# The state of change of Erica scoparia L. heathland through cattle grazing and oak colonization

Sophie Gachet, Corinne Sarthou, Jacques Bardat, Jean-François Ponge

► To cite this version:

Sophie Gachet, Corinne Sarthou, Jacques Bardat, Jean-François Ponge. The state of change of Erica scoparia L. heathland through cattle grazing and oak colonization. Revue d'Écologie (La Terre et La Vie), 2009, 64 (1), pp.3-17. hal-00494632

HAL Id: hal-00494632

https://hal.science/hal-00494632v1

Submitted on 23 Jun 2010

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 - Universal - International License
1 The state of change of *Erica scoparia* L. heathland through cattle grazing and oak

2 colonisation

3

4 Sophie GACHET¹, Corinne SARTHOU¹, Jacques BARDAT² and Jean-

5 François PONGE¹,*

6

7 ¹Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS UMR 7179, 4 avenue du Petit-Château,

8 91800 Brunoy, France

9

10 ²Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS UMR 5202, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris

11 Cédex 05, France

12

13 *Correspondence address: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS UMR 7179, 4

14 avenue du Petit-Château, 91800 Brunoy, France; Tel: +33 1 60479213; Fax: +33 1

15 60465719; E-mail: ponge@mnhn.fr

16
## 17 SUMMARY

Our aim was to ascertain whether changes in plant species richness and other vegetation features occur in heath land dominated by *Erica scoparia* L. (besom heath) through the impact of cattle grazing and oak colonisation. Our study took place in the Brenne Regional Natural Park (center of France) where this ericaceous species, locally called ‘brande’, is now considered of patrimonial interest and protected at regional and European level. We selected 10 sites in a private property, covering a wide range of ecological conditions (shallow and deep soils, grazed and non-grazed besom heath, pure and oak-colonised besom heath). Vegetation (percent occupancy of plant species) was sampled in May-June 2006 (105 samples, 1m² each) and the impact of shrub and tree vegetation on plant biodiversity was assessed by correspondence analysis (CA) and total and partial Mantel tests (Monte-Carlo procedure). An environmental gradient of decreasing light incidence from grazed heath to old heath to oak-wood was depicted, along which a number of ecological, morphological and physiological plant traits (growth habits, Ellenberg values, Grime strategies, Tolerance Index of the plant community) were observed to vary. Species richness decreases when ericaceous or, although to a lesser extent, oak cover increase and it increases under low to moderate cattle grazing. Consequences for the sustainable management of ‘brande’ are discussed.

**Keywords:** ericaceous heath, plant traits, plant biodiversity, Ellenberg values, Grime strategies, Tolerance Index

## 39 RÉSUMÉ

Le but de notre étude est de mettre en évidence les modifications de la richesse spécifique et d'autres caractères de la végétation qui surviennent sous l'influence du
42 pâturage et de la colonisation par le chêne dans les landes dominées par Erica scoparia
43 L. (brande). L'étude a été menée dans le Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne (France,
44 Région Centre) où cette Éricacée est aujourd'hui considérée comme patrimoniale et
45 protégée au niveau régional et européen. Dix sites ont été choisis au sein d'une propriété
46 privée, couvrant un large éventail de conditions écologiques (sols superficiels et
47 profonds, brande pâturée et non pâturée, pure et envahie par le chêne). La végétation
48 (pourcentage d'occupation de l'espace par les différentes espèces végétales) a été
49 échantillonnée en mai et juin 2006 (105 relevés d'1 m²) et l'impact de la végétation
50 arbustive et arborée sur la biodiversité végétale a été mis en évidence à l'aide de
51 l'analyse des correspondances (AFC) et de tests de Mantel totaux et partiels (méthode
de Monte-Carlo). Un gradient décroissant d'incidence de la lumière a été mis en
52 évidence depuis la brande pâturée jusqu'à la brande âgée puis la chênaie, en rapport
53 avec la variation de nombreux traits écologiques, morphologiques et physiologiques
54 (types physionomiques, indices d'Ellenberg, stratégies de Grime, indice de tolérance de
55 la communauté). La richesse spécifique décroît à mesure de l'extension des Éricacées
56 ou, dans une moindre mesure, de celle du chêne et s'accroit sous pâturage faible à
57 modéré. Les conséquences pour la gestion durable de la brande sont discutées.
58

59

60 Mots-clés: lande à Éricacées, traits végétaux, biodiversité végétale, indices d'Ellenberg,
61 stratégies de Grime, indice de tolérance

62

63 Introduction

64

65 Erica scoparia L. (besom heath) is a tall shrub species which dominates mesic
66 heathlands of South-western France and North-western Spain (Bartolomé et al., 2005).
On poorly fertile soils, it establishes spontaneously by seed in grassland after 67 agricultural abandonment and before oak colonisation (Perrinet, 1995). Once 68 established, this tall ericaceous shrub (2-3m height) grows vegetatively and resprouts 69 after cutting. It forms dense clumps in the shade of which a 'forest' environment is 70 created. Given the poor pastoral value of ericaceous heath and its richness in 71 allelochemicals (Ballester et al., 1982), fire was used to suppress it at least temporarily 72 for the sake of sheep or cattle grazing (Gimingham et al., 1979; Bartolomé et al., 2005). 73 However, E. scoparia was also and is still cultivated for traditional purposes (broom, 74 fencing manufacture or roof making), thereby contributing to its widespread occurrence 75 in the temperate Atlantic region, especially on former agricultural land (Perrinet, 1995; 76 Bartolomé et al., 2005). 77

78

In the Brenne Regional Natural Park (Indre, Centre, France), heathland 79 dominated by E. scoparia, locally called 'brande' (the name indicate both the plant and 80 the community), covers wide areas of land not managed for agriculture (Rallet, 1935). It 81 is now protected, according to European policies for the conservation of heathland 82 habitats (European Council Directive 92/43). However, the conservation value of 83 'brande' imposes to preserve it from spontaneous colonisation by several oak species 84 [Quercus robur L., Q. petraea (Matt.) Liebl., Q. pubescens Willd. and their hybrids] 85 could occur. Cutting, moderate grazing or prescribed burning are used for the 86 management of E. scoparia heathland, which is considered of a higher patrimonial 87 interest, when at an early successional stage, than the succeeding old heath and oak- 88 wood stages (Gaudillat, 1997). In the particular landscape of 'Grande Brenne' (60,000 89 ha, included in the Brenne Natural Park) hard sandstone outcrops of poor agricultural 90 value, locally called 'buttons', are often covered with a dry variant of E. scoparia heath, 91
with common heather (*Calluna vulgaris* L.) and bell heather (*Erica cinerea* L.) as companion species (Rallet, 1935). Colonization by oak is more difficult on 'buttons', due to shallow soil conditions, and some of these outcrops appear devoid of any shrub vegetation, with an abundant and diversified herb, moss and lichen vegetation (Gaudillat, 1997). 'Buttons' are surrounded by more mesic environments, most often used for pasture, with stagnant water during winter and spring months (Rallet, 1935). Other important components of the Grande Brenne landscape are numerous ponds, traditionally created from the Middle Age for the need of carp breeding.

