Fine-Scale Spatiotemporal Variability of Plant Species Composition in Old-Field Succession—The Cycling Heterogeneity Hypothesis Revisited
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Field Sampling
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Heterogeneity Cycles in Secondary Grassland Succession
4.2. Drivers of Heterogeneity Changes
4.3. Scale Dependence of Beta Diversity Patterns
4.4. Limitations and Perspectives
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A

References
- Kolasa, J.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Allen, T.F.H. (Eds.) Ecological Heterogeneity; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; p. 332. [Google Scholar]
- Begon, M.; Towsend, C.R. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems, 5th ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2021; p. 864. [Google Scholar]
- Amarasekare, P. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: A synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6, 1109–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolker, B.M.; Pacala, S.W.; Neuhauser, C. Spatial dynamics in model plant communities: What do we really know? Am. Nat. 2003, 162, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundholm, J.T. Plant species diversity and environmental heterogeneity: Spatial scale and competing hypotheses. J. Veg. Sci. 2009, 20, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tamme, R.; Hiiesalu, I.; Laanisto, L.; Szava-Kovats, R.; Pärtel, M. Environmental heterogeneity, species diversity and co-existence at different spatial scales. J. Veg. Sci. 2010, 21, 796–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiegand, T.; Wang, X.; Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Bourg, N.A.; Cao, M.; Ci, X.; Davies, S.J.; Hao, Z.; Howe, R.W.; Kress, W.J.; et al. Consequences of spatial patterns for coexistence in species-rich plant communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez, A.; Germain, R.M.; Srivastava, D.S.; Filotas, E.; Dee, L.E.; Gravel, D.; Thompson, P.L.; Isbell, F.; Wang, S.; Kéfi, S.; et al. Scaling-up biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Ecol. Lett. 2020, 23, 757–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loreau, M.; Barbier, M.; Filotas, E.; Gravel, D.; Isbell, F.; Miller, S.J.; Montoya, J.M.; Wang, S.; Aussenac, R.; Germain, R.; et al. Biodiversity as insurance: From concept to measurement and application. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 2333–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czárán, T. Spatiotemporal Models of Population and Community Dynamics; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1998; p. 284. [Google Scholar]
- Szolnoki, A.; Perc, M. Biodiversity in models of cyclic dominance is preserved by heterogeneity in site-specific invasion rates. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lepš, J.; Burianek, V. Interspecific associations in old field succession. In Spatial Processes in Plant Communities; Krahulec, F., Agnew, A.D.Q., Agnew, S., Willems, J.H., Eds.; SPB Publ: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1990; pp. 13–22. [Google Scholar]
- Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Bartha, S. Implications from Buell-Small Succession Study for vegetation restoration. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2001, 4, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaplata, M.K.; Winter, S.; Fischer, A.; Kollmann, J.; Ulrich, W. Species-driven phases and increasing structure in early-successional plant communities. Am. Nat. 2013, 181, E17–E27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, W.; Zaplata, M.K.; Winter, S.; Schaaf, W.; Fischer, A.; Soliveres, S.; Gotelli, N.J. Interspecific interactions and random dispersal rather than habitat filtering drive community assembly during early plant succession. Oikos 2016, 125, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartha, S.; Házi, J.; Purger, D.; Zimmermann, Z.; Szabó, G.; Guller, Z.E.; Csathó, A.I.; Csete, S. Fine-Scale Organization and Dynamics of Matrix-Forming Species in Primary and Secondary Grasslands. Land 2025, 14, 1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuomisto, H. A diversity of beta diversities: Straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 2. Quantifying beta diversity and related phenomena. Ecography 2010, 33, 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.J.; Crist, T.O.; Chase, J.M.; Vellend, M.; Inouye, B.D.; Freestone, A.L.; Sanders, N.J.; Cornell, H.V.; Comita, L.S.; Davies, K.F.; et al. Navigating the multiple meanings of diversity: A roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legendre, P.; De Cáceres, M. Beta diversity as the variance of community data: Dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 951–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juhász-Nagy, P.; Podani, J. Information theory methods for the study of spatial processes and succession. Vegetatio 1983, 51, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moravec, J. The determination of minimal area of phytocoenoses. Folia Geobot. