Skip to Content
PlantsPlants
  • Article
  • Open Access

20 August 2023

The Bryophyte Flora of Vienna

and
Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Bryophyte Biology

Abstract

The bryophyte flora of Vienna is documented only in parts. Old finds often appeared in publications about Lower Austria; only one study addressed the bryophytes of the inner city. Here, we present a bryophyte flora of Vienna, including historical reports and the results of recent investigations. From 1998 to 2023, we recorded 329 bryophyte taxa in Viennese urban territory. Fifty-six of these were liverworts, and 273 were mosses. Sixty-seven taxa are new for Vienna. Forty-nine taxa, given in historical studies, could no longer be found. If we also count these, 378 taxa occurred in Vienna to date. Of the current occurring bryophytes, 67 species have an endangerment classification. Rich in bryophytes were the dry grasslands of the Lobau, the oxbow lakes of the Lobau and the Prater, and large parts of the Wienerwald. But flat roofs and inner-city areas also showed more than 100 species. Compared to other European cities, Vienna is decidedly species-rich and highly responsible for some species in Austria. Reasons for this are the extensive green spaces and the pronounced climatic gradient from the sub-oceanic west to the sub-continental east of Vienna. Awareness raising for bryophytes we recommend in addition to the existing biotope protection.

1. Introduction

“Vienna is different”—this slogan of the Vienna city government also applies to the size of the green space in Vienna (Figure 1), which accounts for 31% (=128 km2) of the total city area [1]. In addition to numerous large parks, Vienna shares a National Park [2] and a UNESCO biosphere reserve [3], which is unique for a metropolis the size of Vienna. The high proportion of semi-natural vegetation suggests high species numbers in bryophytes.
Historical surveys of bryophytes indicate the high bryophyte diversity of Vienna [4,5]. Many of today’s city districts were villages on the outskirts of a capital city until the 19th century. Agriculturally used land lay between the surrounding settlements and the city. Until 1870, the Danube was an untamed river that passed north of the town in many arms, leaving numerous islands and floodplains between the river arms (Figure 2). Large areas (e.g., the so-called Glacis) lay between the city walls and the suburbs to provide a direct line of fire on any attackers. Many of these areas were investigated by the bryologists of the 18th and 19th centuries. They reported bryophyte finds in Vienna integrated into studies on surrounding Lower Austria: e.g., Jacquin [6], Welwitsch [7], Garovaglio [8], Pokorny [9], Poetsch [10,11], Reichardt [12], Neilreich [13], Juratzka [14], Höfer [15], Höhnel [16], Heeg [17], Matouschek [18], Onno [19], and Baumgartner (W, unpubl.). Although most of these formerly bryophyte-rich habitats have given way to densely built-up areas, near-natural habitats have been preserved, especially on the outskirts of the town. The inner city also shows a high structural diversity and, thus, diverse bryophyte species [20].
Figure 2. Vienna around 1830 (north below) [22].
Figure 1. Vienna and its green spaces [21].
Today, bryophytes are arousing interest again in many people, be it from an architectural or artistic point of view. In many places, there are attempts to green urban infrastructure with the help of bryophytes, but mostly with little success in Central Europe [23]. Architects demand quick greening success, which the bryophytes cannot deliver. There is also little knowledge about which bryophyte species occur naturally in the urban environment of Vienna. The background of the present work is to expand knowledge about this and to improve the data situation on the biodiversity of Vienna.

2. Results

Overall, 378 bryophyte taxa (376 species and 2 additional varieties: 2 hornworts, 68 liverworts, and 308 mosses) occurred on Viennese urban territory if all historical reports are included (see Appendix A, Table A1).
During this study, we found 329 taxa (327 species and 2 varieties), including 56 liverworts and 273 mosses. Hornworts we could not find anymore. For 67 species (12 liverworts, 55 mosses), there are no records in the historical literature. They are the first records for Vienna, found during the current surveys and published here for the first time. Forty-nine species known from historic reports could not be reconfirmed and must be considered lost. Sixty-eight species are listed in the Red List of Lower Austria [24]. Nine are classified as threatened with extinction, and 17 as endangered.

2.1. Critical Taxa of the Historical Literature

Some historical reports are critical due to changes in taxonomy and nomenclature. However, it was not possible in most cases to consult the corresponding specimens and verify the data. The report of Jungermannia michauxii (today Anastrophyllum michauxii) in 1825 might have been the related species Sphenolobus minutus (Schreb. ex D. Crantz) Berggr., a species described later. Pohlia filum is also doubtful and was probably Pohlia elongata. However, an occurrence of Pohlia filum on the banks of the Danube at that time seems possible. Schistidium confertum is probably S. brunnescens, which we also found during this study. The historical report of Warnstorfia fluitans is most likely a misdetermination since this mire species could hardly occur in Vienna, which was free of Sphagnum species (also in former days), and we thus excluded it from the species list.

2.2. Critical Taxa of the Current Surveys

The introduced Nogopterium gracile was found only once in the garden of the Schloss Belvedere. This Mediterranean species might have reached its locality via substrate or plants. It is not assumed established to date, but we included it in the species list under this restriction. Philonotis marchica might have also come to Vienna via plant material. However, we found it several times, mainly in flower boxes and parks in downtown Vienna. An establishment there can be assumed.

2.3. Sites Particularly Rich in Bryophyte Species

The areas with the highest species diversity were in the Viennese part of the Donau-Auen National Park, at the Donauinsel, and in the Wienerwald. However, inner-city areas also had considerable species numbers.
The so-called Heißländen of the Lobau (Figure 3A) deserve special mention: these gravel areas filled up by exceptional floods of the Danube correspond to edaphic dry grasslands. They are all located in the upper Lobau and harbor numerous bryophyte species that have become rare in Austria. In six of those Heißländen investigated, 98 species were found, including the rarities Cephaloziella stellulifera, Entosthodon fascicularis, Mesoptychia turbinata, Microbryum floerkeanum, Microbryum starckeanum, and Aloina ambigua.
Figure 3. Habitats rich in bryophyte species in Vienna: (A)—Dry grassland in the Lobau (Kontrollerwiese, Donau-Auen National Park), (B)—Oxbow in the Lobau (Mittelwasser, Donau-Auen National Park), (C)—Floodplain at the Donauinsel, (D)—Virgin Forest Johannserkogel (Lainzer Tiergarten, Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald), (E)—Zentralfriedhof (Vienna Central Cemetery, Jewish part), (F)—Flat roof at the Vienna General Hospital (inner districts).
Oxbow lakes in the Lobau and Prater (Figure 3B) are also species-rich sites: although the remnants of the formerly free-flowing Danube no longer have dynamic sections, these almost stagnant waters and their muddy banks, which are often overgrown with reeds, still harbor rare species, including Amblystegium humile, Archidium alternifolium, Campylium polygamum, Fontinalis hypnoides, Riccia warnstorfii, or Ricciocarpos natans.
Also, the loamy soils in the floodplain of the Donauinsel (Figure 3C) are a habitat for bryophytes. During extreme water levels of the Danube, opening the locks to the New Danube is a flood protection measure. A result of these floodings are deposits of loamy sands on the Donauinsel. These are colonized by pioneers of moist soils (e.g., Physcomitrium patens) soon after the water recedes. Subsequently, these soils dry out until the next flood, which often occurs years later. There, a dry grassland flora develops with sometimes rare elements, such as Pterygoneurum lamellatum, Aloina brevirostris, and A. ambigua. Over a length of 21.1 km, the Donauinsel offers a large number of these sites, which are rare throughout Austria.
The area of the Lainzer Tiergarten also offers important habitats, such as deciduous woodlands, litter meadows, wet meadows, meager dry meadows, spring horizons, and streams. Notable is the virgin forest remnant Johannserkogel (Figure 3D), hosting considerable deadwood volumes. Also, the Kaltbründlwiese crisscrossed by (coldwater) streams is rich in bryophytes. Overall, we found more than 100 species in the Lainzer Tiergarten—a high number for an area dominated by beech forests.
The variety concerning pH value in the Wienerwald allows the settlement of diverse soil and rock colonizers among bryophytes. Soil reactions in the Flyschwienerwald vary and range from slightly alkaline (e.g., Hermannskogel or Schutzengelberg area) to comparatively strongly acidic (e.g., in the Steinerne Lahn area) [25]. The streams in the Flyschwienerwald enable the occurrence of species, such as Seligeria pusilla and Blindiadelphus recurvatus, which are rare in the other parts of the Wienerwald. The part of the Wienerwald dominated by carbonate is small and lies southwest of Vienna. One of the rarest finds there was the occurrence of Asterella saccata.
Also, cemeteries and parks are habitats for bryophytes in the city. Of Vienna’s 55 cemeteries, the Zentralfriedhof (Figure 3E) is particularly significant concerning bryophyte diversity. Its Jewish part is especially species-rich (70 species) since it is highly diverse concerning structures. Except for the Botanical Garden, generalist species dominate the city’s parks, most of which are highly stressed by air pollutants due to traffic. But the parks in the west of Vienna often merge smoothly into the Wienerwald and are correspondingly richer in species.
Even the inner city and rooftops are bryophyte habitats (Figure 3F). The inner city of Vienna was studied by Hohenwallner [20,26], and the occurrence of bryophytes on the flat roofs of buildings from the turn of the last century was studied by Zechmeister [27]. More recent investigations on the Vienna General Hospital (Allgemeines Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien) brought further finds [28], such as that of Rhynchostegium megapolitanum. In general, the vegetation of the roof surfaces corresponded in part to that of primary dry grasslands. In total, around 100 bryophyte species were found in the densely built-up area of Vienna. The high species number shows that numerous bryophyte species conquer the inhospitable city without human intervention. They only need the necessary time and adequate structures.

2.4. Biogeographic Elements of Vienna Compared to Austria

The comparison of the bryophyte flora of Vienna concerning biogeographic elements with that of Austria illustrates its diverging nature. The differences concerning the distribution of biogeographic elements are statistically significant (Chi-square test, p < 0.01): Austria has a high proportion of cool-temperate species (1–3 in Figure 4). In Vienna, boreo-temperate species dominate, and no arctic-montane species occur. Vienna’s high proportion of southern-temperate species, which have their center of distribution in the Mediterranean region, is also striking (Figure 4). This distribution of biogeographic elements reflects Vienna’s biogeographical position in the transitional area between the Pannonian and Alpine biogeographical regions. Concerning thermal radiation, Vienna has a (sub)Mediterranean influence. The urban heat island (Figure 5) causes the clustered occurrence of species adapted to a warm climate.
Figure 4. Categorization of taxa to biogeographic elements—comparison of the Austrian bryophyte flora (in green) with the bryophyte flora of Vienna (in yellow). 1—Arctic-montane, 2—Boreo-arctic montane (in tundra and coniferous forest zones); 3—Wide-boreal (from temperate zone to tundra), 4—Boreal-montane (main distribution in coniferous forest zone), 5—Boreo-temperate (in conifer and broadleaf zones), 6—Wide-temperate (from Mediterranean region to coniferous forest zone), 7—Temperate (in broadleaf forest zone), 8—Southern-temperate (in Mediterranean region and broadleaf forest zones), 9—Mediterranean-Atlantic (in Mediterranean region, and extending north in Atlantic zone of temperate Europe); Assessment of species to major biomes following Hill et al. [29]; Y-axis in %.
Figure 5. Precipitation and temperature gradients in Vienna; based on climate data of climate stations (black dots) in Vienna and Lower Austria from 2014–2017.

3. Discussion

The species diversity of bryophytes in Vienna is notable for a metropolis in the Pannonian climate, which is a harsh environment for bryophytes. It has several causes, first and foremost, the high proportion of near-natural landscape elements and protected areas within the urban area. Second, Vienna has an exceptional gradient in precipitation and temperature (Figure 5), which the bryophyte flora reflects. Oceanic influences from the west and Pannonian-continental influences from the east provide very different climatic conditions depending on the location within the city. With an average of 750 mm/year, the west of Vienna has twice as much precipitation as the east of Vienna (350 mm/year). Average temperatures are also approximately 2 °C lower in the west than in the east. Figure 5 also clearly shows an inner-city heat island, which is classic for cities [30,31]. Bryophyte diversity reflects this climatic diversity: for example, there are more Pannonian flora elements in the east and more sub-Atlantic flora elements in the west.