Our aim was to ascertain whether changes in plant species richness and other vegetation features occur in *E. scoparia* heath through the impact of cattle grazing and oak colonisation. The negative impact of dense ericaceous heath on plant species richness has been often recorded (Barclay-Estrup & Gimingham, 1969; Gimingham *et al.*, 1979; Miles, 1979) and we hypothesized that this detrimental effect could be alleviated under either moderate grazing by cattle or colonisation by oak.

## Methods

Study sites

The present study was done in a private property (Les Vigneaux, Mézières-en-Brenne, Indre), where the traditional land use of Grande Brenne has been maintained to a large extent, displaying a variety of typical environments: 'buttons' with shallow soils are let covered with spontaneous scrub and forest vegetation while the surrounding land (meadows and ponds) is devoted to extensive cattle pasture and to fishing. Such
practices have been widely maintained in Grande Brenne for several centuries (Trotignon & Trotignon, 2007). The landscape includes two ‘buttons’ covered with grazed or non-grazed ericaceous heath and woodlots of natural oak and planted pine and poplar. Ponds and meadows are also present but they were not included in our study.

We selected ten sites (Fig. 1) covering the range of variation of non-agricultural land, from grazed heath to oak woodland, thus expressing a gradient of decreasing opening of the environment and increased vertical stratification (Table 1). They were chosen on the base of a previous map of vegetation done by F. Pinet (personal communication) and our own observations on plant communities. Soils were classified as shallow or deep whether they were less or more than 20cm deep. Two intensities of grazing could be ascertained from the morphology of besom heath: in BP1 bushes kept more or less their natural erected form, while in BP2 they exhibited a typical conical shape resulting from the selection of twigs of the year by cattle. BNP did not exhibit any sign of cattle pressure, being located on Button 2, from which cattle was excluded. BA1, BA2 and BA3 were old besom heath sites, hardly accessible and not used by cattle.

The elevation is around 120m a.s.l., with an undulating relief due to an alternation of ‘buttons’ and ponds. The climate is Atlantic, mild oceanic, with a mean annual temperature of 11°C and a mean annual rainfall of 700mm. Soils are highly heterogeneous, varying from Lithosols (top of ‘Buttons’) to Gleysols (pond shores, not studied here). According to data on BP1, BP2 and BA1 (Benoist, 2006) the topsoil of pastured and old heath is acid ($pH_{water}$ ~ 4.5) and moderately fertile (C/N ~18). These features are quite similar to those of woodlots ($pH_{water}$ ~ 4.4, C/N ~19) but differ from those of pastures ($pH_{water}$ ~ 4.9, C/N ~14). The Humus Index (Ponge & Chevalier, 2006)
141 varies to a great extent, from 1 (Eumull) in BP1 to 5.8 (Eumoder) in average in BP2
142 (Benoist, 2006).

143

144 Sampling procedure

145

146 Stratified sampling of vegetation took place in June 2006. The sites CHM1, CHM2,  
147 BSF1, BSF2, BA3 and BA2 were sampled as follows: four 1m² squares were disposed  
148 at each angle of a 10 x 10m square and an additional 1m² square was placed at the  
149 centre. Each unit square was divided into 25 sub-units according to a 20cm grid,  
150 allowing to score plant species by counting the number of sub-units where they were  
151 found (ranging from 0 to 25) which was an estimate of their occupancy. When trees  
152 were present the projection of their crown was used for the calculation of their score.  
153 Only four unit squares could be positioned in BA3, one corner being omitted by lack of  
154 space. The choice of a small and constant plot size for our stratified sampling was  
155 justified by the need to measure plant species richness at a very local level, and to  
156 compare it among different ecosystem types.

157

158 BNP was sampled along eight transect lines radiating from a central post. Unit  
159 squares were positioned each 4m. The number of unit squares along a given direction  
160 varied from 2 to 5, totalling 29 samples.

161

162 BP1, BP2 and BA1 were sampled by positioning unit squares each 6m along  
163 several rows placed 7m apart, the total number of samples varying according to the site  
164 shape.

165
Differences in sampling design were mainly due to topographic variation and the need to embrace most visible intra-site heterogeneity. However, distances between unit squares within each site remained of the same order of magnitude (4 to 7m), and allowed to embrace the whole area covered continuously by a given vegetation type.

Mosses and vascular plants were identified at the species level whenever possible (Table 2).

Data analysis

Species richness was calculated as the number of plant species found in each 1m² unit square (Table 1). We used species richness at the plot scale (a small-scale community attribute) as a measure of species coexistence (a small-scale community process), considering that the more species co-occurring at a very small-scale (1m²), the less negative interactions between them (Zobel, 1997; Reitalu et al., 2008). Beta diversity β<sub>w</sub> (Whittaker, 1960) was calculated as the total number of plant species found in a given site divided by the mean number of species in unit squares. We used it as an estimate of mosaic heterogeneity of the plant cover.

Plant species were classified into several groups according to their growth habits: mosses, grasses, forbs (non-grassy herbs), legumes (here only Fabaceae), ericaceous shrubs, non-ericaceous shrubs, trees (here only oak) and lianas. The percent occupancy of a given plant group per unit square was estimated by dividing the maximum number of sub-units occupied by a species member of this group by the total number of sub-units (25).
191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

Ellenberg indices (Light, Moisture, Reaction and Nitrogen) were attributed to each species (Table 2) using data for British vascular species (Hill et al., 1999) completed for moss species by online data (MAVIS 2000, http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/software/mavis/download.asp). Most identified species were present in the British data base (Table 2). They were taken into account in the calculation of average Ellenberg indicator values (Diekmann & Lawesson, 1999) per unit square. Species were not weighted by percent occupancy, according to Wamelink & Van Dobben (2003) and contrary to suggestions made by Diekmann (2003), because we thought that the percent occupancy was too sensitive to growth habits, and may confound habitat preferences. The same method was applied to the three strategies Competitive ability, Stress tolerance and Ruderalness (Grime, 1987). Grime strategies were also found in the MAVIS data base with the exception of moss species and some vascular species (Table 2). Ellenberg indices were used to describe habitat preferences and Grime strategies to describe life-history traits.

