Plant Ecology

, Volume 213, Issue 10, pp 1597–1608 | Cite as

Richness, diversity, and rate of primary succession over 20 year in tropical coastal dunes

  • L. L. Álvarez-Molina
  • M. L. Martínez
  • O. Pérez-Maqueo
  • J. B. Gallego-Fernández
  • P. Flores
Article

Abstract

The tropical coastal dunes in central Gulf of Mexico have been stabilizing over the last decades resulting in reduced substrate mobility, and promoting primary succession. We describe changes in species richness and diversity in dune vegetation during 20 years. Our questions: (a) Do species richness and diversity increase over time as predicted by models of ecological succession or do they show a hump-backed manner similar to the observations in temperate coastal dunes?, (b) What is the interaction between vegetation cover and diversity and species richness?, (c) Is there a relationship between species diversity and succession rate and does succession rate change over time?, and (d) How do plant functional types change during succession? In order to answer these questions, we set 140 4 × 4 m permanent plots in a mobile dune area and monitored vegetation cover and species richness from 1991 to 2011. In time, diversity increased in a logistic manner toward an asymptotic value once vegetation cover surpassed 60 %. Species richness increased in a humped-back shape, also reaching a maximum peak at 60 % vegetation cover. The succession rate of diversity was measured by the Euclidean distance, and showed a significant humped-back relation, meaning that it was slower in early and late successional stages. The study supports the intermediate disturbance theory. The conservation of coastal dunes vegetation should focus on all, species-poor and species-rich habitats that help to maintain the ecological integrity of these ecosystems. The understanding of community dynamics and diversity patterns becomes an essential component of coastal dune management and conservation.

Keywords

Chamaecrista Dune stabilization Hump-backed pattern Mexico Primary succession Schizachyrium Succession rate 

Introduction

Coastal dunes occur in many latitudes throughout the world and a wide variety of biomes can develop in these habitats, such as tropical and temperate forests, grasslands, thickets, and typical beach and dune vegetation, tolerant to salt spray, and substrate mobility (Martínez et al. 2004). Besides the biological diversity, coastal dunes are also diverse in terms of landforms, which include different types of dunes (parabolic, barkhans, dune fields, blowouts, foredunes as well as diverse vegetation cover, ranging from no vegetation (mobile dunes) to completely vegetated systems (stabilized dunes). Because of their ample distribution and environmental heterogeneity (Hesp 2000), these ecosystems contain a high ecological diversity and variability of species composition (van der Maarel 1993, 1994). The vegetation patterns and processes of coastal dunes have been of interest to ecologists for more than a century. In fact, as early as 1899, Henry Cowles recognized the basic idea that plant communities of different ages in sand dunes reflected how the communities changed over time.

In addition to the environmental heterogeneity of coastal dunes in terms of local (topographic) and regional (different latitudes) spatial scales, dune heterogeneity is often increased by disturbances which open patches for plant colonization after vegetation is removed and new niches are created where primary succession can be set to its initial stages repeatedly (Hesp and Martínez 2007). Large-scale disturbances that lead to intense sand mobility include severe storms (such as hurricanes) or the transgression of mobile sand from nearby sand deposits that can be carried by ocean currents or the wind action. Thus, the environmental heterogeneity, recurring disturbance events and species interactions result in different patterns and rates of succession. It is also possible to state that temporal and spatial dynamics on sand dunes is an intrinsic and inseparable feature of its ecological integrity.

In the same weather regime, and even in the same location, coastal dunes may be mobile or stabilized and may be located adjacent to each other increasing thus local environmental heterogeneity. Mobile dunes become stabilized (or fixed) when substrate mobility declines because wind speed decreases; because sand supply is depleted; or because vegetation cover increases owing to natural succession, climate change, or human intervention (Yizhaq et al. 2007; Tsoar 2005). Vegetation on mobile dunes remains in its earlier successional stages when dunes are mobile (Moreno-Casasola 1986). As sand mobility decreases, the successional species replacement gets started.

In general, models of ecological succession predict an increase of vegetation cover, richness, and diversity with increasing age (Odum 1971; Stankeviciute 2006). However, this does not seem to be always the case during succession occurring on coastal dunes, where species richness and diversity sometimes decrease in mature stages of succession (Isermann 2011; Peyrat and Fichtner 2011), probably owing to reduced environmental fluctuations (such as diminished disturbances) (Stankeviciute 2006) and changes in species interactions (Connell and Slatyer 1977) which may lead to the dominance of a few species (Pysek and Richardson 2006; Valéry et al. 2008; Muñoz-Vallés et al. 2011). As a result, and contrary to other ecosystems with a linear increment in richness and diversity, succession in sand dunes would show a quadratic function tendency for these parameters.

Since the early 1900s (but more intensively during the last decades), these widespread and diverse ecosystems have been increasingly exposed to additional disturbances: human activities that include tourism, land use change, and urbanization. These actions lead to substantial reductions of species diversity and the loss of ecosystem services such as protection from storms and hurricanes, scenic beauty, and recreation. In particular, tropical coastal dunes are severely threatened because of popular and hence intensified “sand and sun” tourism (Grunewald 2006; Nordstrom 2008; Mendoza-González et al. 2012). Thus, adequate management planning and restoration actions are necessary to preserve these ecosystems. In order to achieve this, the understanding of community dynamics and diversity patterns become an essential component (Acosta et al. 2009).

This study was performed in a well-preserved coastal dune system located in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico, which is representative of nearby dune systems (Moreno-Casasola et al. 1998; López-Portillo et al. 2011). These dune systems are being increasingly threatened by human encroachment including: urbanization, tourism, and land use change (Mendoza-González et al.2012; López-Portillo et al. 2011). Here, we evaluated changes in species richness and diversity of dune vegetation during a 20-year natural succession sequence. We addressed the following questions in our study: (a) Do species richness and diversity increase over time as predicted by models of ecological succession or do they decrease in a hump-backed manner similar to the observations in temperate coastal dune vegetation? (b) What is the interaction between vegetation cover and diversity and between vegetation cover and species richness during the successional sequence? (c) Is there a relationship between species diversity and succession rate and does succession rate change over time? (d) How do plant functional types change during succession?

Methods

Study site

The study took place at the Centro de Investigaciones Costeras La Mancha (CICOLMA) which is located in the state of Veracruz on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico (19°36′N, 96°22′40″W). The dune system extends over 2 km along the coast and is bordered by a coastal lagoon to the south and a fossil dune to the north (Martínez et al. 2001) (Fig. 1). The CICOLMA field station covers a total area of 83.20 ha from which 24.5 ha are covered by coastal dune vegetation (that includes mobile dune vegetation, coastal thicket, grassland, and a tropical rainforest on the oldest dunes). This is a very heterogeneous dune system with North to South oriented parabolic dunes, and wet slacks and humid slacks in the lower parts. Long-term (40 years) mean annual precipitation is 1500 mm and long-term mean monthly temperature ranges from 17 °C in January and 33 °C in June. Eighty percent of the rainfall falls between May and October, and the dry season occurs from November to April (Moreno-Casasola and Monroy 2006).
Fig. 1

Location of the study site. Coastal dunes and tropical forest are indicated

The central portion of the state of Veracruz, where La Mancha is located, has a general North–South orientation and includes several headlands created by the Mexican Transvolcanic belt which create a series of lagoonal embayments along the shore (Psuty et al. 2009). Sediment transport alongshore occurs from north to south, from one embayment to the next, bypassing these large headlands. In this manner, sediment transported downdrift supports beach and dune forms and dynamics in the next southbound embayment. Twenty years ago (and long before), the coastal dune system at La Mancha was highly mobile and was the recipient of the shifting sands that were transported downwind from the embayment located directly to the north, by the strong winds that occur mostly during the winter months (from November to April). This transgression of mobile sand created mobile dunes at La Mancha as can be observed from aerial pictures that date from 1960 to 2006 (Fig. 1). The situation has changed over the last few decades: the vegetation cover at La Mancha has increased resulting in a decreased area of bare sand and reduced sediment transportation. From 1980 to 2006, 90 ha of the original dunes have changed to agricultural use (2 %), natural grassland (53 %) and coastal thicket and tropical rain forest in several successional stages (35 %). Only 10 % of the originally mobile dunes remain mobile. That is, the quantity of sand moving across the northern headland has decreased in the last 30 years (Psuty et al. 2009) due to a natural successional process, with no artificial plantings of plant species that stabilize mobile dunes, such as marram grass, Casuarina sp., or others. We do not know the precise reasons that have led to these changes in vegetation cover that have resulted in stabilization. However, it is possible that a decline in grazing animals has played an important role (field observations).

Vegetation dynamics

Twenty-one years ago, in 1991, we randomly chose a mobile dune area and placed 140 permanent 4 × 4 m plots. The plots were placed forming a grid over the entire area. This mobile dune represented the earliest successional stage, because it was completely mobile, and represented the first stages of primary succession, since there was no pre-existing vegetation. The study site was located ca. 500 m inland, within a heterogeneous dune system in which mobile dunes were adjacent to stabilized dunes covered by tropical rain forest, coastal thicket, and grassland. The total area monitored was 2,240 m2. Each plot was marked with aluminum stakes placed in all four corners of the quadrat. In each plot, we identified all the plant species present; and we estimated their frequency and abundance (as percent vegetation cover). We only recorded vascular plants since there are no bryophytes and lichens in tropical dunes.

The observations took place once a year, at the end of the rainy season (October), the time when plants reached the highest vegetation cover. Vegetation changes were monitored in these permanent plots during two periods, from 1991 to 2000 and from 2009 to 2011, which enabled us to study the successional sequence during 20 years.

Data analyses

Vegetation cover, species richness, and diversity

Statistical analyses were carried out with the program SigmaStat v.11. All raw data were used to calculate species diversity and rate of vegetation change. Our field data with percent estimations were converted into squared meters covered by each species in each plot and then the mean cover value per plot was calculated. In time, as individual plants grew and expanded, species began to overlap in each plot. In consequence, the total area covered by vegetation increased over time and eventually became larger than the total area of each plot.

We calculated species richness, as the mean number of species per plot at each monitoring date and Shannon-Wienner′s diversity index for each monitoring date and for each plot, as follows
$$ {\text{H}}^{'} \, = \, - \, \Upsigma {\text{ p}}_{\text{i}} ln{\text{p}}_{\text{i}} $$
where:

pi = the relative proportion of every species i in terms of total plant cover (i.e., the relative abundance of species i): ci/C.

ci = relative cover of species i

C = total cover of all individuals of all species

We then performed regression analyses between percent vegetation cover versus species diversity, and between percent vegetation cover versus species richness to test for significant relationships between these variables. In both cases, we used mean values for the regression analyses. The regression models and significance of these correlations were tested as described in each case.

Succession rate

The changes in floristic composition (plant diversity) through time were analyzed by means of Euclidean distance (Myster and Pickett 1994; Isermann 2011). We calculated the Euclidean distance based on the relative abundance of each species and diversity in each plot and in each observation period. The net rate of succession was calculated as the Euclidean distance between two consecutive years (1991 vs. 1992; 1992 vs. 1993, and so on) as follows
$$ d = \left| {x - y} \right| = \root{{}} \of {{\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{n} \left| {x_{i} - y_{i} } \right|^{2} }} $$
where x and y represent the coordinates of any pair of points in an Euclidean space (Weisstein 2012).

Functional groups

Based on the literature (Moreno-Casasola et al. 1998; Moreno-Casasola and Espejel 1986; Martínez et al. 2001), we distinguished three vegetation functional groups (pioneer colonizers, grassland, and thickets) that we used to assess changes in community structure over time. Once we grouped all species into these three functional types, we added the vegetation cover (in m2) per plot per species for each monitoring date, and then proceeded to calculate the percent cover per functional type by adding the cover values estimated for each species in each functional group.

Results

Vegetation cover, species richness, and diversity

The mean area covered by vegetation in each plot has been increasing gradually and constantly since we started our observations (Fig. 2a). More recently, the mean area covered by plants was larger than the total area per plot (16 m2) because of how species overlapped on top of each other. This is an indication of how dense the vegetation has become during the last 3 years.
Fig. 2

a Changes in mean vegetation cover, b Mean species richness, and c Mean diversity per plot, during a 20 year primary succession sequence on coastal dune vegetation. Error bars are shown

Species richness also increased over time, reaching its maximum value at around ten species per plot in 2009 (Fig. 2b). Overall species richness increased from 14 (in 1991) to a maximum of 30 in 2000. In the last 3 years, total species richness in the monitored area has fluctuated between 24 and 25 species. Similar to the above, mean diversity per plot increased over time too, except in 2011 when it declined slightly (Fig. 2c).

We found that, with increasing vegetation cover, plant diversity increased in a logistic way toward an asymptotic value (Fig. 3a), after vegetation cover surpassed 60 %. In contrast with the above, species richness versus vegetation cover showed a significant humped-back relation (Fig. 3b). Here, species richness increased to a peak until vegetation cover reached 60 % and then species richness declined to lower values similar to earlier successional stages.
Fig. 3

a Logistic increments of diversity with increasing vegetation cover and b humped-back relationship between vegetation cover and species richness during 20 years of primary succession on coastal dunes. Numbers represent the year of observation

Succession rate

In general, we found that plots with the lowest (1991 and 1992) and the highest (2009 and 2010) diversity values had the lowest rates of succession. In consequence, the Eucilidean distances showed a significant humped-back relation with species diversity (Fig. 4). That is, low succession rates were observed in both early (low diversity) and late (high diversity) successional stages during the natural primary succession that we monitored. Succession rate was highest at medium diversity values. We did not find any significant correlation between evenness and rate of succession (not shown).
Fig. 4

Quadratic regression between yearly succession rates of change in diversity measured as the Euclidean distance in diversity between consecutive pairs of years. Numbers represent the year of observation

Plant functional types

We observed a drastic change in species composition and community structure during 20 years of monitoring. As expected, during the early successional stages, from 1991 to 1993, early colonizers were most abundant and represented from 50 to 70 % of all the area covered by plants (Fig. 5). The most dominant species in these stages was the endemic mobile dune colonizer shrub Chamaecrista chamaecristoides that reached high relative cover (35 %) (Fig. 6) and was found in nearly every sampled plot (95 %) from 1991 to 1994. The other endemic dune colonizer (Palafoxia lindenii) was less abundant and it also declined gradually until becoming locally extinct (Fig. 6). Pectis saturejoides, the third most important colonizer, increased dramatically in the last 3 years, but declined in 2011 (Fig. 6). Croton punctatus (not shown in the graph) was also a mobile dune colonizer that became locally extinct as vegetation cover increased.
Fig. 5

Changes in the relative cover of the functional types during primary succession on coastal dunes

Fig. 6

Changes in relative cover of the most abundant species belonging to three functional groups: colonizers, grassland, and thickets. Notice the differences in scale along the Y axis, owing to the different area covered by each species

These trends began to change gradually 5 years after dune colonization started (1994–1998), when grassland species colonized and expanded in the area (Fig. 5). At the beginning of this period, the relative cover of C. chamaecristoides and the perennial grass Schizachyriumscoparium fluctuated around 30–40 %. In the late nineties, grassland species (S. scoparium and Commelina erecta) expanded and became dominant while the relative cover of early colonizers (C. chamaecristoides and P. lindeii) declined markedly.

Finally, in the later successional stages, species typical of thickets have just colonized and are slowly expanding at the site. In the last 3 years, the endemic colonizers were either largely reduced (C. chamaecristoides) or locally extinct (P. lindenii), and grassland species seemed to be declining slightly (Figs. 5 and 6). The colonization by species typical of late successional stages (coastal thickets), such as Opuntia stricta, Randia laetevirens, and Trixis innula took place in the last couple of years, although obviously, at very low frequency and cover values. The vegetation cover of these three species seemed to be increasing gradually (Figs. 5 and 6).

Discussion

Vegetation cover, species richness, and diversity

This study shows the processes that take place during mobile dune stabilization in tropical latitudes by means of increased vegetation cover from 5 to 95 %. It also describes changes in species richness and diversity during a 20-year natural succession sequence. We found that vegetation cover, species richness, and diversity increased over time, as predicted by successional theory (Odum 1971; Stankeviciute 2006). The variability in mean diversity per plot was much higher in the first years of observation and decreased in the later, because of the colonization process during primary succession. Initially, we had plots with bare sand adjacent to plots that were already being colonized, and thus, quadrats were very different from each other, because of this patchy way of colonization. In time, as bare sand colonization continued, quadrats became more homogeneous as they were all covered by vegetation while bare sand patches disappeared. As the successional sequence continued, all plots were colonized and thus, variability between them decreased because fewer and fewer remained with no vegetation at all. Gradually, plots became more similar to each other. However, considering the whole dune, diversity increased in a logistic way toward an asymptotic value once vegetation cover surpassed 60 %, while species richness increased in a humped-back manner also reaching a maximum peak at 60 % vegetation cover, after which it decreased to lower values similar to early successional stages.

Logistic or monotonic increments in richness and diversity toward a constant or presumed stable state have mostly been observed in mature forests (Margalef 1963; Odum 1969), and also during primary succession after volcanic eruptions (Aplet and Vitousek 1994). More recently, these trends were also found in temperate coastal dunes (Lichter 1998; Isermann 2011; Peyrat and Fichtner 2011). In concordance with our study, in the coastal dunes of Lake Michigan (USA), Lichter (1998) reported that vegetation percent cover varied in a humped-back manner with dune age, and this applied to different functional groups: beach-grass; shrub bunchgrass; and conifers. Similar humped-back relationships were observed by Isermann (2011) and Peyrat and Fichtner (2011) for changes in species diversity and for species richness and diversity, respectively, during primary succession in coastal dunes in Germany and the Baltic coast. In all cases, mid-successional stages showed the highest diversity and species richness values.

In brief, this and other studies (Morrison and Yarranton 1973; Lichter 1998; Vestergaard 2006; Isermann 2011; Peyrat and Fichtner 2011) provide evidence of a general decline in species richness in primary succession on coastal dunes, after initial increase. What are the processes laying beneath these humped-back patterns? Changes in plant species diversity and community composition can be explained by understanding the environmental constraints that potentially influence primary succession and regulate species diversity (Lichter 2000). In coastal dunes, initial succession stages are relatively homogeneous with generally uniform harsh environmental conditions: intense substrate mobility, extreme temperature fluctuations, low nutrient contents, and reduced water availability. Only a few highly specialized species known as psammophytes (C. chamaecristoides, P. lindenii, P. saturejoides and C. punctatus in our case) are able to colonize these environments and support the harsh conditions) (Martínez et al. 2001). In consequence, during the colonization stages of primary succession on coastal dunes most species are tolerant to burial (the pioneers) and very few late colonizer species are present because they are unable to grow in these harsh conditions (Maun 2009). Species–poor vegetation stands are formed with an abundance of early pioneer species. These early successional species (especially C. chamaecristoides) facilitate the colonization of later-successional species by stabilizing the dune surface and by adding nutrients to the incipient soil, and increasing soil moisture (Martínez 2003; Martínez et al. 2001). Colonization by other species after the arrival and expansion of colonizers may occur as follows

As environmental conditions change and become less drastic for non-psammophites, species typical of dune grasslands germinate beneath the early pioneers and grow and reproduce rapidly, expanding at a fast rate (Martínez et al. 2001; Psuty et al. 2009). The gaps of bare sand become reduced or disappear and, in consequence, many light-demanding species begin to become locally extinct. The intermediate stages, with milder environmental conditions (Lichter 1998; 2000; Martínez et al. 2001; Martínez 2003) contain reduced numbers of pioneer species and increased numbers of mid-successional species, such as grasses. In green-house experiments, Martínez and Moreno-Casasola (1996) and Valverde and Pisanty (1999) observed that S. scoparium is a fast growing species in the absence of burial by sand. S. scoparium seedlings have high survival rates on the open dune ridges, but they die under forest cover (Lichter 2000). Larger shade-tolerant species, from coastal dune thickets, are not tolerant to the initial harsh environmental conditions but are hypothesized to be superior competitors for light, and thus, colonize the dune when vegetation cover has increased and may outcompete earlier pioneers and grasses by reducing the amount of available light (Tilman 1985; 1990).

The increment in species richness and diversity in mid-successional stages may be related to intermediate levels of soil pH (Isermann 2005; Moreno-Casasola 1982), increased soil N, soil P, and soil moisture and also to decreasing environmental constraints such as sand movement (Lichter 1998). These mid-successional stages are also related to a higher environmental heterogeneity, because they lie between highly mobile dunes with extreme harsh environment, and stabilized dunes, with no sand movement and milder conditions. Species from both habitats may coexist in these intermediate environments. The frequency of natural disturbance (sand movement) in these habitats is intermediate (Martínez et al. 2001) which thus supports the intermediate disturbance theory of Connell (1978). That is, succession seems to be driven by gradual changes in environmental conditions in which different plant traits become favored (Tilman 1985, 1990; Gallego-Fernández and Martínez 2011).

On top of the above, human intervention may be an additional component driving successional changes. For instance, eutrophication and revegetation can accelerate the rate of succession and even modify community composition by favoring some species (such as grasses) and inhibiting or eliminating others (natives) (Olff et al. 1993; Remke et al. 2009). Alternatively, loss of herbivores (either removed cattle or depleted populations of natural herbivores such as rabbits) may also shift the dominance of species and result in grass encroachment, for example (Kooijman and van der Meulen 1996; Boyes et al. 2010). In any case, the rate of succession will always depend on the disturbance agent and intensity as well as the succession triggers.

Succession rate

Similar to species richness, the succession rate in terms of diversity showed a significant humped-back relation with Shannon-Wienner diversity index, meaning that changes in diversity did not occur in a linear but in a log-normal manner, where succession rate was slower in early and late successional stages and faster in mid-successional stages.

The humped-back shape of the succession rate of diversity that we found in our study coincides with recent studies by Isermann (2011) and can be explained by the changes in community structure that have occurred during the 20 years of successional species replacements. These patterns and processes of dune succession at La Mancha are comparable with successional sequences elsewhere, because the vegetation dynamics is similar although vegetation structure and composition differ between locations (van der Maarel 1993, 1994). In our study site and elsewhere, species-poor vegetation stands are typical of mobile (or yellow) dunes. Usually, the most common pioneer species are grasses and herbs (Morrison and Yarranton 1973; Lichter 1998; Miller et al. 2010; Isermann 2011; Peyrat and Fichtner 2011). In our case, pioneer colonizing species are short shrubs such as the endemics C. chamaecristoides and P. lindenii, as well as other widely distributed species such as C. punctatus. These short shrubs are not only tolerant to burial but their growth and vigor are stimulated when plants are covered by sand (Martínez and Moreno-Casasola 1996). Thus, sand dynamics (erosion and accumulation) is one of the most significant environmental variables driving vegetation and succession changes (Moreno-Casasola 1986; Jungerius et al. 1995; Isermann 2011; Martínez et al. 2001; Maun and Perumal 2002). In these circumstances, succession rate is necessarily low.

As the pioneer colonizing species expanded and the environment became ameliorated (Martínez 2003), new species were able to colonize. In temperate dunes, bryophytes, and lichens as well as shrubs are typical of semi-mobile (or gray) dunes (Lichter 2000; Peyrat and Fichtner 2011; Isermann 2011). In the tropical dunes at La Mancha, grasses and creeping species were most abundant in these stages. Independent of the vegetation structure and composition, the rate of succession in this stage was high because of the colonization of mid-successional species, while early colonizers were still present.

In our study site, we observed that the bunch grass S. scoparius has become dominant in the last 3 years (2009–2011), and this coincided with the dates when the rate of succession was lower. Probably, this is because only a few shade-tolerant shrubs were able to colonize beneath the dense cover of this grass. These observations conform to other studies on the effects of native fast-growing clonal grasses on plant species richness and diversity. For example, many European coastal dunes are experiencing the rapid expansion of native tall-grass species resulting in a reduction of species richness by as much as 60 % (Veer and Kooijman 1997; Kooijman et al. 1998; Provoost et al. 2004; van Til and Kooijman 2007; Ketner-Oostra et al. 2006; Remke et al. 2009).

At this stage, two potential future outcomes are possible: a) the late succession tall shrubs expand gradually and then the rate of succession speeds after the elimination of grassland species and expansion of thickets, when shady conditions increase (Lichter 2000); or b) S. scoparius strongly inhibits the arrival of new species and succession then becomes arrested. Our data suggest a grass encroachment phenomenon and this seems to be occurring in many dune systems in the area (Psuty et al. 2009) but this can only be confirmed after continued monitoring for another decade, at least. If grass encroachment continues, substrate mobility will largely be decreased and biodiversity will deplete after the loss of early colonizers.

Conclusions

The stabilization of coastal dunes is the result of the activation of the successional process triggered by either natural or anthropic causes. Thus, monitoring and understanding vegetation dynamics is essential for their protection and conservation at different scales, for supporting sustainable development. This study adds to the growing list of evidence that demonstrates that the highest coastal dune diversity values are largely linked to a heterogeneous environment with different stages of the successional sequence, including early and late seres. Therefore, and in coincidence with Acosta et al. (2009) and Peyrat and Fichtner (2011), the conservation of coastal dunes vegetation should focus on all, species-poor and species-rich habitats that will largely help to maintain community dynamics and species diversity.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partially funded by grant from SEMARNAT-CONACYT (Secretaría de Medio ambiente y Recursos Naturales-Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia) (23669) and two scholarships (LLAM and PFB). We are very grateful to Patricia Moreno-Casasola, Victor Parra-Tabla, and Gabriela Vázquez for their useful comments on early versions of the manuscript. Thanks to Deborah Lithgow for field assistance. Figure 1 was created by R. Landgrave.

References

  1. Acosta A, Carranza L, Izzi CF (2009) Are there habitats that contribute best to plant species diversity in coastal dunes? Biodiv Conserv 18(4):1087–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aplet GH, Vitousek PM (1994) An age-altitude matrix analysis of Hawaiian rain-forest succession. J Ecol 82:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyes LJ, Griffiths ME, Manson AD, Lawes MJ (2010) Soil nutrients are not responsible for arrested succession in disturbed coastal dune forest. Plant Ecol 208:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199(4335):1302–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connell JH, Slatyer RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111(982):1119–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowles HC (1899) The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of lake Michigan (concluded). Bot Gaz 27(5):361–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gallego-Fernández JB, Martínez ML (2011) Environmental filtering and plant functional types on Mexican foredunes along the Gulf of Mexico. Ecoscience 18:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grunewald R (2006) Assessment of damages from recreational activities on coastal dunes of the southern Baltic sea. J Coastal Res 22(5):1145–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hesp PA (2000). Coastal sand dunes: form and function. CDVN Technical Bulletin no. 4. Forest Research. p 30Google Scholar
  10. Hesp PA, Martínez ML (2007) Disturbance processes and dynamics in coastal dunes. In: Johnson EA, Miyanishi K (eds) Plant disturbance ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 215–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Isermann M (2005) Soil pH and species-diversity in coastal dunes. Plant Ecol 178:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Isermann M (2011) Patterns in species diversity during succession of Coastal Dunes. J Coastal Res 27(4):661–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jungerius PD, Koehler H, Kooijman AM, Mücher HJ, Graefe U (1995) Response of vegetation and soil ecosystem to mowing and sod removal in the coastal dunes “Zwanenwater”, The Netherlands. J Coast Conserv 1:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ketner-Oostra R, van der Peijl MJ, Sykora KV (2006) Restoration of lichen diversity in grass-dominated vegetation of coastal dunes after wildfire. J Veg Sci 17:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kooijman AM, van der Meulen F (1996) Grazing as a control against grass encroachment in dry dune grasslands in the Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 34:323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kooijman AM, Dopheide JCR, Sevink J, Takken I, Verstraten JM (1998) Nutrient limitations and their implications on the effects of atmospheric deposition in coastal dunes; lime-poor and lime-rich sites in the Netherlands. J Ecol 86:511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichter J (1998) Primary succession and forest development on coastal Lake Michigan sand dunes. Ecol Monogr 68(4):487–510Google Scholar
  18. Lichter J (2000) Colonization constraints during primary succession on coastal Lake Michigan sand dunes. J Ecol 88:825–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. López-Portillo J, Martínez ML, Hesp PA, Hernández-Santana JR, Vásquez-Reyes VM, Gómez-Aguilar LR, Méndez-Linares AP, Jiménez-Orocio OA, Gachuz-Delgado S (2011) Atlas de las costas de Veracruz: manglares y dunas. Secretaría de Educación y Cultura del estado de VeracruzGoogle Scholar
  20. Margalef R (1963) On certain unifying principles in ecology. Am Nat 97:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martínez ML (2003) Facilitation of seedling establishment by an endemic shrub in tropical coastal sand dunes. Plant Ecol 168:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martínez ML, Moreno-Casasola P (1996) Effects of burial by sand on seedling growth and survival in six tropical sand dune species. J Coastal Res 12(2):406–419Google Scholar
  23. Martínez ML, Vázquez G, Sánchez-Colón S (2001) Spatial and temporal dynamics during primary succession on tropical coastal sand dunes. J Veg Sci 12:361–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martínez ML, Psuty N, Lubke R (2004) A perspective on coastal dunes. In: Martínez ML, Psuty N (eds) Coastal dunes: ecology and conservation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  25. Maun MA (2009) The biology of coastal sand dunes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Maun MA, Perumal J (2002) Zonation of vegetation on lacustrine coastal dunes: effects of burial by sand. Ecol Lett 2(1):14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendoza-González G, Martínez ML, Pérez-Maqueo O, Lithgow D, Simonin P (2012) Land use change and its effects on the value of ecosystem services along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Ecol Econ Google Scholar
  28. Miller TE, Gornish ES, Buckley HL (2010) Climate and coastal dune vegetation: disturbance, recovery, and succession. Plant Ecol 206:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreno-Casasola P (1982) Ecología de la vegetación de dunas costeras: factores físicos. Biotica 7:577–602Google Scholar
  30. Moreno-Casasola P (1986) Sand movement as a factor in the distribution of plan communities in a coastal dune system. Vegetatio 65:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moreno-Casasola P, Espejel I (1986) Classification and ordination of coastal sand dune vegetation along the Gulf and Caribbean Sea of Mexico. Vegetatio 66:147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreno-Casasola P, Monroy R (2006) Introducción. In: Moreno-Casasola P (ed) Entornos veracruzanos: la costa de La Mancha. Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, pp 17–23Google Scholar
  33. Moreno-Casasola P, Espejel I, Castillo S, Castillo-Campos G, Durán R, Pérez-Navarro JJ, León JL, Olmsted I, Trejo-Torres J (1998) Flora de los ambientes arenosos y rocosos de las costas de México. In: Halffter G (ed.) La diversidad biológica de Iberoamérica Vol. II. Acta Zoológica Mexicana, nueva serie. Volumen especial, pp 177–258Google Scholar
  34. Morrison RG, Yarranton GA (1973) Diversity, richness and evenness during a primary sand succession at Grand Bend, Ontario. Can J Bot 51:2401–2411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muñoz-Vallés S, Gallego-Fernández JB, Dellafiore CM, Cambrollé J (2011) Effects on soil, microclimate and vegetation of the native-invasive Retama monosperma (L.) in coastal dunes. Plant Ecol 212:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myster RW, Pickett STA (1994) A comparison of rate of succession over 18 year in 10 contrasting old fields. Ecology 75:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nordstrom KF (2008) Beach and dune restoration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Odum E (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Odum E (1971) Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia, p 624Google Scholar
  40. Olff H, Huisman J, van Tooren BF (1993) Species dynamics and nutrient accumulation during early primary succession in coastal sand dunes. J Ecol 81:693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peyrat J, Fichtner A (2011) Plant species diversity in dry coastal dunes of the southern Baltic coast. Comm Ecol 12(2):220–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Provoost S, Ampe C, Bonte D, Cosyns E, Hoffmann M (2004) Ecology, management and monitoring of grey dunes in flanders. J Coast Conserv 10:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Psuty NP, Martínez ML, López-Portillo J, Silveira TM, García-Franco JG, Rodríguez NA (2009) Interaction of alongshore sediment transport and habitat conditions at Laguna La Mancha, Veracruz, Mexico. J Coast Conserv 13:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pysek P, Richardson DM (2006) The biogeography of naturalization in alien plants. J Biogeo 33:2040–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Remke E, Brouwer E, Kooijman A, Blindow I, Roelofs JGM (2009) Low atmospheric nitrogen loads lead to grass encroachment in coastal dunes, but only on acid soils. Ecosystems 12:1173–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stankeviciute J (2006) The succession of sand vegetation at the Lithuanian seacoast. Bot. Lit. 12(3):139–156Google Scholar
  47. Tilman D (1985) The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am Nat 125:827–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tilman D (1990) Constraints and trade-offs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsoar H (2005) Sand dunes mobility and stability in relation to climate. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 357:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Valéry L, Fritz H, Lefeuvre JC, Simberloff D (2008) In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biol Invasion 10:1345–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Valverde T, Pisanty I (1999) Growth and vegetative spread of Schizachyrium scoparium var. littoralis (Poaceae) in sand dunes microhabitats along a successional gradient. Can J Bot 77:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van der Maarel E (1993) Dry coastal ecosystems: polar regions and Europe. (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  53. Van der Maarel (1994) Dry Coastal Ecosystems: Africa America Asia and Oceania (Ecosystems of the World). Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  54. van Til M, Kooijman (2007) A Rapid improvement of grey dunes after shallow sod cutting. In: Isermann M, Kiehl K (eds.): Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems. Coastline Reports 7 pp. 53–60Google Scholar
  55. Veer MAC, Kooijman AM (1997) Effects of grass-encroachment on vegetation and soil in Dutch dry dune grasslands. Plant Soil 192:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vestergaard P (2006) Temporal development of vegetation and geomorphology in a man-made beach-dune system by natural processes. Nord J Bot 24:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisstein EW (2012) Distance. From MathWorld-A Wolfram web resource. URL: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Distance.html Accessed 26 Mar 2012
  58. Yizhaq H, Ashkenazy Y, Tsoar H (2007) Why do active and stabilized dunes coexist under the same climatic conditions? doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.188001

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. L. Álvarez-Molina
    • 1
  • M. L. Martínez
    • 1
  • O. Pérez-Maqueo
    • 1
  • J. B. Gallego-Fernández
    • 2
  • P. Flores
    • 1
  1. 1.Red de Ecología FuncionalInstituto de EcologíaXalapa, CoatepecMexico
  2. 2.Departamento de Biología Vegetal y EcologíaUniversidad de SevillaSevilla EspañaSpain

Personalised recommendations