3.1. Comparison of Vienna’s Species Diversity with That of Other Cities

Studies on the species diversity of bryophytes in Austrian cities are available for Linz [32] and Salzburg [33]. For Linz, 319 taxa are known. For Salzburg, 323 taxa currently occur, and if we include all taxa mentioned at some time in history, the number of species is 444. In a sense, these species numbers are similar, even though the area size, the geological conditions, and especially the climate are very different in the three cities of Vienna, Linz, and Salzburg. The loss of species is much greater in Salzburg, with a decline of 27% compared to 14% in Vienna. This loss in species is undoubtedly related to the loss of sites rich in bryophytes (e.g., mires) in Salzburg or poorer historical recordings in Vienna. For the city of Graz, an overall survey is lacking, but a study on the areas of Schlossberg and the Botanical Garden [34] mentions 178 taxa. In a more recent study [35] on soil and rock bryophytes of the city, 70 taxa are listed.
Compared with other European cities, Vienna is thus in the top range: Berlin 385 taxa [36], Regensburg 230 taxa [37], Brussels 232 [38], Belgrade 210 taxa [39], Braunschweig 152 taxa [40], Cologne 143 taxa [39], Trento 136 taxa [41], Enna 80 taxa [42], Szczecin 73 taxa [43].

3.2. Implications for Management and Conservation

Forty-nine species historically known for Vienna were not found in the current surveys. Their loss might have several causes. At the time of the early bryologists, many sites were in villages and communities dominated by agriculture, which were incorporated into the city in the last hundred years (e.g., Roßau, Sievering, Stammersdorf, Floridsdorf). The disappearance of arable bryophytes such as Anthoceros agrestis or Phaeoceros carolinianus is probably due to this. Of course, urban sprawl is also partly to blame for the loss of some species. Wet meadows and fens have disappeared around Vienna. However, a significant impact on species number had the regulation of the Danube and the Wienfluss. On the banks of the unobstructed, markedly branched Danube and its “islands” (Figure 2) were diverse habitats, such as loamy, sandy, or gravelly floodplains. It is thus not surprising that species typical for the banks of large rivers have disappeared with these, such as 4 out of 5 Ephemerum species, Bryum versicolor, Physcomitrium eurystomum, or P. sphaericum.
Also, climate changes over the last 150 years reflect the loss of species that prefer higher humidity or cooler temperatures [44,45,46]. In Vienna, these include Porella arboris-vitae, Ptilium crista-castrensis, or the deadwood colonizer Blepharostoma trichophyllum. For other species, such as Orthotrichum scanicum or Neckera pennata, the influence of climate change is probably closely linked to that of air pollution [47,48,49].
The species lost in Vienna have also become rare in the surrounding area. Of the 49 species that no longer occur in Vienna, 37 are classified as endangered in the Red List of Bryophytes of Lower Austria, 7 as extinct, and 12 as threatened with extinction (e.g., Asterella saccata, Figure 6D). Due to the site characteristics and size of the Donauinsel, the dry grasslands of the Lobau, and the habitats along streams in the Flyschwienerwald, some species are more frequent in Vienna than in neighboring Lower Austria concerning the area and marked with a “!” in Table A1 (Appendix A). These are Acaulon triquetrum (Figure 6A), Aloina rigida, Cephaloziella stellulifera, Dicranella howei, Entosthodon fascicularis (Figure 6E), Microbryum curvicollum (Figure 6F), Physcomitrium patens (Figure 6 C), Pterygoneurum lamellatum, Ricciocarpos natans (Figure 6B), Seligeria pusilla, Blindiadelphus recurvatus, and Mesoptychia turbinata. Vienna, therefore, is highly responsible for the conservation of these.
Figure 6. Rare species for which Vienna has a high responsibility: (A)—Acaulon triquetrum, (B)—Ricciocarpos natans, (C)—Physcomitrium patens, (D)—Asterella saccata, (E)—Entosthodon fascicularis, (F)—Microbryum curvicollum.
Campylopus introflexus, as the only neophytic bryophyte species in Vienna, occurred only regionally and in small populations.
A contribution to the protection of bryophytes is raising awareness that they are a significant part of the biodiversity of a large city and that the best way to protect them is to let them live where they emerge and grow on their own. A garden wall or roof surface overgrown with bryophytes is beautiful and increases biodiversity—not only of the bryophytes but also of microorganisms living in their protection—because each bryophyte cushion is a small microcosm [50]. Attempts to establish bryophytes outside their natural habitat are doomed to failure in Vienna for climatic reasons [51]. Attempting bryophytes for greening purposes on house walls and indoors should therefore be strictly rejected. Unfortunately, against better knowledge, the use of bryophytes in this area is in vogue. This use is associated with the destruction of bryophyte stands and the creatures hidden in them.
As the present data indicate, urban biodiversity is becoming increasingly important. Vienna’s diversity in bryophytes exceeds the species numbers of many cultural landscapes in rural areas [52,53]. Within cities, bryophytes are also indicators of a feel-good climate for people. The high number of boreo-temperate species in Vienna represents a cool–moderate climate that is also digestible for humans [54]. Bryophyte-free areas indicate areas within Vienna dominated by concrete and increasingly inhospitable for humans in the increasing heat and dry summer periods. Bryophyte-rich areas within the city can thus serve as guidelines for future urban planning [55]. In future studies, new bryophyte species will appear in Vienna. We have only recorded bryophytes from publicly accessible areas; further species might occur in old, structurally rich gardens in the suburbs and villa districts, which proved to be rich in species in other studies, e.g., [56].

4. Materials and Methods

For compiling the historical bryophyte flora, the studies of Zechmeister et al. [4,5] were primarily used. They are based on reports of Jacquin (1762, [6]), Welwitsch (1834, [7]), Garovaglio (1840, [8]), Pokorny (1854, [9]), Poetsch (1856, 1859, [10,11]), Reichardt (1858, [12]), Neilreich (1859, [13]), Juratzka (1882, [14]), Höfer (1887, [15]), Höhnel (1891, [16]), Heeg (1892, [17]), Matouschek (1905, [18]), and Onno (1941, [19]). Furthermore, we used site data of Baumgartner (1870–1955) from the archives and the herbarium of the Natural History Museum in Vienna (W), which have not been published so far.
We collected the current bryophyte data in the period between 1998 and 2023. We conducted no area-wide or quadrant-based search. In most cases, we investigated areas that were expected to have a rich bryophyte species assemblage or where we suspected rare species. Some target regions were determined by projects (e.g., on the dry grasslands of the Lobau or the Biosphärenpark Wienerwald, see funding) or were venues of the “Day of Biodiversity” or excursion destinations within the framework of courses held by the two authors at the University of Vienna. We also collected bryophytes during many walks and hikes in Vienna. In general, we recorded only bryophytes in publicly accessible areas.
Furthermore, we included data from diploma theses supervised by the first author [20,26,57,58,59] and from a previously published study of the authors [60].
The nomenclature follows Hodgetts et al. [61]. Endangerment classifications are according to the Red List of Bryophytes of Lower Austria [24]. Specimens of all species are in the private herbarium of H. G. Zechmeister.
The climate data originated from 15 climate stations operated by the municipality of Vienna and the Office of the Provincial Government of Lower Austria. The period of the climate data for the Kriging process covers the years 2014 to 2017. For modeling temperature and precipitation for the area of Vienna (Figure 5), we used the function “Ordinary Kriging” based on the model “spherical” implemented in the ArcGIS (Esri, version 10.8) program. We set the parameters “range”, “nugget”, “lag size”, “number of lags”, “search radius”, and the “number of neighbors” on default.
For the comparison of the biogeographic elements, we used a Chi-Square Test (p < 0.01) in the program SPSS (version 22.0).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.G.Z.; methodology, H.G.Z.; formal analysis, H.G.Z. and M.K.; investigation, H.G.Z. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, H.G.Z.; writing—review and editing, M.K.; visualization, H.G.Z. and M.K.; project administration, H.G.Z.; funding acquisition, H.G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Parts of this study were funded by the following projects: Study on the occurrence of bryophyte species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive and a random survey of the bryophyte flora on Vienna city territory (MA 22-2400/2008); Study on the bryophyte vegetation of the dry grasslands in the Donau-Auen National Park (Donau-Auen National Park GmbH); Evidence collection and biodiversity monitoring in the core zones of the Biosphärenpark Wienerwald (Biosphärenpark Wienerwald Management GmbH). Open Access Funding by the University of Vienna.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank all those who contributed to the realization of the projects mentioned above, the organizers of the “Tag der Artenvielfalt” for their invitations, the Viennese winegrowers for their extraordinary wines, and all Viennese for their spontaneous condolences at the sight of bryologists kneeling at work. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. List of species found in Vienna—nomenclature according to the Checklist of Bryophytes of Europe [61]; P: Phylum of bryophytes: A—Anthoceratophyta (hornworts), B—Bryophyta (mosses), M—Marchantiophyta (liverworts); O: occurrences: h—historical occurrence, n/h—current and historical occurrences, n—species for which there are no records in the historical literature. We found them during the current surveys, and they are published here for the first time; RL—Red List (according to the Red List of Bryophytes of Lower Austria [24]): R: !: responsibility of the city of Vienna for the respective bryophyte species; F—frequency: vr—very rare (1–2 current occurrences), r—rare (3–5 current occurrences), s—scattered (4–10 current occurrences), w—widespread (more than 10 current occurrences); locality: the locality is amended by information on the habitat, if available; when there are only historical reports of a species, we added the source.