Correspondence analysis (CA) was used to discern trends in the distribution of plant species across the 10 investigated sites (Greenacre, 1984). This indirect gradient method was chosen because of its ease to discern trends in matrices of count numbers (Benzécri, 1969; Kenkel, 2006). However, it was slightly improved, as explained below. Species present in less than two samples were omitted from the analysis, because they were not judged very informative. Species were coded as in Table 2 and their percent occupancy in the different samples was used to build a data matrix crossing 79 species as rows (active variables) and 105 samples as columns. Passive variables were added as additional lines: soil (shallow or deep, each coded as 1 or 0), sites (10 sites, each coded
as 1 or 0), species richness per sample (number of species), growth habit occupancy (eight types, each in percent), average Ellenberg indices (4) and Grime strategies (3) per sample (each in percent). All variables (active and passive) were reweighted and refocused (variance equal to 1 and mean equal to 20), in order to (i) avoid advantaging rare species, (ii) interpret factorial coordinates of variables in terms of their contribution to the axes and (iii) allow mixing data of varying type (Fédoroff et al., 2005). Additional variables with floating values were doubled ($X' = 40-X$, $X$ being the original value, $X'$ the new, conjugate value), each variable being represented by two points, one for its higher values (original values), the other for its lower values (conjugate values), symmetrical around the origin of the axes, with a gradient between them (Fédoroff et al., 2005). The choice of 40 was justified by the need to avoid negative values, but it has no effect on the calculation of eigen values.

The first axis of CA was used to measure the tolerance of the different plant species to overall environmental influences, or niche width (McNaughton & Wolf, 1970). For each plant species the variance of CA coordinates along Axis 1 was averaged over all samples, each sample being weighted by the percent occupancy of the species. The higher was the variance the higher was the tolerance of the species to the environmental variation depicted by Axis 1 of CA. The average tolerance of the plant community or Tolerance Index (Dolédec et al., 2000) was calculated by averaging the unweighted tolerance value of the different plant species found in each sample.

Given that our data could be thought at first sight to be autocorrelated (samples taken in the same site are not independent), correlation was tested by Signed Mantel tests (Legendre & Legendre, 1998; Oberrath & Böhning-Gaese, 2001). For that purpose
geographical and ecological distance matrices were built. The ecological distance between two samples was measured by the signed (algebraic) difference in the value of a parameter (for instance the percent occupancy of a given species or group of species or Axis 1 of CA). The correlation between two distance matrices was calculated as the product-moment correlation coefficient, which was then tested by Monte-Carlo simulation. Partial Mantel tests were used to discern possible causal relationships within a set of self-correlated variables (Legendre & Fortin, 1989).

All statistical treatments were performed with XLStat Pro® version 2007.5 (Addinsoft®).

## 252 Results and discussion

Within-site spatial autocorrelation

Species richness of unit squares and percent occupancy of ericaceous vegetation were used to test for the existence of within-site spatial autocorrelation (between-site autocorrelation being considered trivial in our study). Only sites with a higher number of unit squares (BP1 with 17 samples, BP2 with 20 samples and BNP with 29 samples) were considered. Signed Mantel correlation coefficients $r_M$ between geographic distance and species richness showed a negative spatial autocorrelation of species richness in the more pastured heath BP2 ($r_M$ = -0.21, P < 0.01): nearby unit squares differed more than null expectation, i.e. there was a mosaic of species-rich and species-poor zones at a scale ~6-7m. A positive spatial autocorrelation was detected in the non-pastured heath BNP ($r_M$ = 0.12, P < 0.05), showing the existence of patches of species-rich and species-
poor vegetation at a scale in excess of 6-7m (nearby samples differed less than remote samples). No spatial autocorrelation was detected in the slightly pastured heath BP1 ($r_M$ = $2.10^{-17}$, $P$ = 0.98), showing the absence of species-rich and species-poor vegetation patches at least at the scale of the sampling grid ($\ge$ 6-7m).

Contrary to species richness, the percent occupancy of ericaceous vegetation, as well as that of *E. scoparia* alone, did not show any spatial autocorrelation at the scale of the sampling grid.

The gradient of floristic composition depicted by Correspondence Analysis

Most significant variation in the floristic composition was depicted by Axis 1 (10% of the total variation), along which all plant species were regularly distributed. Axis 2 (7.6% of the total variation) corresponded to only one sample taken in BP2, and thus was not considered. Axis 1 correlated well with all vegetation parameters measured at the community level (Table 1). Highest correlation values were with Tolerance Index and Light Index, 60% and 52% of the total variation of which being depicted by Axis 1, respectively (Fig. 2). The Light Index decreased while Moisture, Reaction and Nitrogen Ellenberg indices increased when Axis 1 values increased. Grime strategies 'Stress tolerance' and 'Ruderalness' decreased while 'Competitive' ability increased when Axis 1 values increased. Local species richness and beta diversity decreased when Axis 1 values increased. The percent occupancy of mosses, legumes, ericaceous and non-ericaceous shrubs decreased while that of grasses, oak trees and lianas increased when Axis 1 values increased. This was reflected in the projection of passive variables along Axis 1 (Fig. 3). All vegetation parameters negatively correlated with Axis 1 were
projected on the negative (lower) side, while those positively correlated were projected
on the positive (upper) side, as expected. In addition, shallow soil was projected far
from the origin on the negative side, the contrary for deep soil, and the 10 sites were
classified in the following order, from negative to positive values of Axis 1: BP2 < BP1
< BNP < BA3 = BA2 <, BA1 = BSF2 < BSF1 = CHM1 < CHM2. We interpreted Axis
1 as a gradient of stability of the ecosystem, from pastured heath to oak-wood,
associated with increasing soil thickness and fertility, the latter being indirectly
ascertained from (i) Ellenberg indices (less light, more nitrogen, more moisture, less
acidity), (ii) Grime plant strategies (less ruderals and stressors, more competitors) and
(iii) niche width (increasing Tolerance Index of the community).

301

More woody species were projected on the positive side of Axis 1 (Fig. 4), while
more herb species were projected on the negative side of this axis. The increase in the
number of woody species and the decrease in the number of herb species along Axis 1
contrasts with the absence of any significant correlation between Axis 1 and percent
occupancy by forbs (Table 1, Fig. 3) and the weak (although significant) correlation
between Axis 1 and percent occupancy by grasses. This means that although more forbs
and grasses were present in more open environments (negative side of Axis 1), they
occupied more restricted areas than under higher vegetation (positive side of Axis 1),
thus giving them low scores of occupancy.

311

Two species of patrimonial interest were present in our samples: *Arenaria montana* L., which is protected locally, and *Halimium umbellatum* (L.) Spach., which is protected regionally (Pinet, 2005). Both species were projected far from the origin, on the negative side of Axis 1, i.e. they were typically present in pastured heath. No
invasive species was found in the investigated sites, which are in a fairly good state of
naturalness (Pinet, personal communication).

