Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0250003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250003

Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands

Karel Prach 1,2,*, Karol Ujházy 3, Vlastimil Knopp 3, Josef Fanta 4
Editor: RunGuo Zang5
PMCID: PMC8084203  PMID: 33914751

Abstract

There are not many sites in densely populated temperate Europe where primary forest succession has a chance to run without direct human intervention for a long time and over a relatively large area. The extensive drift sand area of the Veluwe, central Netherlands, provided an opportunity to study succession in a formerly open and dynamic inland sand dune system combining chronosequence and permanent plot approaches. Different successional stages, aged up to 205 years since the first tree individuals established, were identified and vegetation studied using 1200 permanent plots established in 1988 in three adjacent sand dune complexes of different successional age, and resampled during the past three decades. After two centuries, forest succession has proceeded to a pine forest with gradually increasing participation of native deciduous trees. However, their expansion has been arrested by browsing of wild ungulates. Species diversity peaked after about 40 years of forest succession, then declined, and increased again after 100 years. During the past three decades, the herb layer has differentiated in the oldest plots, and the spontaneous forest succession is still in progress. Besides open drift sand with early successional stages, also the spontaneously established late successional forests are valuable from the conservation point of view.

Introduction

Dunes cover about 7% of the terrestrial surface of the Earth but only a small portion is still active. Natural stabilization of dunes can be caused both by abiotic (geomorphologic barriers, changes in wind directions) and biotic factors (ongoing succession). Both types of factors usually operate in concert [1]. Moreover, humans have intentionally stabilized many dunes, either by creating artificial barriers or by planting or seeding mostly trees and shrubs to speed up natural stabilization [2]. When dunes become stable, succession usually accelerates, but some dunes may remain unstable for thousands of years.

Dunes have been central to the development of early ideas of succession [3, 4]. Since that time, various sand dunes have been studied in many parts of the world, belonging to the best examples of spontaneous primary succession (see summarised information in [59]). The majority of studies has dealt with succession in coastal dunes [5]. An overview of the development of NW European coastal dunes and their vegetation was already published [10]. However, many studies of dunes do not directly incorporate succession. They rely on a toposequence approach, where physical features (dune swales, dune ridges, distance from shoreline) become substitutes for time [11]. Resulting insights must be used with caution because often only weak relations to real successional age exist [9]. In sand dune systems, succession usually starts in different parts at different times owing to differential dune stabilization and other topographic factors [12]. Succession is usually divergent, or multiple successional pathways are followed [13] but not always. In contrast to most studies, we earlier found a rather uniform course of forest succession over a nearly entire inland sand dune system [14, 15]. In temperate Europe, succession on sand dunes usually proceeds to woodland. Occasionally, invasive alien species may establish and then some measures controlling them may be desired [5, 9].

There are not many sites in densely populated temperate Europe where primary succession has a chance to run nearly without human intervention for a long time and over a relatively large area. The extensive drift sand area of the Veluwe in central Netherlands provided an opportunity to study succession from a formerly open and active inland sand dune system to a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) forest [14, 15]. In the Netherlands, with extensive strips of coastal dunes, attention used to be mostly directed to these [13, 1618] while inland dunes received less interest in the past. Earlier, the prevailing effort in various parts of Europe was to stop sand dune movement to protect arable land, pastures, roads and settlements [19]. Extensive artificial pine afforestation accelerated in the 19th century in the studied area and elsewhere in NW Europe [20]. Currently, after the extent of active sand-blown areas has largely diminished [21], nature conservation often tries to stop further stabilization of sand dunes or even to restore their active movement with various forms of restoration management [22]. Also elsewhere in Europe, some inland dune ecosystems are actively being restored for their specialized flora and fauna [23, 24]. There are nowadays especially attempts to maintain high-biodiversity open habitats requiring continued, intense human intervention in the landscape by artificial mechanical disturbances, reintroduction of grazing, and reducing nitrogen and organic matter levels (e.g. [25]). This is also the case in the studied area, with the last sites of sand-blown dunes, which used to be rather limited in extent but later slightly restored by mechanical disturbance. However, a more advanced forest succession means more effort to restore active sand dunes. The habitat of open sand represents one of the endangered Natura 2000 habitats [26], but also spontaneously developed, late successional sand dune forests may have conservation value and may represent a more natural way of afforestation than the artificial planting which is still being practiced in various sand dune areas [27]. Consequently, we also attempted to formulate some conclusions which can be potentially used for nature conservation and forest restoration.

We asked the following main questions: (a) What is the course of forest succession over the two centuries? (b) How has the forest vegetation in permanent plots changed in the past three decades? (c) How has the species diversity changed during the course of forest succession? (d) How much do native deciduous woody species establish in successional pine forests?

Material and methods

Study sites

The plots studied were located in the Hulshorsterzand and the Leuvenumse Bos Nature Reserves owned and managed by Natuurmonumenten, a Dutch NGO for nature conservation, near the town of Harderwijk, in the northern part of the Veluwe region in central Netherlands at an altitude between 9 and 24 m a.s.l. Natuurmonumenten kindly agreed with our research. The climate is temperate humid. The mean annual temperature is 9.4°C, and the annual rainfall is about 820 mm [28].

The entire region was markedly affected by fluvial and glacial processes in the past (details described in [12]). During the Holocene period, the whole landscape became covered by closed-canopy forest, and deep podzol soils developed. Mixed forests with Quercus robur, Betula spp. and Pinus sylvestris dominated the area; Fagus sylvatica became a dominant species, at least locally, later in the Holocene [29, 30]. The forests started to be largely influenced by human activities, especially by grazing of domestic animals and cutting, as early as about 2800 BC. Heathland is reported to have been present over a large area around 700 AD, replacing the declining forest. In the Middle Ages, after 1250 AD, the heathland was mostly destroyed by overgrazing, and the sand became active again. In the first half of the 19th century, intensive sheep grazing started to decrease and the forest gradually expanded by both spontaneous establishment and planting (for details on the history of the area, see [2, 12, 31]).

Different successional stages of up to 175 years since dune stabilisation, indicated by establishment of pines, were identified there in the late 1980s [14, 15]. Succession in the inland dunes in the Veluwe region was preliminarily described by [14], who showed the main trends in vegetation and soil development. Vegetation was assessed in detail by [15]. Some vegetation analyses were repeated after 15 [32, 33] and 30 years (this study). Changes in soil development, and effects of soil characteristics, organic matter and nutrient fixation on plants during primary succession were described in details by [34].

Field methods

Three large adjacent permanent plots (A, B, C) of 200 × 200 m in size, were established in 1988. One was located in one of the remaining partly active sand-blown areas (A), while the remaining two were established in two differently aged closed forests covering former sand-blown sites (B and C). Coordinates of the centres of the research plots are: A– 52°20’43.5"N, 5°43’41.9"E; B– 52°20’38.2"N, 5°43’58.8"E; C– 52°19’26.9"N, 5°41’48.6"E. Vegetation in the plots established spontaneously and has not been evidently influenced directly by human activities. We have also tried to include into the plots proportionally all the geomorphological units distinguished, and to avoid sites of uncertain history. The size of 200 × 200 m was sufficient to encompass the diverse geomorphology [2]. Each plot was permanently marked at 50 m intervals by means of concrete pillars and buried metal marks. Each of the plots was subdivided into a grid consisting of 10 × 10 m subplots, resulting into 400 subplots per plot. All the subplots were sampled by making phytosociological relevés in 1988 (in all three large plots), 2003 (only herb layer) and 2018 (only plot C because the other ones had been partly disturbed in the meantime). The cover of all vascular plants, the dominant moss, characteristic for sandy substrates, Polytrichum piliferum, and the cover of bare substrate and litter were estimated using an ordinal scale 1–9 [35]. The cover of herb, shrub, and tree layers was visually estimated in percentage. The following mapping units were a priori distinguished based on dominant species of the herb layer, and a posteriori fully confirmed by the TWINSPAN analysis [33]: 1. Ammophila arenaria and/or Festuca arenaria; 2. Corynephorus canescens, locally accompanied by Polytrichum piliferum; 3. Festuca ovina locally accompanied by Agrostis vinealis; 4. Deschampsia flexuosa; 5. Empetrum nigrum; 6. Vaccinium myrtillus; 7. V. vitis-idaea; 8. Other species with low occurrence (Calluna vulgaris, Molinia caerulea); 9. No vegetation (bare sand or locally tree litter). The units were mapped in each subplot, then vegetation maps of the entire plots were constructed [33].

The following relief types (geomorphological units) were mapped in each subplot (abbreviations used hereafter are in brackets): Plain (P)–flat area with fluvio-glacial deposits where drift sand was blown out and fine-sized gravel remained; Low dunes (LD)–small accumulations of sand up to ca 1.5 m high; High and steep dunes (HD); Plateau dunes (PD) with the fossil horizon at or near the surface; and Wet-level areas (WL) with a high ground water table [15].

The age of selected (107) individuals of Pinus sylvestris throughout the plots was estimated using a Pressler wood-core auger in 1988. The cores were taken as close to the ground as possible, and the number of tree rings counted used as an environmental variable closely related to length of succession (Age). In each distinct patch obviously homogenous in its vegetation structure, thus of the same expected age, several of the probably oldest specimens were probed. If no tree was cored in a particular subplot, the average tree age in the patch was assigned to the subplot. The age range of the sampled pine trees was as follows (data related to 1988, when the trees were sampled): Plot A 1–40 years; Plot B 30–112; Plot C 110–175. This means that the oldest subplots analysed in 2018 were 205 years old. For details on methods, see [32, 33]. (Note: it must be emphasised that the age of pines cannot be directly considered as equal to successional age because herbal vegetation usually established prior to the pines and obviously existed for a very variable length of time, which becomes shorter with decreasing extent of the active sand-blown area.)

Data analysis

Vegetation relevés were entered into the TurboVeg database [36] and processed by the JUICE programme including previous transformation of the ordinal values into mean respective cover values [37]. Average percentage cover values (including zero values–Barkman’s TCV calculated in the JUICE programme [37]) from all 400 relevés, and frequencies, based on the number of subplots in which the species occurred.

Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) was applied using CANOCO 5.0 [38] after logarithmic transformation of the cover values. The length of the gradient was 4.4 SD units. A matrix of 1600 samples (10 × 10 m) and 59 species (58 taxa of vascular plants and Polytrichum piliferum) was used for the ordination analysis. Woody species occurring in multiple layers were combined into a single one in the JUICE programme. Environmental factors (successional age, relief types) and some community properties (vascular plant species number–SR, Shannon-Wiener species diversity–H’) were used as additionally plotted passive variables [39]. Percentage proportion of each relief type and percentage of bare sand within a subplot were set as numeric environmental variables. Pearson coefficients of linear correlation between environmental variables and the first axis scores of the DCA as well as their significances were calculated in the Statistica ® programme.

Direct influence of environmental variables (year of sampling, successional forest age, relief type and their interactions), on the herb layer composition was tested using a set of 400 subplots of plot C (resampled 1988, 2003, 2018) with the Monte-Carlo permutation test within the partial Redundancy Analysis (RDA) ordination. The linear type of gradient analysis was used since the gradient length was 2.9 SD units. Permutations were restricted according to the following sampling design: i) for the rectangular grid (400 subplots) to avoid effects of spatial autocorrelation, and ii) for assignment of the resampled subplot (subplot number was set as covariable).

Species response curves for the main woody species were also calculated in CANOCO using Generalized additive models (GAM) based on use of a smooth semi-parametric term [38]. They were produced separately for their participation (percentage cover in the subplots) in the herb layer (seedlings or saplings up to 0.5 m in height) and in the combined shrub and tree layer (the combined cover values being calculated following [40]) using plots and years when all layers were sampled (A 1988, B 1988, C 1988 and C 2018).

Species diversity (the Shannon-Wiener index) in each of the subplots was plotted against successional age, and significance of the relationship fitted by a third degree (cubic) polynomial function was calculated in the Statistica ® programme. The data based on mapping, i.e. the pattern of vegetation units over the plots A, B and C, were vectorised in ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Because vegetation maps of plots A and B were already published earlier [32, 33], we only present here the maps from the recently (2018) repeated plot C to visualize successional changes in the late successional forest stands. However, the total areas covered by particular mapping units (in %) in the respective sampling years were calculated for all the plots (A, B and C).

Results

Altogether, 65 taxa of vascular plants including 22 woody species were recorded in the studied succession. Six of the woody species were alien species, three of which reached some abundance: Pseudotsuga menziesii and Quercus rubra with negligible cover, more frequently Prunus serotina with low cover values locally exceeding 5%. Three other aliens occurred only very incidentally (see S1 Table). The cover values and frequencies of each recorded species in plots A, B and C are presented in the summarizing S1 Table. The primary data are deposited in Zenodo (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250003).

The successional changes during the whole considered period of ca 200 years, based on the complete set of vegetation relevés, are clearly visible in the ordination diagram presented in Fig 1 (see also Figs 24). The first ordination (DCA) axis well reflects successional age (correlation between sample scores and age: r = 0.92, p < 0.001) and is negatively correlated with bare sand proportion which reached the highest percentages in the early successional stages of plot A (r = -0.88; p < 0.001). Correlations with other geomorphological units were low. Species richness and diversity increased with age, i.e., increased along the first axis. The differences between the plots A, B and C are clear, as well as the shift of plot C between the sampling years of 1988 and 2018. The succession seems to be divergent at the beginning, when high dunes and plains differ in colonisation by the first species (Ammophila arenaria and Festuca arenaria vs. Polytrichum piliferum, Festuca ovina and Agrostis vinealis)–see the passively projected variables of the relief types. Then the succession appeared to be convergent when a closed-canopy pine forest established while bare sand gradually decreased as succession advanced. The ordination of species (those with the highest weight are displayed) well reflects a successional sequence of dominants and co-dominants during succession. It started with Ammophila arenaria occurring on high dunes, being followed by Corynephorus canescens dominating nearly everywhere, and the already mentioned Polytrichum piliferum, Festuca ovina, and Agrostis vinealis prevailing especially on plains. Establishment of P. sylvestris is a crucial point in succession. This species has a central role and kept its position until the end of the observed period, being accompanied by some other woody species. Fagus sylvatica appeared to be the most successful among the native deciduous trees. In the herb layer, Deschampsia flexuosa dominated at first, being gradually replaced by Empetrum nigrum, Vaccinium myrtillus, and V. vitis-idaea. (See also Supporting Information).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Biplot of DCA with samples classified (and outlined by envelopes) according to plot assignment (A, B or C) and year of sampling, and species with the highest weight (layers of woody species were combined into a single one). Percentage cover values were transformed with a logarithmic function. Eigenvalues of the first two axes were 0.727 and 0.211; total inertia 4.789. Vectors of supplementary variables are shown in the upper right corner: P–Plain; LD–Low dunes; HD–High dunes; PD–Plateau dunes; SR–Species richness; H’–Species diversity of vascular plants; Age–successional age; Year–year of sampling.

Fig 2. Different successional stages at the youngest plot A in 2015.

Fig 2

Photo by K. Prach.

Fig 4. Part of plot C with the oldest (ca. 200 years) pines and deciduous trees, mostly beech (Fagus sylvatica) in 2015.

Fig 4

Photo by K. Ujházy.

Fig 3. A rather monotonous pine forest at plot B in 2010.

Fig 3

Photo by K. Ujházy.

In the partial RDA ordination, the Monte-Carlo permutation test demonstrated highly significant influence of year of sampling, age of the trees, relief types (especially plateau dunes and plains) and their interactions with age (S2 Table) on the overall vegetation composition. The relief types, used as passive variables in the DCA and plotted in the ordination diagram (Fig 1), indicate that high dunes were important in the initial successional stages, whereas plateau dunes and plains caused differentiation of species composition in later development.

Changes in species diversity are presented in Fig 5. It generally increased (see also the passively projected community variable in Fig 1). After the moment when a close pine stand established, there was a slight decline culminating at about 100 years after the establishment of the first pines, i.e. in the time of high dominance of Deschampsia flexuosa. Later, the diversity increased again, as other woody and herb species increased in abundance (Fig 5). In a detailed view, the average number of species per subplot changed as follows: Plot A, 1988–2.3; Plot B, 1988–7.1; Plot C, 1988–5.5; 2003–7.4; 2018–10.8. The average number of species in Plot C doubled during the past three decades. Small-scale diversification of the herb layer vegetation in later successional stages in Plot C is evident from this increasing average number of species per subplot, while the total number of species did not change substantially between the years of observation: 1988–31; 2003–39; 2018–35.

Fig 5. Relationship between vascular plant species diversity (H’: Shannon-Wiener index) and successional age in 100 m2 plots.

Fig 5

Fitted by 3rd polynomial function (black solid line: r = 0.719; p < 0.001) with 95% confidence interval (black dashed lines). Symbol colors correspond to those used in Fig 1 for plots and years of sampling.

The successional pattern of woody species is presented in Fig 6, separately for the combined shrub and tree layer and the herb layer, where the species occurred in the form of seedlings or small saplings. It was evident that after the strong early dominance of Pinus sylvestris, some broadleaved trees had a chance to establish, especially Fagus sylvatica and probably also Ilex aquifolium, which is indicated by its high occurrence in the herb layer in the last year of observation (2018).

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Response curves of woody species in the combined tree and shrub layer (a; up) and for woody species in the herb layer (b; down). Percentage cover values estimated in 100 m2 plots were used as a response variable and the Poisson distribution was set using a GAM model. Names of species are abbreviated as follows: Bet. p.–Betula pendula; Fag. s.–Fagus sylvatica; Ile. a.–Ilex aquifolium; Pin. s.–Pinus sylvestris; Pru. s.–Prunus serotina; Que. r.–Quercus robur; Rha. f.–Rhamnus frangula.

Vegetation maps of the herb layer in plot C recorded in 1988, 2003 and 2018 are presented in Fig 7. The average cover of all the mapped units over all the sampling years is summarised in Table 1, where the successional changes, corresponding to the results of the ordination described above, are clearly evident: all units representing open vegetation gradually disappeared while the units representing a typical forest herb layer established, at first dominated by Deschampsia flexuosa. Between the years, there is an obvious increase in the cover of the units dominated by Vaccinium myrtillus and V. vitis-idaea in the oldest plot C, while the mapping unit dominated by Empetrum nigrum locally fragmented in favor of the former two species, similarly as the unit dominated by Deschampsia flexuosa. It is obvious that the herb layer has diversified during the past three decades (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Repeated vegetation maps of the successional pine forest in plot C (200 × 200 m).

Fig 7

Vegetation types were delimited according to the dominant species of the herb layer. The sampling grid of 10 × 10 m subplots is shown.

Table 1. Percentages of vegetation types (mapping units) in plots (A, B, C) in sampling years (1988, 2003, 2018).

–missing data; 0.0 negligible values.