References

  1. Wien.gv.at. Öffentlich Zugängliche Grünflächen. 2023. Available online: https://www.wien.gv.at/umweltschutz/umweltgut/oeffentlich.html#:~:text=Es%20gibt%2012.600%20Hektar%20%C3%B6ffentliches,n%C3%A4chstgelegene%20%C3%B6ffentlich%20zug%C3%A4nglichen%20Gr%C3%BCnfl%C3%A4che%20entfernt (accessed on 12 May 2023).
  2. Nationalpark Donau-Auen. Map of the Danube National Park. 2023. Available online: https://www.donauauen.at/besuchen/allgemein/willkommen (accessed on 17 August 2023).
  3. BPWW. Borders of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald. 2021. Available online: https://www.bpww.at/sites/default/files/download_files/BPWW_Karte_Zonierung_2021.jpg (accessed on 17 August 2023).
  4. Zechmeister, H.G.; Hohenwallner, D.; Humer, K. Historische Moosflora von Wien. Teil 2: Laubmoose (Musci). Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1998, 135, 353–379. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zechmeister, H.G.; Humer, K.; Hohenwallner, D. Historische Moosflora von Wien. Teil 1: Leber- und Hornmoose (Hepaticae, Anthocerotae). Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1998, 135, 343–351. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jacquin, N.J. Enumeratio Stirpium Plerarumque, Quae Sponte Crescunt in Agro Vindobonensi, Montibusque Confinibus; Josephi Kurtzböck: Vindobonae, Austria, 1762; p. 322. [Google Scholar]
  7. Welwitsch, F. Systematische Aufzählung der Faren und Moose von Unterösterreich. Beiträge Zur Landeskd. Osterr. Unter Enns 1834, 4, 173–273. [Google Scholar]
  8. Garovaglio, S. Enumeratio Muscorum Omnium in Austria Inferiore Huc Usque Lectorum Adjecta Indicatione Loci Eorum Natalis, et Temporis, quo Fructum Ferunt; Klopf: Vienna, Austria, 1840; p. 58. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pokorny, A. Vorarbeiten zur Kryptogamenflora von Unter-Österreich. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1854, 4, 35–168. [Google Scholar]
  10. Poetsch, J.S. Beitrag zur Mooskunde Niederösterreichs. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1856, 6, 355–362. [Google Scholar]
  11. Poetsch, J.S. Neue Beiträge zur Kryptogamenflora Nieder-Österreichs. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1859, 9, 127–138. [Google Scholar]
  12. Reichardt, H.W. Beitrag zur Moosflora von Unterösterreich. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Osterr. 1858, 8, 105–107. [Google Scholar]
  13. Neilreich, A. Flora von Niederösterreich; Carl Gerolds Sohn: Vienna, Austria, 1859; p. 444. [Google Scholar]
  14. Juratzka, J. Die Laubmoosflora von Oesterreich-Ungarn; Zoologisch-botanische Gesellschaft: Vienna, Austria, 1882; p. 385. [Google Scholar]
  15. Höfer, F. Beitrag zur Kryptogamenflora von Nieder-Österreich. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1887, 37, 379–380. [Google Scholar]
  16. Höhnel, F. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der österreichischen Moosflora. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Osterr. 1891, 41, 739–740. [Google Scholar]
  17. Heeg, M. Die Lebermoose Niederösterreichs. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1892, 43, 63–148. [Google Scholar]
  18. Matouschek, F. Bryologisch-Floristische Mitteilungen aus Niederösterreich mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Moosflora von Seitenstetten und Umgebung. Jahresber. K.K. Staatsgymnasiums Reichenberg 1905, 33, 3–36. [Google Scholar]
  19. Onno, M. Vegetationsreste und ursprüngliche Pflanzendecke des westlichen Wiener Stadtgebietes. Feddes Rep. Beih. 1941, 126, 53–127. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hohenwallner, D.; Zechmeister, H.G. Factors influencing bryophyte species richness and populations in urban environments: A case study. Nova Hedwig. 2001, 73, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. MA18 & MA41. Grün und Freiflächen 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/grundlagen/stadtforschung/karten/images/gruenlandnutzung-gr.jpg (accessed on 4 August 2023).
  22. Vasquez-Pinas von Löwenthal, C. Karte von Wien um 1830. 2023. Available online: http://www.wien.gv.at/kultur/kulturgut/karten/vasquez/index.html (accessed on 13 May 2023).
  23. Garrard, G.E.; Williams, N.S.G.; Mata, L.; Thomas, J.; Bekessy, S.A. Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Zechmeister, H.G.; Hagel, H.; Gendo, A.; Osvaldik, V.; Patek, M.; Prinz, M.; Schröck, C.; Köckinger, H. Die Rote Liste der Moose Niederösterreichs. Wiss. Mitt. Des Niederösterr. Landesmus. 2013, 24, 7–126. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wien.gv.at. Map of Soil Properties. 2023. Available online: https://www.wien.gv.at/umweltgut/public/grafik.aspx?bookmark=Bvw5Rqu18kVGqw9GXUS6RTnC-cs6-crOsX3Z-cJ1e1MUefKgBvT4ZhfLe5LkOsx2j82GzKAjicmoMa5iAlQPw-b-b (accessed on 17 August 2023).
  26. Hohenwallner, D.; Zechmeister, H.G. Bemerkenswerte Moosfunde der Wiener Innenstadt. Linz. Biol. Beiträge 2001, 33, 295–298. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zechmeister, H.G. Die Vegetation auf Flachdächern von Großbauten aus der Jahrhundertwende. Tüxenia 1992, 12, 307–314. [Google Scholar]
  28. Burgstaller, H.; Hübl, W.; Zechmeister, H.G. Die spontane Vegetation der Dachgärten des Wiener Allgemeinen Krankenhauses. Braunschw. Geobot. Arb. 2015, 11, 321–377. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill, M.O.; Preston, C.D.; Bosanquet, S.D.S.; Roy, D.B. BRYOATT; Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Huntingdon, UK, 2007; p. 88. [Google Scholar]
  30. Oke, T.R. Urban Climates; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; p. 519. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Y.; Fang, X.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Luan, Q. Assessment of surface urban heat island across China’s three main urban agglomerations. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2018, 133, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Zechmeister, H.G.; Tribsch, A.; Hohenwallner, D. Die Moosflora von Linz und ihre Bedeutung für die Bioindikation. Nat. Jahrb. Stadt Linz. 2002, 48, 111–191. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gruber, R.G. Die Moosflora der Stadt Salzburg und ihr Wandel im Zeitraum von 130 Jahren. Stapfia 2001, 79, 3–155. [Google Scholar]
  34. Teutsch, S. Erfassung und Auswertung der Moosflora des Schloßberg-Areals und des Botanischen Gartens der Karl-Franzens-Universität in Graz. Master’s Thesis, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz, Austria, 2010; p. 115. [Google Scholar]
  35. Geissberger, M. Moose in Graz und ihre Rolle als Klima- und Luftverbesserer. Master’s Thesis, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, Graz, Austria, 2019; p. 93. [Google Scholar]
  36. Müller-Doblies, D. Die Moose von Berlin und Montpellier: Ein statistischer Vergleich zwischen mitteleuropäischem und mediterranem Florengebiet am Beispiel zweier Lokalfloren. Verh. Bot. Ver. Prov. Brandenbg. 1977, 112, 73–102. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dürhammer, O. Bestand und Wandel der Moosflora von Regensburg auf der Grundlage einer Feinrasterkartierung. Hoppea 1995, 56, 117–342. [Google Scholar]
  38. Vanderpoorten, A. A Bryological Survey of the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium). Scr. Bot. Belg. 1997, 14, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sabovljevic, M.; Sabovljevic, A. Biodiversity within urban areas: A case study on bryophytes of the city of Cologne (NRW, Germany). Plant Biosyst. 2009, 143, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Schrader, H.-J. Die Moosflora von Braunschweig. Limprichtia 1994, 2, 1–260. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pokorny, L.; Lara, F.; Mazimpaka, V. The bryophyte flora of the city of Trento (North Italy). Cryptogam. Bryol. 2006, 27, 265–284. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lo Giudice, R.; Mazimpaka, V.; Lara, F. The urban bryophyte flora of the city of Enna (Sicily, Italy). Nova Hedwig. 1997, 64, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Fudali, E. Species diversity and spacial distribution of bryophytes in urban areas—A case study of the city of Szczecin. Fragm. Florist. Geobot. 1994, 39, 563–570. [Google Scholar]
  44. Habibullah, M.S.; Din, B.H.; Tan, S.H. Impact of climate change on biodiversity loss: Global evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 1073–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Pacifici, M.; Foden, W.; Visconti, P.; Watson, J.E.M.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Kovacs, K.M.; Scheffers, B.R.; Hole, D.G.; Martin, T.G.; Akçakaya, H.R.; et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Zechmeister, H.G.; Kropik, M.; Popovtschak, M.; Scharrer-Liska, G. Bryophytes in a latrine as indicators of climate change in the 17th century. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 2019, 28, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Swart, R.; Amann, M.; Raes, F.; Tuinstra, W. A good climate for clean air: Linkages between climate change and air pollution. An editorial essay. Clim. Change 2004, 66, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Zechmeister, H.G.; Dirnböck, T.; Hülber, K.; Mirtl, M. Assessing airborne pollution effects on bryophytes—Lessons learned through long-term integrated monitoring in Austria. Environ. Pollut. 1987, 147, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  49. Hansen, K.M.; Geels, C.; Brandt, J.; Andersen, B.; Baklanov, A.; Christensen, J.H.; Christensen, O.B.; Ellermann, T.; Engardt, M.; Foltescu, V.; et al. Interaction between Climate Change, Air Pollution and Related Impacts; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2008; p. 76. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zechmeister, H.G.; Kropik, M. Vom Nutzen der Moose. In Moosflora von Österreich; Berg, C., Köckinger, H., Kropik, M., Pöltl, M., Schröck, C., Zechmeister, H.G., Eds.; 2025; in press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pont, U.; Heiduk, E.; Zechmeister, H.G.; Schmidt, S.; Gätz, J.; Moser, D.; Zmelik, K.; Wolosiuk, D.; Schuss, M.; Sustr, C.; et al. BE-MO-FA. Sondierung für die Entwicklung von moosbewachsenen Gebäudefassadenpaneelen. In Berichte aus Energie- und Umweltforschung; Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie: Vienna, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zechmeister, H.G.; Tribsch, A.; Moser, D.; Peterseil, J. Biodiversity ‘hot-spots’ for bryophytes in landscapes dominated by agriculture in Austria. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 94, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Zechmeister, H.G.; Schmitzberger, I.; Steurer, B.; Peterseil, J.; Wrbka, T. The influence of land-use practices and economics on plant species richness in meadows. Biol. Conserv. 2003, 114, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Gibney, G.; McDermott, T.K.J.; Cullinan, J. Temperature, morbidity, and behavior in milder climates. Econ. Model. 2023, 118, 1873–6122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Kabisch, N.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; Bonn, A. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; p. 342. [Google Scholar]
  56. Szűcs, P. The bryophyte richness and diversity of Tamás Pócs’s private domestic garden. Acta Biol. Plant. Agriensis 2023, 11, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Humer-Hochwimmer, K.; Zechmeister, H.G. Die epiphytischen Moose im Wienerwald auf Wiener Stadtgebiet und ihre Bedeutung für die Bioindikation von Luftschadstoffen. Limprichtia 2001, 18, 1–99. [Google Scholar]
  58. Jakovljev, Z.; Sabovljevic, M.; Zechmeister, H.G. Contribution to the bryophyte flora of Donau-Auen National Park (Austria). Folia Cryptogam. Est. 2009, 45, 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  59. Osvaldik, V. Diversität der Moose des Wiener Zentralfriedhofs—Alter Jüdischer Teil. Diploma Thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, 2018; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zechmeister, H.G.; Kropik, M. Die Moosflora des Nationalparks Donau-Auen. Nat. Mitt. Landesmus. Niederösterreich 2022, 32, 151–182. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hodgetts, N.G.; Söderström, L.; Blockeel, T.L.; Caspari, S.; Ignatov, M.-S.; Konstantinova, N.A.; Lockhart, N.; Papp, B.; Schröck, C.; Sim-Sim, M.; et al. An annotated checklist of bryophytes of Europe, Macaronesia and Cyprus. J. Bryol. 2020, 42, 1–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Förster, J.B. Beiträge zur Moosflora von Niederösterreich und Westungarn. Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 1881, 30, 233–250. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.