It may be questioned whether the main gradient depicted by Axis 1 of CA was a
potential trajectory of the ecosystem (from pastured heath to oak forest) or the
juxtaposition of separate habitats. A nearby wet meadow with grasses and rushes was
excluded from our study because it did not exhibit any relationships with the vegetation
types used for our study, thereby restricting comparisons to well-drained sites with
varying soil depth. In the environmental conditions prevailing in the studied region,
lowland is commonly used for pasture and fish breeding, and sandstone outcrops
('buttons') are abandoned to colonization by heath and oak-wood. The colonisation of
outcrops by oak can be observed whenever soils are at least 20 cm thick, i.e. when soils
were not completely destroyed by human activities (pasture, mining) or had time to
recover from naked bedrock (Rallet, 1935; Perrinet, 1995; Gaudillat, 1997). The same
successional trajectory may thus be arrested at different stages according to the (slow,
sometimes nil) soil development, like in a primary succession (Miles & Walton, 1993).
In that sense Axis 1 describes both a (potential) successional trajectory and a continuum
of habitats.

The effect of ericaceous vegetation, grazing and oak colonisation on plant biodiversity

Compared with other vegetation features, plant species richness did not display a good
relationship with the gradient depicted by Axis 1, despite a negative and highly
significant Mantel correlation coefficient (Table 1). However, on the negative side of
Axis 1, BNP, BP1 and BP2 form a sequence of increasing distance to the origin which
is related to an increasing level of grazing (nil in BNP, low in BP1, medium in BP2) and an increasing level of species richness (Table 1). The three sites are on shallow soils, at the top or near the top of Buttons A and B (Table 1). Species richness near doubled from BNP to BP2, BP1 being intermediate, while the beta diversity $\beta_w$ did not vary to a great extent (Table 1). Other pronounced differences between non-pastured and pastured heath were in the percent occupancy of grasses, which tripled from BNP to BP2 (BP1 being intermediate) and ruderalness, which increased from BNP to BP1 then to BP2 (Table 1). Plotted against the percent occupancy of ericaceous vegetation in treeless sites, plant species richness showed a decreasing trend (Fig. 5), indicating that in the absence of trees any decrease in ericaceous vegetation would increase plant species richness. This is reflected in a negative and highly significant Mantel correlation coefficient ($r_M = -0.54, P < 0.0001$) between species richness and percent occupancy by ericaceous vegetation. The projection of individual samples from the same site (Fig. 5) suggests that the decreasing trend displayed when all treeless sites are plotted together is still depicted at the inside of individual sites, except in BA1, BA2 and BA3 (old heath) where the percent occupancy by ericaceous vegetation is always high. The Mantel correlation coefficient between species richness and percent occupancy by ericaceous vegetation was negative and highly significant ($P < 0.0001$) in BNP ($r_M = -0.32$), BP1 ($r_M = -0.36$) and BP2 ($r_M = -0.43$). When all sites (oak-heath and oak-wood included) were taken into account, the Mantel correlation coefficient between species richness and percent occupancy by ericaceous vegetation was lower ($r_M = -0.25$) but still highly significant ($P < 0.0001$). When corrected for percent occupancy by trees (oak), partial $r_M$ calculated on all sites became as low as -0.42 thus of the same magnitude as when only treeless sites were considered.
Calculated on all sites, there was a very weak (although still highly significant) negative effect of percent occupancy by oak on species richness ($r_M$ = -0.09, P < 0.0001). When corrected for percent occupancy by ericaceous vegetation the negative oak effect became much more prominent (partial $r_M$ = -0.36, P < 0.0001) but remained at a lower level than the negative effect of ericaceous vegetation when corrected for oak effect (partial $r_M$ = -0.42, P < 0.0001).

We showed that the species richness at the unit square (1m²) level decreased in parallel with the development of woody (shrub or tree) vegetation. Within the limits of causality inference based on correlation values (Thagard, 1998), we interpret it as a result of the detrimental effect of woody vegetation to the small-scale coexistence of plant species, which has been observed to occur in wooded pastures (Gillet *et al.*, 1999). This effect was more prominent with ericaceous than with oak cover and could be attributed to a combination of factors such as competition for light and nutrients (Aerts *et al.*, 1990) and mycorrhizal interference (Genney *et al.*, 2000). The nutrient status of the soil improved along the environmental gradient from heath to oak-wood (Axis 1 of CA), as ascertained from habitat preferences and life-history traits of plant species (Fig. 2, Table 1). Similar changes have been observed when ericaceous heath becomes colonised by oak (Nielsen *et al.*, 1987, 1999). Thus, the observed decrease in plant species richness under oak cannot be ascribed to scarcity of nutrients and increased acidity (Roem & Berendse, 2000). Given that Grime's Competitive ability and Tolerance Index of the community (mean niche breadth) increased along the environmental gradient depicted by Axis 1 of CA while Stress Tolerance decreased, we interpret the observed decrease in species coexistence level as a result of increased
390 exploitative competition rather than direct interference or environmental stress (Huston,
391 1979; Grime, 1985; Connell, 1990).

392
393 On shallow soils ('buttons'), we observed a favourable effect of grazing on
394 species coexistence level when comparing non-grazed heath (BNP) to slightly grazed
395 (BP1) and to moderately grazed heath (BP2). Grime's Ruderalness increased and
396 Competitive ability decreased from BNP to BP1 and BP2 (Table 1), thus pointing to an
397 alleviation of competition through herbivory (Bardgett et al., 1998) and associated
398 disturbances known to favour non-ericaceous plant species such as trampling (Gallet &
399 Rozé, 2001; Kohler et al., 2006) and dung deposition (Welch, 1985; Feeley, 2005).

400 Such a small-scale effect of grazing has been registered at a moderate level of cattle
401 pressure (Dupré & Diekmann, 2001), and was verified experimentally (Lavorel et al.,
402 1998). The explanation lies in an increase in spatial and temporal heterogeneity and
403 multi-scaling of the ecosystem at a moderate level of disturbance, known to favour the
404 coexistence of species (Denslow, 1985; Lavorel et al., 1994; Levin, 2000), more
405 especially at the time of seedling establishment (Grubb, 1977). In the case of rocky
406 outcrops ('buttons') which are submitted to harsh climate conditions and poor nutrient
407 availability, most plants are stress tolerant (Table 1) and exhibit low nutrient loss rates
408 due to their evergreen habits (Aerts, 1995). They devote a prominent part of energy
409 requirements to resistance to environmental and biological hazards (Stowe & Osborn,
410 1980), this being reinforced in the presence of cattle grazing by the resistance of
411 seedlings and mature plants to herbivory (Coley et al., 1985; Hanley, 1998). It must be
412 noted that species of patrimonial interest were also favoured by cattle grazing on
413 shallow soils.

414
Temporary but repeated grazing and trampling by cattle may thus be considered as a factor allowing vegetation and soil to remain at a pioneer stage with a richer and patrimonial flora (Partzch, 2007).

418

## Conclusion

420

Our study, although limited in time and space, allowed us to describe a number of vegetation types which are representative of rocky outcrops of the Brenne Regional Natural Park, as ascertained from the extensive study done by Gaudillat (1997). We showed that a variety of plant strategies and ecological traits could be found within a limited area where natural (soil depth) and man-induced (cattle grazing) conditions interfere to create a mosaic of environments. That such regional hot spots of biodiversity must be protected is now out of dispute at the European level. More problematic are the management rules which should be applied to protect them in the long-term. We showed that the development of shrub (heath) and tree (forest) vegetation induced a change in plant communities, shifting from stress-tolerant to competitive species, and that moderate grazing allowed more species, and especially those of patrimonial interest, to cohabit. Rather than prescribed fire and clear-cut operations, which are known to induce severe environmental stresses to a lot of organisms, thereby impoverishing communities in the long-term (Donegan et al., 2001; Lloret et al., 2005), moderate grazing by cattle or sheep might be the best method for the sustainable management of outcrop vegetation in agricultural landscapes, as this has been successfully experimented in other regions (Pakeman et al., 2003; Agreil & Greff, 2008).

439
440 Acknowledgements

441

442 François Pinet (Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne) is greatly acknowledged for his

443 precious vegetation maps and help in the identification of vascular plant species. The

444 private owners, Mr and Mrs Lefébure, deserve a special mention for free access to the
445 site and fruitful discussions. Financial support was partially provided by IFR 101.

446

447 References

448

449 Aerts, R. (1995). - The advantage of being evergreen. *TREE*, 10: 402-407.

450

451 Aerts, R., Berendse, F., Caluwe, H. de & Schmitz, M. (1990). – Competition in

452 heathland along an experimental gradient of nutrient availability. *Oikos*, 57: 310-

453 318.

454

455 Agreil, C. & Greff, N. (2008). – *Des troupeaux et des hommes en espaces naturels: une*

456 *approche dynamique de la gestion pastorale*. Conservatoire Rhône-Alpes des

457 Espaces Naturels, Vourles, France.

458

459 Ballester, A., Vieitez, A.M., Vieitez, E. (1982). – Allelopathic potential of *Erica*

460 *vagans, Calluna vulgaris* and *Daboecia cantabrica*. *J. Chem. Ecol.*, 8: 851-857.

461

462 Barclay-Estrup, P. & Gimingham, C.H. (1969). – The description and interpretation of

463 cyclical processes in a heath community. I. Vegetational change in relation to

464 the *Calluna* cycle. *J. Ecol.*, 57: 737-758.
465

466 Bardgett, R.D., Wardle, D.A. & Yeates, G.W. (1998). – Linking above-ground and

467 below-ground interactions: how plant responses to foliar herbivory influence soil

468 organisms. *Soil Biol. Biochem.*, 30: 1867-1878.

469

470 Bartolomé, J., López, Z.G., Broncano, M.J. & Plaixats, J. (2005). – Grassland

471 colonization by *Erica scoparia* (L.) in the Montseny Biosphere Reserve (Spain)

472 after land-use changes. *Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.*, 111: 253-260.

473

474 Benoist, A. (2006). – Impacts des activités anthropiques et de la végétation sur les

475 communautés de macro-invertébrés du sol dans la Brenne (Indre, France).

476 *Dissertation*, François-Rabelais University, Tours, France.

477

478 Benzécri, J.P. (1969). – Statistical analysis as a tool to make patterns emerge from data.

479 Pp. 35-74, in: S. Watanabe (Ed). *Methodologies of pattern recognition*.

480 Academic Press, New York, NY.

481

482

483 antiherbivore defense. *Science*, 230: 895-899.

484

485 Connell, J.H. (1990). – Apparent versus “real” competition in plants. Pp. 9-26, in: J.B.

486 Grace & D. Tilman (Eds). *Perspectives on plant competition*. Academic Press,

487 San Diego, CA.

488
489 Denslow, J.S. (1985). – Disturbance-mediated coexistence of species. Pp. 307-323, in: S.T.A. Pickett & P.S. White (Eds). *The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics*. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

492
493 Diekmann, M. (2003). – Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant
ecology. A review. *Basic Appl. Ecol.*, 4: 493-506.

495
496 Diekmann, M. & Lawesson, J.E. (1999). – Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous
497 forest species along a transect from Northern Central to North Europe. *Folia
498 Geobot.*, 34: 127-141.

499
500 Dolédec, S., Chessel, D. & Gimaret-Carpentier, C. (2000). – Niche separation in
501 community analysis: a new method. *Ecology*, 81: 2914-2927.

502
503 Donegan, K.K., Watrud, L.S., Seidler, R.J., Maggard, S.P., Shiroyama, T., Porteous,
504 L.A., Di Giovanni, G. (2001). – Soil and litter organisms in Pacific northwest
505 forests under different management practices. *Appl. Soil Ecol.*, 18: 159-175.

506
507 Dupré, C. & Diekmann, M. (2001). – Differences in species richness and life-history
508 traits between grazed and abandoned grasslands in southern Sweden. *Ecography*,
509 24: 275-286.

510
511 Fédoroff, E., Ponge, J.F., Dubs, F., Fernández-González, F. & Lavelle, P. (2005). –
512 Small-scale response of plant species to land-use intensification. *Agric. Ecosyst.*
513 *Environ.*, 105: 283-290.
514

515 Feeley, K. (2005). – The role of clumped defecation in the spatial distribution of soil

516 nutrients and the availability of nutrients for plant uptake. *J. Trop. Ecol.*, 21: 99-102.

517

518

519 Gallet, S. & Rozé, F. (2001). – Resistance of Atlantic heathlands to trampling in

520 Brittany (France): influence of vegetation type, season and weather conditions.

521 *Biol. Conserv.*, 97: 189-198.

522

523 Gaudillat, V. (1997). – Inventaire du patrimoine naturel en Centre Brenne. *Dissertation*,

524 Paris-Sud University, Orsay, France.

525

526 Genney, D.R., Alexander, I.J. & Hartley, S.E. (2000). – Exclusion of grass roots from

527 soil organic layers by *Calluna*: the role of ericoid mycorrhizas. *J. Exp. Bot.*, 51:

528 1117-1125.

529

530 Gillet, F., Murisier, B., Buttler, A., Gallandat, J.D. & Gobat, J.M. (1999). – Influence of

531 tree cover on the diversity of herbaceous communities in subalpine wooded

532 pastures. *Appl. Veg. Sci.*, 2: 47-54.

533

534 Gimingham, C.H., Chapman, S.B. & Webb, N.R. (1979). – European heathlands. Pp.

535 365-413, in: R.L. Specht (Ed). *Heathlands and related shrublands*. Elsevier,

536 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

537
538 Greenacre, M.J. (1984). – *Theory and applications of Correspondence Analysis*.

539 Academic Press, London, UK.

540

541 Grime, J.P. (1985). – Towards a functional description of vegetation. Pp. 503-514, in: J.

542 White (Ed). *The population structure of vegetation*. Junk, Dordrecht, The

543 Netherlands.

544

545 Grime, J.P. (1987). – Dominant and subordinate components of plant communities:

546 implications for succession, stability and diversity. Pp. 413-428, in: A.J. Gray,

547 M.J. Crawley & P.J. Edwards (Eds). *Colonization, succession and stability*,

548 Oxford. Blackwell, London, UK.

549

550 Grubb, P.J. (1977). – The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the

551 importance of the regeneration niche. *Biol. Rev.*, 52: 107-145.

552

553 Hanley, M.E. (1998). – Seedling herbivory, community composition and plant life

554 history traits. *Persp. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst.*, 1: 191-205.

555

556 Hill, M.O., Mountford, J.O., Roy, D.B. & Bunce, R.G.H. (1999). – *Ellenberg's*

557 *indicator values for British plants*. Natural Environment Council, Institute of

558 Terrestrial Ecology, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Huntingdon, UK.

559

560 Huston, M. (1979). – A general hypothesis of species diversity. *Am. Nat.*, 113: 81-101.

561
562 Kenkel, N.C. (2006). – On selecting an appropriate multivariate analysis. *Can. J. Plant Sci.*, 86: 663-676.

563 Kohler, F., Gillet, F., Gobat, J.M. & Buttler, A. (2006). – Effect of cattle activities on gap colonization in mountain pastures. *Folia Geobot.*, 41: 289-304.

567 Lavorel, S., Lepart, J., Debussche, M., Lebreton, J.D. & Beffy, J.L. (1994). – Small scale disturbances and the maintenance of species diversity in Mediterranean old fields. *Oikos*, 70: 455-473.

571 Lavorel, S., Touzard, B., Lebreton, J.D. & Clément, B. (1998). – Identifying functional groups for response to disturbance in an abandoned pasture. *Acta Oecol.*, 19: 227-240.

575 Legendre, P. & Fortin, M.J. (1989). – Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. *Vegetatio*, 80: 107-138.

578 Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. (1998). – *Numerical ecology*, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

581 Levin, S.A. (2000). – Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. *Ecosystems*, 3: 498-506.

584
585 Lloret, F., Estevan, H., Vayreda, J. & Terradas, J. (2005). – Fire regenerative syndromes of forest woody species across fire and climatic gradients. *Oecologia*, 146: 461-468.

588 McNaughton, S.J. & Wolf, L.L. (1970). – Dominance and the niche in ecological systems. *Science*, 167: 131-139.

591 Miles, J. (1979). – *Vegetation dynamics*. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

593 Miles, J. & Walton, D.W.H. (1993). – Primary succession revisited. Pp. 295-302, in: J. Miles & D.W.H. Walton (Eds). *Primary succession on land*. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

597 Nielsen, K.E., Dalsgaard, K. & Nørnberg, P. (1987). – Effects on soils of an oak invasion of a *Calluna* heath. I. Morphology and chemistry. *Geoderma*, 41: 79-95.

601 Nielsen, K.E., Ladekarl, U.L. & Nørnberg, P. (1999). – Dynamic soil processes on heathland due to changes in vegetation to oak and Sitka spruce. *For. Ecol. Manag.*, 114: 107-116.

605 Oberrath, R. & Böhning-Gaese, K. (2001). – The Signed Mantel test to cope with autocorrelation in comparative analyses. *J. Appl. Stat.*, 28: 725-736.

608
609 Pakeman, R.J., Hulme, P.D., Torvell, L. & Fisher, J.M. (2003). – Rehabilitation of degraded dry heather [*Calluna vulgaris* (L.) Hull] moorland by controlled sheep grazing. *Biol. Conserv.*, 114: 389-400.

612
613 Partzsch, M. (2007). – Flora, vegetation and history of the porphyry landscape between Halle and Wettin (Saxony-anhalt, Germany). *Schlechtendalia*, 15: 1-91.

615
616 Perrinet, M. (1995). – Les groupements végétaux de la Réserve Naturelle du Pinail (Vienne, France). I. Les landes. *Bull. Soc. Bot. Centre Ouest*, 26: 3-18.

618
619 Pinet, F. (2005). – *Flore remarquable du Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne: guide photographique*. Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne, Rosnay, France.

621
622 Ponge, J.F. & Chevalier, R. (2006). – Humus Index as an indicator of forest stand and soil properties. *For. Ecol. Manag.*, 233: 165-175.

624
625 Rallet, L. (1935). – Étude phytogéographique de la Brenne. *Bull. Soc. Sc. Nat. Ouest France*, 5: 1-280.

627
628 Reitallu, T., Prentice, H.C., Sykes, M.T., Lönn, M., Johansson, L.J. & Hall, K. (2008). – Plant species segregation on different spatial scales in semi-natural grasslands. *J. Veg. Sci.*, 19: 407-416.

631
632 Roem, W.J. & Berendse, F. (2000). – Soil acidity and nutrient supply ratio as possible factors determining changes in plant species diversity in grassland and heathland communities. *Biol. Conserv.*, 92: 151-161.

636 Stowe, L.G. & Osborn, A. (1980). – The influence of nitrogen and phosphorus levels on the phytotoxicity of phenolic compounds. *Can. J. Bot.*, 58: 1149-1153.

639 Thagard, P. (1998). – Explaining disease: correlations, causes, and mechanisms. *Minds Mach.*, 8: 67-78.

642 Trotignon, E. & Trotignon, J. (2007). – *La Brenne: la nature en héritage*. Alan Sutton, Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire, France.

645 Wamelink, G.W.W. & Van Dobben, H.F. (2003). – Uncertainty of critical loads based on the Ellenberg indicator value. *Basic Appl. Ecol.*, 4: 515-523.

648 Welch, D. (1985). – Studies in the grazing of heather moorland in North-East Scotland. IV. Seed dispersal and plant establishment in dung. *J. Appl. Ecol.*, 22: 461-472.

651 Whittaker, R.H. (1960). – Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. *Ecol. Monogr.*, 30: 279-338.

654 Zobel, M. (1997). – The relative role of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence? *TREE*, 12: 266-269.
657 **Legends for figures**

658

659 **Figure 1.** Map of the study area and location of the 10 sites. a = BP1, b = BA1, c = BP2, d = BNP, e = BA2, f = BA3, g = BSF1, h = BSF2, k = CHM2, m = CHM1

661

662 **Figure 2.** Relationship between Tolerance Index (Dolédec *et al.* 2000) and Ellenberg's Light Index with the first axis of Correspondence Analysis (CA). Equations of regression lines and determination coefficients are indicated. Codes for the 10 study sites as in Table 1

666

667 **Figure 3.** Projection of passive variables along Axis 1 of CA: sites (in boxes), soil types (underlined), percent occupancy by species groups, average Ellenberg indices, average Grime strategies and Tolerance Index (higher values in bold, lower values in italics, see text for more details)

671

672 **Figure 4.** Projection of the 79 plant species along Axis 1 of CA. Species codes and letter types as in Table 2

674

675 **Figure 5.** Relationship between percent occupancy by ericaceous vegetation and plant species richness of unit samples, in 6 oak-free heath sites. Codes for sites as in Fig. 1. Equation of regression line and determination coefficient are indicated

678

679
<table><caption>Table 1. Main site and vegetation features of the 10 investigated plots (mean ± S.E). r<sub>xy</sub> is a Mantel correlation coefficient with Axis 1 values, tested by Monte-Carlo simulation. *** = significant at 0.001 level. NS = not significant at 0.05 level</caption><thead><tr><th>Code</th><th>BP2</th><th>BP1</th><th>BNP</th><th>BA3</th><th>BA2</th><th>BA1</th><th>BSF2</th><th>BSF1</th><th>CHM1</th><th>CHM2</th><th>r<sub>M</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Site (button)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Vegetation type</td><td>Pastured heath</td><td>Pastured heath</td><td>Non-pastured heath</td><td>Old heath</td><td>Old heath</td><td>Old heath</td><td>Oak-heath</td><td>Oak-heath</td><td>Oakwood</td><td>Oakwood</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Soil type</td><td>Shallow</td><td>Shallow</td><td>Shallow</td><td>Deep</td><td>Deep</td><td>Deep</td><td>Deep</td><td>Deep</td><td>Deep</td><td>Deep</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of samples</td><td>20</td><td>17</td><td>29</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Species richness per m<sup>2</sup></td><td>14.4±0.9</td><td>12.6±1</td><td>7.9±0.4</td><td>7±0.7</td><td>7.2±0.9</td><td>11.6±0.9</td><td>7.6±1.2</td><td>11±1.9</td><td>7±0.8</td><td>11.6±1.7</td><td>-0.24***</td></tr><tr><td>Beta diversity (Whittaker's βw)</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.7</td><td>1.9</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.6</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mosses %</td><td>76.8±3.8</td><td>90.6±2.9</td><td>77.5±5</td><td>83±17</td><td>76±19.4</td><td>72.5±6.7</td><td>16.8±7.2</td><td>61.6±16.7</td><td>0.8±0.8</td><td>5.6±1.6</td><td>-0.60***</td></tr><tr><td>Grasses %</td><td>53.6±4.9</td><td>46.6±6</td><td>17.2±4.8</td><td>2±2</td><td>17.6±10.5</td><td>24.3±3.8</td><td>40±17.4</td><td>14.4±6</td><td>100±0</td><td>80.8±19.2</td><td>0.08***</td></tr><tr><td>Forbs %</td><td>43.4±5.8</td><td>41.4±5.1</td><td>15.6±4.4</td><td>5±3</td><td>16.8±8.2</td><td>30.1±7.6</td><td>19.2±6.4</td><td>10.4±7.1</td><td>75.2±15.3</td><td>48.8±5.6</td><td>0.01NS</td></tr><tr><td>Legumes %</td><td>67.6±6.5</td><td>58.4±7.6</td><td>51.7±5.5</td><td>17±5</td><td>9.6±5.5</td><td>1.7±0.8</td><td>2.4±1</td><td>2.4±1.6</td><td>3.2±2.3</td><td>2.4±2.4</td><td>-0.39***</td></tr><tr><td>Ericaceous shrubs %</td><td>56.2±5.5</td><td>62.6±7.5</td><td>85.5±3.5</td><td>95±5</td><td>88±10.1</td><td>87.5±0</td><td>20±20</td><td>45.6±20</td><td>0±0</td><td>0±0</td><td>-0.38***</td></tr><tr><td>Non-ericaceous shrubs %</td><td>66.4±7</td><td>67.5±5.6</td><td>58.2±4.7</td><td>75±25</td><td>9.6±3.5</td><td>44.8±6.7</td><td>2.4±1</td><td>8.8±4.6</td><td>0.8±0.8</td><td>15.2±8.3</td><td>-0.43***</td></tr><tr><td>Oak trees %</td><td>6.4±5.1</td><td>4.2±2.6</td><td>9.5±4.9</td><td>0±0</td><td>16.8±15.8</td><td>1.7±0.8</td><td>75.2±16.7</td><td>92±17.8</td><td>100±0</td><td>100±0</td><td>0.68***</td></tr><tr><td>Lianas %</td><td>1.2±1.2</td><td>8.7±4.9</td><td>5±2.8</td><td>5±3.8</td><td>0±0</td><td>6.1±3.9</td><td>14.4±7.4</td><td>22.4±10.5</td><td>75.2±12.4</td><td>41.6±11.8</td><td>0.58***</td></tr><tr><td>Light Index</td><td>7.3±0.05</td><td>7.27±0.05</td><td>7.31±0.06</td><td>7.17±0.15</td><td>7.1±0.07</td><td>6.71±0.07</td><td>6.58±0.27</td><td>6.51±0.14</td><td>6.13±0.13</td><td>6.31±0.12</td><td>-0.72***</td></tr><tr><td>Moisture Index</td><td>5.35±0.08</td><td>5.22±0.11</td><td>5.81±0.04</td><td>6.01±0.3</td><td>5.71±0.18</td><td>5.45±0.08</td><td>5.54±0.14</td><td>5.48±0.11</td><td>5.28±0.13</td><td>5.48±0.08</td><td>0.14***</td></tr><tr><td>Reaction Index</td><td>3.89±0.09</td><td>4.13±0.1</td><td>3.58±0.08</td><td>4.59±0.15</td><td>4.47±0.23</td><td>4.77±0.08</td><td>4.55±0.21</td><td>4.63±0.1</td><td>4.75±0.17</td><td>4.86±0.22</td><td>0.5***</td></tr><tr><td>Nitrogen Index</td><td>2.58±0.1</td><td>2.93±0.08</td><td>2.49±0.09</td><td>3.33±0.16</td><td>3.26±0.13</td><td>3.44±0.08</td><td>3.71±0.27</td><td>3.63±0.19</td><td>4.17±0.21</td><td>4.3±0.19</td><td>0.7**</td></tr><tr><td>Competitive ability</td><td>1.97±0.04</td><td>2.01±0.06</td><td>2.35±0.8</td><td>3.08±0.08</td><td>2.72±0.12</td><td>2.82±0.08</td><td>2.99±0.14</td><td>2.73±0.14</td><td>2.92±0.05</td><td>2.96±0.04</td><td>0.7***</td></tr><tr><td>Stress tolerance</td><td>3.53±0.08</td><td>3.18±0.07</td><td>3.63±0.08</td><td>2.75±0.16</td><td>3.32±0.14</td><td>3.11±0.05</td><td>3.01±0.14</td><td>3.17±0.11</td><td>2.8±0.12</td><td>2.77±0.06</td><td>-0.45***</td></tr><tr><td>Ruderalness</td><td>1.88±0.11</td><td>2.34±0.11</td><td>1.12±0.04</td><td>1.42±0.25</td><td>1.45±0.14</td><td>1.83±0.1</td><td>1.6±0.21</td><td>1.39±0.06</td><td>1.83±0.09</td><td>1.98±0.14</td><td>-0.11***</td></tr><tr><td>Tolerance Index</td><td>0.42±0.02</td><td>0.49±0.02</td><td>0.46±0.02</td><td>0.54±0.04</td><td>0.62±0.05</td><td>0.63±0.02</td><td>1.05±0.09</td><td>0.79±0.1</td><td>1.1±0.03</td><td>1.01±0.01</td><td>0.77***</td></tr><tr><td>Axis 1 of CA</td><td>0</td><td>-0.62±0.14</td><td>-0.26±0.05</td><td>0.11±0.02</td><td>0.15±0.07</td><td>0.64±0.1</td><td>0.84±0.1</td><td>1.42±0.69</td><td>1.46±0.24</td><td>2.2±0.24</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

680

681
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Code and latin name of plant species recorded in the study area in at least two samples, together with their tolerance values, Ellenberg values and CSR strategies when known. Codes in bold type for vascular species (lower case for herbs, upper case for trees and shrubs), in italic lower case type for mosses and lichens, underlined for legumes</caption><thead><tr><th>Code</th><th>Latin name</th><th>Light</th><th>Moisture</th><th>Reaction</th><th>Nitrogen</th><th>Competitive ability</th><th>Stress-tolerance</th><th>Ruderalness</th><th>Tolerance value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>amo</td><td>Arenaria montana L.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.37</td></tr><tr><td>aod</td><td>Anthoxanthum odoratum L.</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>apr</td><td>Aira praecox L.</td><td>8</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>ate</td><td>Agrostis tenuis Sibth.</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>aun</td><td>Atrichum undulatum (Hedw.) P. Beauv.</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.02</td></tr><tr><td>bca</td><td>Bryum caespitum Hedw.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>bru</td><td>Brachythecium rutabulum (Hedw.) B., S. & G.</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>bsp</td><td>Bryum sp.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>bsu</td><td>Bryum subapiculatum Hampe</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>cgl</td><td>Cerastium glomeratum Thuill.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td>CMO</td><td>Crataegus monogyna Jacq.</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td>cpi</td><td>Carex pilulifera L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>cpu</td><td>Ceratodon purpureus (Hedw.) Brid.</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>CSC</td><td>Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.50</td></tr><tr><td>cs1</td><td>Carex sp.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>cs2</td><td>Cerastium sp.</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>CVU</td><td>Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>dde</td><td>Danthonia decumbens (L.) DC.</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>dhe</td><td>Dicranella heteromalla (Hedw.) Schimp.</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.73</td></tr><tr><td>disc</td><td>Dicranum scoparium Hew.</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>ECI</td><td>Erica cinerea L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>ESC</td><td>Erica scoparia L.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.55</td></tr><tr><td>est</td><td>Eurhynchium striatum (Hew.) Schimp.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>FAL</td><td>Frangula alnus Mill.</td><td>6</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>fbr</td><td>Fissidens bryoides Hedw.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.22</td></tr><tr><td>fov</td><td>Festuca ovina L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td>GAN</td><td>Genista anglica L.</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>gap</td><td>Galium aparine L.</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>gmo</td><td>Geranium molle L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>hcu</td><td>Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw.</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>HHE</td><td>Hedera helix L.</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td>hhu</td><td>Hypericum humifusum L.</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>him</td><td>Hieracium umbellatum L.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>hju</td><td>Hypnum jutlandicum Balcerk. et Brzeg</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>hla</td><td>Holcus lanatus L.</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>him</td><td>Hypnum lacunosum (Brid.) Hoffm. ex Brid.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>hmo</td><td>Holcus mollis L.</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>hpi</td><td>Hieracium pilosella L.</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>hra</td><td>Hypochoeris radicata L.</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>hum</td><td>Halimium umbellatum (L.) Spach.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>jsp</td><td>Juncus sp.</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>kpr</td><td>Kindbergia praelonga (Hedw.) Ochyra</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.56</td></tr><tr><td>lca</td><td>Luzula campestris (L.) DC.</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>LPE</td><td>Lonicera periclymenum L.</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>lsp</td><td>Unidentified lichen species</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td>lvu</td><td>Linaria vulgaris Mill.</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>mmi</td><td>Medicago minima L.</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.36</td></tr><tr><td>mmr</td><td>Montia minor C. C. Gmel.</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>pan</td><td>Poa annua L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>plo</td><td>Polytrichum formosum Hew.</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>pju</td><td>Polytrichum juniperinum Hew.</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>pla</td><td>Plantago lanceolata L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>ppr</td><td>Poa pratensis L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>pre</td><td>Potentilla reptans L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>pse</td><td>Polygala serpyllifolia Hose</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>PSP</td><td>Prunus spinosa L.</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.15</td></tr><tr><td>QHY</td><td>Quercus (hybrid)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>QPE</td><td>Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Lieblein</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>QPU</td><td>Quercus pubescens Willd.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.64</td></tr><tr><td>QRO</td><td>Quercus robur L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td>QSE</td><td>Quercus (seedling)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>rac</td><td>Rumex acetosella L.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>RAR</td><td>Rosa arvensis Huds.</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>rbu</td><td>Ranunculus bulbosus L.</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>RCA</td><td>Rosa canina L.</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>RFR</td><td>Rubus fruticosus L.</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>rla</td><td>Racomitrium lanuginosum J. H. Tallisl.</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td>RSA</td><td>Rubus sp. A</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>RSB</td><td>Rubus sp. B</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>RSC</td><td>Rubus sp. C</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>spu</td><td>Scleropodium purum (Hedw.) Limpr.</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>sti</td><td>Serratula tinctoria L.</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>STO</td><td>Sorbus torminalis (L.) Crantz</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>tnu</td><td>Teesdalia nudicaulis (L.) R.</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td>tsc</td><td>Teucrium scorodonia L.</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>1.30</td></tr><tr><td>UNA</td><td>Ulex nanus T. F. Forster ex Symons</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>vca</td><td>Viola canina L.</td><td>8</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>vch</td><td>Veronica chamaedrys L.</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td>vsp</td><td>Unidentified vascular species</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

683

684 Fig. 1

685
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

686

687 Fig. 2

688
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>