Plot/year A/88 A/03 B/88 B/03 C/88 C/03 C/18
No vegetation 71.5 44.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 6.9
Ammophila arenaria-Festuca arenaria 4.4 5.2
Corynephorus canescens 17.6 38.9 6.1 2.7
Festuca ovina-Agrostis vinealis 3.7 9.1 18.0 6.7
Deschampsia flexuosa 1.5 0.9 73.7 83.1 81.4 71.9 53.2
Empetrum nigrum 0.0 2.0 6.6 18.4 21.8 18.3
Vaccinium myrtillus 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.8 14.7
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 1.5 6.8
Other types 1.30 1.30 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.10
Average cover of E1 species 8.5 26.7 64.3 84.7 55.3 75.4 60.6
Average cover of E2+E3 species 7.4 8.1 41.8 40.5 52.0

Discussion

During two centuries, an acidophilous pine forest with a typical herb layer [41] has developed by spontaneous succession. The frequency of late successional deciduous woody species gradually increased but only in the past several decades. However, they still reach a rather low dominance especially in the tree layer, despite their earlier abundance in the seedling stage [15]. The primary forest succession described here represents one of the oldest forest chronosequences in Europe proceeding from bare ground without any direct human interference evident. However, the earlier intentionally increasing numbers of deer and wild boar in the whole area can be regarded an indirect human influence [42]. We observed especially broadleaved woody species to be browsed in all the plots, especially their seedlings and saplings. We expect that without this impact, the pine forest, dominating in the area for two centuries, would today probably be substituted by mixed woodland with a higher dominance of broadleaves, especially by Quercus robur and Fagus sylvatica. Also other deciduous trees could potentially contribute, as is evident by their increasing presence during the second century of succession especially as seedlings and small saplings in Fig 6. Thus, wild herbivorous ungulates probably only slow the succession down towards the prevailing deciduous trees. Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur were expected to form a terminal (or climax) woodland in this area [29], similarly to other parts of the northwestern European lowlands [30, 43, 44]. Beech seems to be more vigorous in our study plots than oak and actually dominates in remnants of natural forest in the Veluwe area. Similar evidence is reported from other regions of sandy glacial deposits of the North European Plain [45, 46], where beech has successfully spread to both pine and oak forests. The limited regeneration and competitive ability of oak compared to beech is largely a consequence of preferred browsing, as was proved by a fencing experiment in the neighboring part of the Veluwe region [47].

Dunes are considered susceptible to invasion by alien plants because of their high level of disturbance and usually open vegetation character [48, 49]. Although some woody aliens are present, higher participation and invasion are not yet evident in unmanaged parts, which is a positive message for nature conservancy. Only Prunus serotina seems to have a high invasion potential as reported from similar environmental conditions elsewhere [50] and may pose some threat in the future even in the area under study. However, we observed its being browsed intensively.

Early successional species are represented by sand dune specialists occurring on still unstabilized sand [51], such as Ammophila arenaria and Festuca arenaria in our case. Corynephorus canescens can grow in initial successional stages on both dunes and flat fluvio-glacial plains between the dunes. When the species forms some cover, there is a chance for pines to establish. However, pines can massively establish only if late spring and early summer are sufficiently wet, otherwise seedlings die by drought [34]. This may explain the time gaps, evident from Fig 5, when forest stages of some ages are missing. Prior to this crucial step in sand dune succession, i.e. pine establishment, the successional development can be arrested or returned to an earlier stage by accumulation or deflation of the sand. The average time between completely bare ground and the establishment of the fist pine was roughly estimated by extrapolation to some 50 years [15] Consequently, the entire succession is approximately this time longer than quantified in this paper. Still we can speak of well-dated forest succession.

After this moment, i.e. the establishment of the first pines, succession runs towards a closed-canopy pine forest, its herb layer first dominated by Deschampsia flexuosa. The species dominates in a period of ca 40–130 years of forest succession, representing a uniform successional stage which masks the different starting times of succession over the relief types. Later on, regarding relief types, some differentiation can be seen in the stage of dwarf shrubs. Particularly Empetrum nigrum preferably expands on relatively moist plateau dunes and the northern slopes of high dunes, Vaccinium myrtillus is typical of mesic sites and V. vitis-idaea of dry fluvio-glacial plains. The rather simple direction of the succession is illustrated by the fact that it could roughly be described using only 13 properly localized phytosociological relevés in the earlier pilot study [14]. Our analysis using 2800 relevés confirmed the main earlier expectations of the course of succession. However, the rapid expansion of Vaccinium dwarf shrubs in pine stands older than 120 years was not predicted in the time of the first brief survey. A similar sequence of dwarf shrub expansion was described from successional forest development in abandoned heathlands in Denmark [52].

In homogenous environments, succession is mostly unidirectional, while in heterogeneous environments, multiple successional pathways are usually expected [8]. The latter were well documented for various coastal sand dune systems [13]. In the studied area, despite its heterogeneity in relief forms, succession is generally unidirectional, disregarding the initial divergence prior to the massive establishment of pines, and very limited extent of sites with different site conditions (wet depressions or exposed thick fossil horizons), where succession can be somewhat modified [53]. Successional trajectories are generally expected to be convergent if the inner heterogeneity of abiotic factors is ameliorated by succeeding biota, and divergent or parallel if the initial differences persist or are even enforced during successional development [54]. In our case, succession seems to be divergent before Pinus sylvestris established over the whole area and after this, convergence is evident when the pine canopy is closed and Deschampsia flexuosa dominated the herb layer after about 100 years of forest succession [33]. Some divergence recently appeared again, especially in the herb layer, where three dwarf shrub species alternately dominated besides the locally persisting dominance of D. flexuosa. Consequently, this succession cannot be simply assessed as divergent or convergent.

A distinct feature of the succession described here is the variation in the colonisation of particular relief forms: first large dunes with fossil horizons, last the plains where sand had been blown out and fluvio-glacial gravel sediments remained. The time difference between the oldest and youngest subplots in plots B and C is approximately 70 years. We refer to this as asynchronous succession [33]. This described process of asynchronous colonisation of different relief types seems to be applicable to sand dune systems in general, because principally the same abiotic factors, especially wind and substrate texture, determine the formation of dunes [12], although different species may play a role. In this respect, sand dune successions are rather exceptional. In other successions, colonisation processes often start at the same time over an exposed area, although they may differ in speed and direction depending on environmental heterogeneity of the area.

Species richness and diversity usually increase in dune succession as is typical of primary successions, although they may sometimes either peak or drop in the middle of the succession. The latter happens if a species strongly dominates [9]. That is exactly the case in the succession studied here, with strong dominance by Pinus sylvestris in the tree layer and Deschampsia flexuosa in the herb layer. By this time (until about 100 years), early successional heliophilous species had already disappeared and some shade-tolerant species typical of the herb layer of late successional forests had not established yet. Afterwards, Deschampsia flexuosa gradually decreased and diversity again increased in our dataset which corresponded with traditional theoretical expectations [55].

There are some implications for a possible future development of the successional forests. In the case of deer and wild boar reduction, the succession would probably be accelerated towards mixed or even deciduous woodland instead of persistence of the pine forest. Under the present game density, a slow further increase of deciduous woody species, especially beech, can be expected in the pine forest, although canopy pines can re-establish as subsequent generations, which is obvious in the understorey. Late successional forests are generally still rather rare in The Netherlands [56] and as we have reported here, they can be effectively restored by means of spontaneous succession, at least in inland sand dunes. However, since active inland sand dune areas are even rarer in NW Europe as a whole than late successional forests, the possible conflict between afforestation and maintaining or restoring the open habitat should be carefully balanced. In any case, we recommend not to perform any direct human interventions in the form of forest or nature conservation management in late successional forests and to keep the oldest existing study plot (C) as a natural laboratory. It is permanently fixed and the analyses of all the subplots can be again repeated in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Species frequencies (Fr) and average % covers (Co) in plots A, B and C in the years of observation.

Species are sorted according to their participation in the succession. Frequencies and covers of woody species are combined in a single layer.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Marginal effects of environmental variables in partial RDA analysis.

All considered variables explained 23.0% of total variation (year of sampling; successional age; P–Plain; PD–Plateau dunes; LD–Low dunes; HD–High dunes). Interactions of two variables are marked with an asterisk. P values were adjusted by the Holm correction.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Natuurmonumenten (NL) for technical support and agreement to carry out the fieldwork in their nature reserves, and Frits Mohren for logistic support. We also thank Jan Willem Jongepier for language revision, Marek Čiliak for help with statistical analyses and reviewers for their comments.

Data Availability

Data are available in Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.4680732.

Funding Statement

The research was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA (projects no. 1/0639/17 and 1/0624/21), and by the project no. 20-06065S granted by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Huggett RJJ. Fundamentals of Geomorphology. 4rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fanta J, Siepel H. Inland Drift Sand Landscapes. Zeist: KNNV Publishing; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cowles HC. The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. Botanical Gazette. 1899; 27: 95–391. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Warming E. Oecology of Plants: An Introduction to the Study of Plant Communities. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1909. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Doing H. Coastal fore dune zonation and succession in various parts of the world. Vegetatio. 1985; 61: 65–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Burrows CJ. Processes of Vegetation Change. London: Unwin Hyman; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lichter J. Primary succession and forest development on coastal Lake Michigan sand dunes. Ecol. Monographs. 1998; 68: 486–510. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Walker LR, del Moral R. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Prach K, Walker WR. Comparative Plant Succession among Terrestrial Biomes of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Provoost S, Laurence M, Jones M, Edmondson SE. Changes in landscape and vegetation of coastal dunes in northwest Europe. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 2010; 15: 207–226. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pegman APMcK, Rapson GL. Plant succession and dune dynamics on actively prograding dunes, Whatipu Beach, northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany. 2005; 43: 223–244. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Koster EA. The “European aeolian sand belt”: Geoconservation of drift sand landscapes. Geoheritage. 2009; 1: 93–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.van der Maarel E, Boot R, van Dorp D, Rijntjes J. Vegetation succession on the dunes near Oostvoorne, The Netherlands–a comparison of the vegetation in 1959 and 1980. Vegetatio. 1985; 58: 137–187. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fanta J. Primary forest succession on blown-out areas in the Dutch drift sands. In: Fanta J, ed. Forest dynamics research in Western and Central Europe. Wageningen: Pudoc; 1986. pp. 164–169. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Prach K. Primary Forest Succession in Sand Dune Areas. Report nr. 544. Wageningen: Research Institute for Forestry and Landscape Planning; 1989.
  • 16.Londo G. Successive mapping of dune slack vegetation. Vegetatio. 1974; 29: 51–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.van der Maarel E. Experimental succession research in a coastal dune grassland, a preliminary report. Vegetatio. 1979; 38: 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.van der Maarel E, de Cock N, de Wildt E. Population dynamics of some major woody species in relation to long-term succession on the dunes of Voorne. Vegetatio. 1985; 61: 209–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Spek T. Het Drentse Esdorpenlandschap. Een Historisch-Geografische Studie, Vol. 1, 2. Utrecht: Matrijs; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jensen F. Dune management in Denmark–application of the Nature Protection Act of 1992. Journal of Coastal Research. 1994; 10: 263–269. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Riksen M, Ketner-Oostra R, van Turnhout Ch, Nijssen M, Goossens D, Jungerius PD, et al. Will we lose the last active inland drift sands of Western Europe? The origin and development of the inland drift-sand ecotype in the Netherlands. Landscape Ecology. 2006; 21: 431–447. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Greipsson S. Coastal dunes. In: Perrow MR, Davy AJ, eds. Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Vol. 2, Restoration in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 214–237. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Grootjans AP, Dullo BS, Kooijman AM, Bekker RM, Aggenbach C. Restoration of dune vegetation in The Netherlands. In: Martínez ML, Gallego-Fernández JB, Hesp PA, eds., Restoration of Coastal Dunes. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 235–254. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martínez ML, Gallego-Fernández JB, Hesp PA, eds. Restoration of Coastal Dunes. New York: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hršak V. Vegetation succession and soil gradients on inland sand dunes. Ekológia (Bratislava). 2004; 23: 24–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Annonymus. Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. Brussel: European Commission, DG Environment; 2003.
  • 27.Lemauviel S, Roze F. Ecological study of pine forest clearings along the French Atlantic sand dunes: Perspectives of restoration. Acta Oecologica. 2000; 21: 179−192. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Heijboer D, Nellestijn J. Klimaatatlas van Nederland: de Normaalperiode 1971–2000. Rijswijk: Elmar; 2002. 10.1080/08880010290097404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sissingh G. Optimal woodland development on sandy soils in the Nederlands. Vegetatio. 1977; 35: 187–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fanta J. Beuk (Fagus sylvatica) in het Nederlandse deel van het nu-Europees diluvium. Nederlande Bosbouw Tijdschrift. 1995; 67: 225–234. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.van der Pal H. Landschapsecologisch Onderzoek in een Stuifzandgebied. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Prach K, Ujházy K, Fanta J. Vegetation succession in the Hulshorst drift-sand area, central Netherlands. In: Fanta J, Siepel H, eds. Inland Drift Sand Landscapes. Zeist: KNNV Publishing; 2010. pp. 191–216. 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07767.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ujházy K, Fanta J, Prach K. Two centuries of vegetation succession in an inland sand dune area, central Netherlands. Applied Vegetation Science. 2011; 14: 316–325. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fanta J, Siepel H, eds. Inland Drift Sand Landscapes. Zeist: KNNV Publishing; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.van der Maarel E. Transformation of cover-abundance values in phytosociology and its effects on community similarity. Vegetatio. 1979; 39: 97–114. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hennekens SM, Schaminée JHJ. Turboveg, a comprehensive database management system for vegetation data. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2001;12: 589–591. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Tichý L. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. Journal of Vegetation Science. 2002; 13: 451–453. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination, Version 5 0. Ithaca, New York: Microcomputer Power; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Šmilauer P, Lepš J. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Fischer HS. On the combination of species cover values from different vegetation layers. Applied Vegetation Science. 2015; 18: 169–170. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Leuschner Ch, Ellenberg H. Ecology of Central European Forests. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, Volume I. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
  • 42.Steenwoerd H. Primary Forest Succession on Inland Sand Dunes. Report AV 2006/05. Wageningen: Wageningen University; 2006.
  • 43.Leuschner C, Rode MW, Heinken T. Gibt es eine Nahrstoffmangel-Grenze der Buche im nordwestdeutschen Flachland? Flora. 1993; 188: 239–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rode MW. Aboveground nutrient turnover and forest development on poor sandy soil. Plant and Soil. 1995; 168–169: 337–343. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zerbe S, Brande A. Woodland degradation and regeneration in Central Europe during the last 1,000 years–a case study in NE Germany. Phytocoenologia. 2003; 33: 683–700. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Deptuła M, Filbrandt-Czaja A, Nienartowicz A, Kamiński D, Adamska E, Piernik A, et al. Development of forests in the former heathland landscape: changes in the habitat quality, structure of undergrowth, syntaxonomy of phytocoenoses and modern pollen deposition. Ecological Questions. 2018; 29: 19–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kuiters AT, Slim PA. Regeneration of mixed deciduous forest in a Dutch forest-heathland, following a reduction of ungulate densities. Biological Conservation. 2002; 105: 65–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chytrý M, Maskell LC, Pino J, Pyšek P, Vilà M, Font X, et al. Habitat invasions by alien plants: A quantitative comparison among Mediterranean, subcontinental and oceanic regions of Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2008; 45: 448–458. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Giulio S, Acosta ATR, Marta Carboni M, Campos JA, Chytrý M, Loidi J. et al. Alien flora across European coastal dunes. Applied Vegetation Science. 2020; 23: 317–327. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Verheyen K, Vanhellemont M, Stock T, Hermy M. Predicting patterns of invasion by black cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) in Flanders (Belgium) and its impact on the forest understorey community. Diversity and Distributions. 2007; 13: 487–497. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Imbert É, Houle G. Persistence of colonizing plant species along an inferred successional sequence on a subarctic coastal dune (Québec, Canada). Écoscience. 2000; 7: 370–378. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sørensen MM, Tybirk K. Vegetation analysis along a successional gradient from heath to oak forest. Nordic Journal of Botany. 2000; 20: 537–546. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Elgersma AM. Primary forest succession on poor sandy soils as related to site factors. Biodiversity and Conservation. 1998; 7: 193–206. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lepš J, Rejmánek M. Convergence or divergence: What should we expect from vegetation succession? Oikos. 1991; 62: 261–264. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Peet RK. Forest vegetation of the Colorado Front Range: Patterns of species diversity. Vegetatio. 1978; 37: 65–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Koster EA, Aeolian environments. In: Koster E. A. ed. The Physical Geography of Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 139–160. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

RunGuo Zang

7 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36698

Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prach,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please make revisions according to the suggestions of the reviewer,especially further clarify your process of data aquisition and methods used.

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript is generally well writtten and of interest to many ecologists.The manuscript should be acceptable after a major revision on basis of the concerns of the referee.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The research was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA (project no. 1/0639/17), and by

392 project no. 20-06065S granted by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic. We are grateful to

393 Natuurmonumenten (NL) for technical support and permission to carry out the fieldwork in their

394 nature reserves, and Frits Mohren for logistic support. We also thank Jan Willem Jongepier for

395 language revision, and reviewers for their comments."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: # General comments

In this manuscript, entitled “Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands”, the authors aim to describe long-term successional changes in an inland sand dune landscape situated in the Netherlands. The main asset of the article is to benefit from a long-term monitoring of the same dune environment in order to reconstruct the succession dynamics. I therefore think that the information provided by these articles is of interest to the scientific community, especially because they concern very particular environments. Nevertheless, I think that the manuscript still has important limitations that need to be clarified before it can be made acceptable for publication.

My main point of criticism would relate to the nature of the data, as well as the way it is interpreted and analyzed. To my opinion, these points deserve more context, justification and discussion. The data studied was indeed obtained using a synchronic approach (time since the beginning of the succession is estimated with the age of the trees), a diachronic approach (the same plots are studied at different periods) and finally a combination of the two (estimated age of the plot + time since the first sampling). The age of some sub-plot is furthermore interpolated according to the vegetation patch in which it is located (lines 145-146). In addition, only plot C is really studied over several years, where only the 1988 inventories for the plots A and B are considered.

I understand very well the difficulty of carrying out long-term ecological monitoring while avoiding any anthropogenic disturbance, so I don't think that this is sufficient to justify a rejection. Nevertheless, this raises important questions about the validity of the results because it means that for plot C, we have repeated measurements, whereas this is not the case for plots A and B. Further, the age of many subplots depends on a spatial unit of vegetation types, implying a dependence between the subplot situated in a same vegetation patch. This mixture of different data types, with different levels of independence, seems to me to be statistically “risky”, but the authors never mention this problem. Overall, the age of each subplot seems to be considered as an independent data, even though it corresponds to a plot sampled twice or if the age depends on a specific spatial unit. More generally, the diachronic and synchronic approaches are each subject to criticism (a combined diachronic/synchronic approach would therefore be all the more so) but this is a point that is generally not discussed. I would therefore encourage the authors to better justify their approach, or even modify their analyses to better take into account the inconsistent independence of the data. (Please note that this is why I noted “No” for question “Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?” of the PLOS ONE Review Report, as an intermediate answer was not available)

More generally, I find that the structure of the article is sometimes relatively unclear. The introduction does not seem to highlight well the questions addressed by the authors while the discussion does not focus enough on the results (see specific comments for more details). In terms of data availability, I also disagree with the authors' statement that all data used in this study are available in the Supplementary Material. S1 presents data at the plot level, but not at the subplot level (which can vary greatly in age). It is therefore not possible to reproduce all analyses with the data currently available.

For these reasons, I believe that acceptance of the manuscript is still conditional on major corrections. I therefore encourage authors to revise their manuscript, hoping that my comments will be useful to them.

# Specific comments

Lines 38-39: This sentence seems to have little connection with the rest of the paragraph.

Lines 49-51: “Sand dune system” is repeated twice in the same sentence, maybe it could be rephrased

Lines 53-55 and 68-79: These passages seem to talk about the same idea but are in a different paragraph. It would be better to group these ideas together in the same places

Lines 60-66: The beginning of this section is more appropriate for the methodology, while the second section would be more relevant to the discussion.

Lines 60 -78: It seems strange to me to focus the introduction on the studied area, as this limits the overall scope of this work by confining it to a specific context.

Lines 92: I think a map and photos of the study area would be welcome (photos are however optional but it could help the reader to have a clearer picture of the study sites).

Lines 121-122: This sentence is redundant

Lines 124-127: Why is there two methods to classify the cover (ordinal scale 1-9 and percentage)?

Lines 135-140: What is the typology used to define these geomorphological units and what are the thresholds? Is it a relatively subjective classification?

Lines 149-152: This point should be discussed as, indeed, tree age is not always a reliable indicator of forest succession.

Line 157: Define the acronym TCV

Lines 161-162: Why a logarithmic transformation is used here?

Line 171: Why a 20 x 20 m grid? The experimental design is based on 10 x 10m grid so it’s difficult to understand the change of scale here

Line 172 : Would it be possible to separate the plot C1988 and C2018 (i.e., considering as covariables A1988, B1988, C1988 and C2018)?

Lines 172-175: The responses curves are GAM if I refer to the legend for Figure 3. However, the characteristics of these models are not presented in the manuscript or in the supplementary material. This would be suitable because if I refer to the method, it is not a fitting that is only meant to be descriptive.

Lines 184-186: Why calculate these areas again? Because the previous measurements were not reliable?

Lines 197-199: All the correlations (r and p) with the DCA axes should be provided in the manuscript

Figure 1: The figure should be divided in panels (A and B), it will facilitate the reading of the results.

Figure 2: Would it be possible to color the points referring to the plot and the year of sampling? In this way it could be seen whether the fitting works despite the special characteristics of the data. Could the authors also give the details of the fitting?

Figure 3: The figure should be divided in panels (A, B and C). Major and minor ticks would be necessary as well as a legend instead of the name of the trees next to the curves.

Figure 4: Placing these figures vertically could give them more space in the article and make them more readable. It would also be a good idea to include a legend with the color codes. Overall, I'm not convinced by the colors, especially white to describe Deschampsia flexuosa; white is more a color for the absence of results. Overall, I would advise to review the color code to get something more harmonious (for example a light brown instead of white).

Lines 293-308: This part should be at the end of the discussion, as it is a more general opening. I would advise to start the discussion with more concrete results.

Lines 351-355: I think this part needs more detail to better explain the implication of the results

Lines 362: Here, the authors could provide some example of the abiotic factors

Line 368: I think a word is missing after “strong dominant”

Line 380: Do the authors speak here of "late successional forests" broadly or for sand dune environments?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 29;16(4):e0250003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250003.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36698

Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prach,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript is generally well writtten and of interest to many ecologists.The manuscript should be acceptable after a major revision on basis of the concerns of the referee.

RESPONSE: Thank you and the referee for the very helpful comments. We have done our best to improve the manuscript as suggested and believe it would be now ready for publication.

Karel Prach, on behalf of the co-authors

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

RESPONSE: We included this (P5L104).

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The research was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA (project no. 1/0639/17), and by project no. 20-06065S granted by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic. We are grateful to Natuurmonumenten (NL) for technical support and permission to carry out the fieldwork in their

nature reserves, and Frits Mohren for logistic support. We also thank Jan Willem Jongepier for language revision, and reviewers for their comments."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

RESPONSE: We removed these from Acknowledgements and included the funding information only in the Funding Statement. We adapted the text in Funding Statement as follows:

The research was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA (projects no. 1/0639/17 and 1/0624/21), and by the project no. 20-06065S granted by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

RESPONSE: Thank you.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: # General comments

In this manuscript, entitled “Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands”, the authors aim to describe long-term successional changes in an inland sand dune landscape situated in the Netherlands. The main asset of the article is to benefit from a long-term monitoring of the same dune environment in order to reconstruct the succession dynamics. I therefore think that the information provided by these articles is of interest to the scientific community, especially because they concern very particular environments. Nevertheless, I think that the manuscript still has important limitations that need to be clarified before it can be made acceptable for publication.

My main point of criticism would relate to the nature of the data, as well as the way it is interpreted and analyzed. To my opinion, these points deserve more context, justification and discussion. The data studied was indeed obtained using a synchronic approach (time since the beginning of the succession is estimated with the age of the trees), a diachronic approach (the same plots are studied at different periods) and finally a combination of the two (estimated age of the plot + time since the first sampling). The age of some sub-plot is furthermore interpolated according to the vegetation patch in which it is located (lines 145-146). In addition, only plot C is really studied over several years, where only the 1988 inventories for the plots A and B are considered.

I understand very well the difficulty of carrying out long-term ecological monitoring while avoiding any anthropogenic disturbance, so I don't think that this is sufficient to justify a rejection. Nevertheless, this raises important questions about the validity of the results because it means that for plot C, we have repeated measurements, whereas this is not the case for plots A and B. Further, the age of many subplots depends on a spatial unit of vegetation types, implying a dependence between the subplot situated in a same vegetation patch. This mixture of different data types, with different levels of independence, seems to me to be statistically “risky”, but the authors never mention this problem. Overall, the age of each subplot seems to be considered as an independent data, even though it corresponds to a plot sampled twice or if the age depends on a specific spatial unit. More generally, the diachronic and synchronic approaches are each subject to criticism (a combined diachronic/synchronic approach would therefore be all the more so) but this is a point that is generally not discussed. I would therefore encourage the authors to better justify their approach, or even modify their analyses to better take into account the inconsistent independence of the data. (Please note that this is why I noted “No” for question “Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?” of the PLOS ONE Review Report, as an intermediate answer was not available)

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that the data exhibit different levels of independence. On the other hand, it was the only way to realistically describe this succession regarding large geomorphological variability and its grain. Thus, three, differently aged plots of 200×200m in size were established in 1988 of which two (A,B) were, in the meantime, disturbed by human activities. For the overall description of succession we exploited the earlier data from all three plots which it is not a statistical problem in the unconstrained ordination of DCA (Šmilauer and Lepš 2014). For the other analyses, we excluded the plots A and B to avoid the combination of assynchronic vs. diachronic nature of our observations, i.e. the problematic combination of space-for-time substitution and resampling of one of the plots. Instead CCA, which we originally used, we tested effects of environmental variables on vegetation composition using the linear RDA analysis because the lenght of gradient was shorter after the exclusion of the plots A and B. Permutations were restricted both to avoid spatial autocorrelation (by defining the spatial grid) and for identity of subplot. Moreover, P values were adjusted by the Holm correction.

More generally, I find that the structure of the article is sometimes relatively unclear. The introduction does not seem to highlight well the questions addressed by the authors while the discussion does not focus enough on the results (see specific comments for more details). In terms of data availability, I also disagree with the authors' statement that all data used in this study are available in the Supplementary Material. S1 presents data at the plot level, but not at the subplot level (which can vary greatly in age). It is therefore not possible to reproduce all analyses with the data currently available.

RESPONSE: We re-arranged Introduction and included some new text with an effort to focus it better. We include all primary data into a public repository Dryadafter a possible final acceptance of the manuscript and we indicated this in the manuscript (L179).

For these reasons, I believe that acceptance of the manuscript is still conditional on major corrections. I therefore encourage authors to revise their manuscript, hoping that my comments will be useful to them.

RESPONSE: Thanks again for the comments, they were very helpful.

# Specific comments

Lines 38-39: This sentence seems to have little connection with the rest of the paragraph.

RESPONSE: We deleted this sentence.

Lines 49-51: “Sand dune system” is repeated twice in the same sentence, maybe it could be rephrased

RESPONSE: Adapted accordingly.

Lines 53-55 and 68-79: These passages seem to talk about the same idea but are in a different paragraph. It would be better to group these ideas together in the same places

RESPONSE: We moved the first part to Page 4 to the end of the next paragraph, hoping now the text is more fluent.

Lines 60-66: The beginning of this section is more appropriate for the methodology, while the second section would be more relevant to the discussion.

RESPONSE: We moved the first part to Methods as suggested, and rearranged the rest.

Lines 60 -78: It seems strange to me to focus the introduction on the studied area, as this limits the overall scope of this work by confining it to a specific context.

RESPONSE: We moved the part concerning the study area to Methods.

Lines 92: I think a map and photos of the study area would be welcome (photos are however optional but it could help the reader to have a clearer picture of the study sites).

RESPONSE: We newly included three photos illustrating each of the three studied sand dune complexes.

Lines 121-122: This sentence is redundant

RESPONSE: We agree and we deleted it (the same information was already provided).

Lines 124-127: Why is there two methods to classify the cover (ordinal scale 1-9 and percentage)?

RESPONSE: It is usual approach in phytosociology that the cover of the whole layers are estimated in percentage and that of particular species in an ordinal scale.

Lines 135-140: What is the typology used to define these geomorphological units and what are the thresholds? Is it a relatively subjective classification?

RESPONSE: We included the reference where the units are described

Lines 149-152: This point should be discussed as, indeed, tree age is not always a reliable indicator of forest succession.

RESPONSE: We are aware of some limitations, e.g. the possible existence of false rings, however, the wood core analysis is the best possible method to estimate the forest age if we know it is the first generation of trees and no felling happened. In the case of Scots Pine it is easy to count the rings as they are well visible.

Line 157: Define the acronym TCV

RESPONSE: Explained at P8L177

Lines 161-162: Why a logarithmic transformation is used here?

RESPONSE: It is the usual option to decrease the influence of dominant species (Šmilauer and Lepš 2014).

Line 171: Why a 20 x 20 m grid? The experimental design is based on 10 x 10m grid so it’s difficult to understand the change of scale here

RESPONSE: Corrected, it was our mistake (in fact, it was a grid of 20 lines and 20 columns of 10 x 10m sublopts).

Line 172 : Would it be possible to separate the plot C1988 and C2018 (i.e., considering as covariables A1988, B1988, C1988 and C2018)?

RESPONSE: We excluded A1988 and B1988 from the analyses where they were problematic and used only the repeatedly sampled plot C.

Lines 172-175: The responses curves are GAM if I refer to the legend for Figure 3. However, the characteristics of these models are not presented in the manuscript or in the supplementary material. This would be suitable because if I refer to the method, it is not a fitting that is only meant to be descriptive.

RESPONSE: Details on Generalized Aditive Model (GAM) were added to Methods.

Lines 184-186: Why calculate these areas again? Because the previous measurements were not reliable?

RESPONSE: We modified the previous, not very precise formulation.

Lines 197-199: All the correlations (r and p) with the DCA axes should be provided in the manuscript

RESPONSE: We enlarged the text (P10L227-231 but not providing really all correlations because the DCA diagram primarily presents overall vegetation pattern and the correlations between environmental factors and the axis scores are only illustrative. Their importance is exactly evaluated by the subsequent RDA analysis.

Figure 1: The figure should be divided in panels (A and B), it will facilitate the reading of the results.

RESPONSE: We would prefer the original layout which is frequently used option in such diagrams and enables a direct visual comparison of both graphs. Moreover, there is enough space in the upper-right corner of the main diagram. However, the diagram was slightly adapted, and morer species are shown now to better correspond to S1 Table.

Figure 2: Would it be possible to color the points referring to the plot and the year of sampling? In this way it could be seen whether the fitting works despite the special characteristics of the data. Could the authors also give the details of the fitting?

RESPONSE: We did it as suggested and provided more details in Methods.

Figure 3: The figure should be divided in panels (A, B and C). Major and minor ticks would be necessary as well as a legend instead of the name of the trees next to the curves.

RESPONSE: We adapted the figure as suggested – it is arranged vertically in two panels and full species names are provided in the figure caption.

Figure 4: Placing these figures vertically could give them more space in the article and make them more readable. It would also be a good idea to include a legend with the color codes. Overall, I'm not convinced by the colors, especially white to describe Deschampsia flexuosa; white is more a color for the absence of results. Overall, I would advise to review the color code to get something more harmonious (for example a light brown instead of white).

RESPONSE: We adapted the figure as suggested.

Lines 293-308: This part should be at the end of the discussion, as it is a more general opening. I would advise to start the discussion with more concrete results.

RESPONSE: We carefully considered this suggestion but if we move this part of text further, the links to the previous and following paragraphs would be interrupted. We are aware of a rather subjective view but we prefer to start Discussion with main findings, then details, and then generalizations.

Lines 351-355: I think this part needs more detail to better explain the implication of the results

RESPONSE: We enlarged the text. ) (P18L389-392).

Lines 362: Here, the authors could provide some example of the abiotic factors

RESPONSE: We added two distinctive factors, wind and substrate texture.

Line 368: I think a word is missing after “strong dominant”

RESPONSE: We adapted the text (L389).

Line 380: Do the authors speak here of "late successional forests" broadly or for sand dune environments?

RESPONSE: We think "late successional forests" in general, we adapted the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

RunGuo Zang

30 Mar 2021

Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands

PONE-D-20-36698R1

Dear Dr. Prach,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

RunGuo Zang

16 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36698R1

Two centuries of forest succession, and 30 years of vegetation changes in permanent plots in an inland sand dune area, The Netherlands

Dear Dr. Prach:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Species frequencies (Fr) and average % covers (Co) in plots A, B and C in the years of observation.

    Species are sorted according to their participation in the succession. Frequencies and covers of woody species are combined in a single layer.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Marginal effects of environmental variables in partial RDA analysis.

    All considered variables explained 23.0% of total variation (year of sampling; successional age; P–Plain; PD–Plateau dunes; LD–Low dunes; HD–High dunes). Interactions of two variables are marked with an asterisk. P values were adjusted by the Holm correction.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available in Zenodo: 10.5281/zenodo.4680732.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES