northern Finland. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Mires from Pole to Pole, Series No. 38. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 39–50.
49.
RuuhijärviR (1960) Über die Regionale Einteilung der Nordfinnischen Moore. Annales Botanici Societatis Zoologicae Botanicae Fennicae Vanamo31: 1–360 (in German).
50.
RuuhijärviR (1962) Drepanocladus lapponicus in Finland. Archivum Societatis Zoologicae Botanicae Fennicae ‘Vanamo’17: 218–227.
51.
RuuhijärviR (1963) Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Nordfinnischen Hochmoore. Annales Botanici Societatis Zoologicae: Botanicae Fennicae ‘Vanamo’14(2): 1–40 (in German).
52.
SallantausT (2006) Mire ecohydrology in Finland. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Finland: Land of Mires, Series No. 23. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 105–118.
53.
SimolaH (2006) Cultural land use history in Finland. In: LindholmTHeikkiläR (eds) Finland: Land of Mires, Series No. 23. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute, pp. 163–172.
54.
SmithAJE (2004) The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
SöderströmLHerbenT (1997) Dynamics of Bryophyte metapopulations. Advances in Bryology6: 205–240.
56.
StechovaTHájekMHájkováP. (2008) Comparison of Habitat requirements of the mosses Hamatocaulis vernicosus, Scorpidium cossonii and Warnstorfia exannulata in different parts on temperate Europe. Preslia80: 399–410.
57.
SwinehartA (1995) Subfossils of the Boreal Mosses Calliergon trifarium, and Meesia triquetra in an Indiana Peatland. Ohio Journal of Science65(4): 278–288.
58.
SyrjänenK (2009) Meesia longiseta-erittäin uhanalainen. In: Laaka-LindbergSAnttilaSSyrjänenK (eds) Suomen uhanalaiset sammalet [Finnish Endangered Mosses] (Ympäristöopas). Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus, pp. 164–166.
59.
TahvanainenT (2004) Water chemistry of mires in relation to the poor-rich vegetation gradient and contrasting geochemical zones of northeastern Fennoscandian shield. Folia Geobotanica39: 353–359.
60.
TahvanainenT (2011) Abrupt ombrotrophication of a boreal aapa mire triggered by hydrological disturbance in the catchment. Journal of Ecology99: 404–415.
61.
TaipaleKSaarnistoM (1991) Tulivuorista jääkausiin. Suomen maankamaran kehitys. Porvoo: WSOY (in Finnish).
62.
The European Committee for Conservation of Bryophytes (1995) Red Data Book of European Bryophytes. Trondheim: The European Committee for Conservation of Bryophytes, 290 pp.
63.
TolonenK (1967a) Uber die Entwicklung der Moore in finnischen Nordkarelien. Annales Botanici Fennici4: 219–415.
64.
TolonenK (1967b) Soiden kehityshistorian tutkimusmenetelmistä II. Turvekairoista. Suo7(6): 1–7 (in Finnish).
65.
TolonenKSeppäH (1994) Pyhtään suursoiden kasvillisuudesta, morfologiasta ja kehityspiirteistä. Terra106: 216–225 (in Finnish).
66.
TolonenKTurunenJ (1996) Accumulation rates of carbon in mires in Finland and implications for climate change. The Holocene6: 171–178.
67.
TuittilaESJuutinenSFrolkingS. (2012) Wetland chronosequence as a model of peatland development: Vegetation succession, peat and carbon accumulation. The Holocene23: 25–35.
68.
TuretskyMRBond-LambertyBEuskirchenE. (2012) The resilience and functional role of moss in boreal and arctic ecosystems. New Phytologist196: 49–67.
69.
UlvinenT (2009) Hamatocaulis vernicosus-vaarantunut [Endangered]. In: Laaka-LindbergSAnttilaSSyrjänenK (eds) Suomen uhanalaiset sammalet [Finnish Endangered Mosses] (Ympäristöopas). Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus, pp. 119–121 (in Finnish).
70.
UlvinenTSallantausT (2009) Hamatocaulis lapponicus erittäin uhanalainen [Critically endangered]. In: Laaka-LindbergSAnttilaSSyrjänenK (eds) Suomen uhanalaiset sammalet [Finnish Endangered Mosses] (Ympäristöopas). Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus, pp. 118–119 (in Finnish).
71.
UlvinenTSyrjänenKAnttilaS (eds) (2002) Suomen sammalet – levinneisyys, ekologia, uhanalaisuus (Suomen Ympäristö 560). Helsinki: Suomen ympäristökeskus (in Finnish).
72.
Van BreemenN (1995) How Sphagnum bogs down other plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution10(7): 270–275.
73.
VirtanenR (2014) Diaspore and shoot size as drivers of local, regional and global bryophyte distributions. Global Ecology and Biogeography23: 610–619.
74.
WeningerBJörisODanzeglockeU (2005) CalPal_2005_SFCP. Radiocarbon Calibration Program Package. Cologne: University of Cologne.
