Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 247–259 | Cite as

The analysis of spatio-temporal forest changes (1775–2000) in Flanders (northern Belgium) indicates habitat-specific levels of fragmentation and area loss

  • Luc De Keersmaeker
  • Thierry Onkelinx
  • Bruno De Vos
  • Nele Rogiers
  • Kris Vandekerkhove
  • Arno Thomaes
  • An De Schrijver
  • Martin Hermy
  • Kris Verheyen
Research Article



Spatio-temporal forest changes can have a progressive negative impact on the habitat of species that need forest continuity, i.e. the continuous presence of forest. Long-term species data that demonstrate such an impact are often not available. Instead we applied a spatial analysis on maps of the historical and present-day forests, by calculating landscape indices that explain forest plant species diversity.


We digitized for this purpose, forests in Flanders (northern Belgium, ~13,500 km2) at four time slices (1775, 1850, 1904–1931, 2000) and created a map of forest continuity in 2000. The ecological relevance of the analysis was further enhanced by a site classification, using a map of potential forest habitat types based on soil–vegetation relationships.


Our results indicated that, between 1775 and 2000, forests occupied 9.7–12.2 % of the total study area. If continuity was not taken into consideration, forest fragmentation slightly increased since 1775. However, only 16 % of the forest area in 2000 remained continuously present at least since 1775 and is therefore called ancient forest (AF). Moreover, connectivity of forest that originated after 1775, called recent forest, was low and only 14 % was in physical contact with AF. The results were habitat-specific as forest on sites that are potentially suitable for a high number of slow-colonizing species, e.g. ancient forest plants, were affected most.


We discuss that a GIS analysis of this kind is essential to provide statistics for forest biodiversity conservation and restoration, in landscapes with a dynamic and heterogeneous forest cover.


Connectivity GIS Historical ecology Historical maps Land-use change Land-use reconstruction Landscape metrics Recovery potential 



We would like to thank Marc Esprit who accomplished most of the laborious digitization work, and the Nature and Forest Agency who put the forest inventory sample points to our disposal. This research was the result of project VLINA/C97/06b, funded by the Flemish Community.

Supplementary material

10980_2014_119_MOESM1_ESM.docx (403 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 403 kb)


  1. AGIV (2001) Digital forest reference layer 2000. Flemish Geographical Information Agency and the Nature and Forest Agency of the Flemish Community. Accessed Feb 2013
  2. Andrieu E, Ladet S, Heintz W, Deconchat M (2011) History and spatial complexity of deforestation and logging in small private forests. Landsc Urban Plan 103:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assmann T (1999) The ground beetle fauna of ancient and recent woodlands in the lowlands of north-west Germany (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Biodivers Conserv 8:1499–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batek MJ, Rebertus AJ, Schroeder WA, Haithcoat TL, Compas E, Guyette RP (1999) Reconstruction of early nineteenth century vegetation and fire regimes in the Missouri Ozarks. J Biogeogr 26:397–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolliger J, Schulte LA, Burrows SN, Sickley TA, Mladenhoff DJ (2004) Assessing ecological restoration potentials of Wisconsin (USA) using historical landscape reconstructions. Restor Ecol 12(1):124–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bos+ (2012) Bosbarometer 2012: waar blijven de daden? Bos+, Melle. Accessed Jan 2013
  7. Brunet J, De Frenne P, Holmström E, LajosMayr M (2012) Life-history traits explain rapid colonization of young post-agricultural forests by understory herbs. For Ecol Manag 278:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnicki AC (2012) Impact of error on landscape pattern analyses performed on land-cover change maps. Landscape Ecol 27:713–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carstensen B, Plummer M, Laara E, Hills M (2013) Epi: A Package for Statistical Analysis in Epidemiology. R package version 1.1.49. Accessed May 2014
  10. Cornelis J, Hermy M, Roelandt B, De Keersmaeker L, Vandekerkhove K (2009) Bosplantengemeenschappen in Vlaanderen, een typologie van bossen gebaseerd op de kruidlaag. Agentschap voor Natuur en Bos en Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. Cousins SA (2001) Analysis of land cover transitions based on 17th and 19th century cadastral maps and aerial photographs. Landscape Ecol 16:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Clercq EM, Clement L, De Wulf RR (2009) Monte Carlo simulation of false change in the overlay of misregistered forest vector maps. Landsc Urban Plan 91:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Frenne P, Baeten L, Graae BJ, Brunet J, Wulf M, Orczewska A, Kolb A, Jansen I, Jamoneau A, Jacquemyn H, Hermy M, Diekmann M, De Schrijver A, De Sanctis M, Decocq G, Cousins SA, Verheyen K (2011) Interregional variation in the floristic recovery of post-agricultural forests. J Ecol 99:600–609Google Scholar
  14. De Keersmaeker L, Vandekerkhove K, Verstraeten A, Baeten L, Verschelde P, Thomaes A, Hermy M, Verheyen K (2011) Clear-felling effects on colonization rates of shade tolerant forest herbs into a post-agricultural forest adjacent to ancient forest. Appl Veg Sci 14:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Keersmaeker L, Rogiers N, Vandekerkhove K, De Vos B, Roelandt B, Cornelis J, De Schrijver A, Onkelinx T, Thomaes A, Hermy M, Verheyen K (2013) Application of the ancient forest concept to Potential Natural Vegetation mapping in Flanders, a strongly altered landscape in Northern Belgium. Folia Geobotanica 48:137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Desender K, Ervynck A, Tack G (1999) Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in Flanders. Belg J Zool 129:139–156Google Scholar
  17. Dondeyne S, Van Ranst E, Deckers J (2012) Converting the legend of the soil map of Belgium into the World Reference Base for soil resources. KU Leuven and UGent, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  18. Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ (1997) The use of the land survey record to reconstruct pre-European vegetation patterns in the Darling Downs, Queensland, Australia. J Biogeogr 24:827–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster DR (1992) Land-use history (1730-1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New England, USA. J Ecol 80:753–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fritz Ö, Gustafsson L, Larsson K (2008) Does forest continuity matter in conservation?—A study of epiphytic lichens and bryophytes in beech forests of southern Sweden. Biol Conserv 141:655–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall B, Motzkin G, Foster DR, Syfert M, Burk J (2002) Three hundred years of forest and land-use change in Massachusetts, USA. J Biogeogr 29:1319–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hermy M, Honnay O, Firbank L, Grashof-Bokdam C, Lawesson JE (1999) An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biol Conserv 91:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Honnay O, Verheyen K, Butaye J, Jacquemyn H, Bossuyt B, Hermy M (2002) Possible effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change on the range of forest plant species. Ecol Lett 5:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006) World reference base for soil resources 2006. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication. World soil resources report 103, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Iverson LR (1988) Land-use changes in Illinois, USA: the influence of landscape attributes on current and historic land use. Landscape Ecol 2:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacquemyn H, Butaye J, Hermy M (2001) Forest plant species richness in small, fragmented mixed deciduous forest patches: the role of area, time and dispersal limitation. J Biogeogr 28:801–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacquemyn H, Butaye J, Hermy M (2003) Impacts of restored patch density and distance from natural forests on colonization success. Restor Ecol 11:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leyk S, Boesch R, Weibel R (2005) A conceptual framework for uncertainty investigation in map-based land cover change modeling. Trans GIS 9:291–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindbladh M, Brunet J, Hannon G, Niklasson M, Eliasson P, Eriksson G, Ekstrand A (2007) Forest history as a basis for ecosystem restoration—a multidisciplinary case study in a south Swedish temperate landscape. RestorEcol 15(2):284–295Google Scholar
  30. Matlack GR (2005) Slow plants in a fast forest: local dispersal as a predictor of species frequencies in a dynamic landscape. J Ecol 93(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1998) Annex 2 of the resolution L2, Pan-European Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management. Adopted at the Fifth Expert Level Preparatory Meeting of the Lisbon Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 27–29 April 1998, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed June 2013
  33. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (2009) Pan-European guidelines for afforestation and reforestation with a special focus on the provisions of the UNFCCC. Adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting on 12–13 November 2008 and by the PEBLDS Bureau on behalf of the PEBLDS Council on 4 November 2008. Accessed June 2013
  34. Montréal Process Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests (2009) Technical notes on implementation of the Montréal Process criteria and indicators, criteria 1–7, third edition available from Accessed May 2014
  35. Nordén B, Appelqvist T (2001) Conceptual problems of ecological continuity and its bioindicators. Biodiversity Conserv 10:779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterken G (2000) Rebuilding networks of forest habitats in lowland England. Landsc Res 25:291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peterken GF, Game M (1984) Historical factors affecting the number and distribution of vascular plant species in the woodlands of central Lincolnshire. J Ecol 72:155–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ponge JF, Dubs F, Gillet S, Sousa JP, Lavelle P (2006) Decreased biodiversity in soil springtail communities: the importance of dispersal and landuse history in heterogeneous landscapes. Soil Biol Biochem 38:1158–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Riitters KH, Coulston JW, Wickham JD (2003) Localizing national fragmentation statistics with forest type maps. J Forest 101:18–22Google Scholar
  40. Sereda S, Lukana M (2009) Assessment of changes in land-use development in the Magura and the Eastern Tatras in the years 1772–2003. Oecol Mont 18:1–13Google Scholar
  41. Skalos J, Engstova B, Trpakova I, Santruckova M, Podrazsky V (2012) Long-term changes in forest cover 1780–2007 in central Bohemia, Czech Republic. Eur J Forest Res 131:871–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spencer JW, Kirby KJ (1992) An inventory of ancient woodland for England and Wales. Biol Conserv 62:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Accessed May 2014
  44. Van Landuyt W, Hoste I, Vanhecke L, Van Den Bremt P, Vercruysse W, de Beer D (2006) Atlas van de flora van Vlaanderen en het Brussels Gewest. Flower, Research Institute for Nature and National Botanic Garden of Belgium, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  45. Vellend M (2003) Habitat loss inhibits recovery of plant diversity as forests regrow. Ecology 84:1158–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vellend M, Verheyen K, Jacquemyn H, Kolb A, Van Calster H, Peterken G, Hermy M (2006) Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology 87:542–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verheyen K, Hermy M (2001) The relative importance of dispersal limitation of vascular plants in secondary forest succession in Muizen Forest, Belgium. J Ecol 89:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verheyen K, Bossuyt B, Hermy M, Tack G (1999) The land use history of a mixed hardwood forest in western Belgium and its relationships with chemical soil characteristics. J Biogeogr 26:1115–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verheyen K, Fastenaekels I, Vellend M, De Keersmaeker L, Hermy M (2006) Landscape factors and regional differences in recovery rates of herb layer richness in Flanders (Belgium). Landscape Ecol 21:1109–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waterinckx M, Roelandt B (2001) De bosinventaris van het Vlaamse Gewest. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, afdeling Bos and Groen, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  51. Wickham JD, Riiters KH, Wade TG, Coulston JW (2007) Temporal change in forest fragmentation at multiple scales. Landscape Ecol 22:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wulf M (2003) Forest policy in the EU and its influence on the plant diversity of woodlands. J Environ Manag 67:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wulf M, Gross J (2004) Application of the historical Schmettau map (1767–1787) in landscape analysis. In: Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie, Band 34, Giessen, 13–17 September 2004Google Scholar
  54. Wulf M, Rujner H (2011) A GIS-based method for the reconstruction of the late eighteenth century forest vegetation in the Prignitz region (NE Germany). Landscape Ecol 26:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wulf M, Sommer M, Schmidt R (2010) Forest cover changes in the Prignitz region (NE Germany) between 1790 and 1960 in relation to soils and other driving forces. Landscape Ecol 25:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc De Keersmaeker
    • 1
  • Thierry Onkelinx
    • 1
  • Bruno De Vos
    • 1
  • Nele Rogiers
    • 2
  • Kris Vandekerkhove
    • 1
  • Arno Thomaes
    • 1
  • An De Schrijver
    • 3
  • Martin Hermy
    • 4
  • Kris Verheyen
    • 3
  1. 1.Research Institute for Nature and ForestGeraardsbergenBelgium
  2. 2.Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation (UVEK)Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) Abteilung WaldBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Forest and Nature LabGhent UniversityMelleBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Earth & Environmental SciencesKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations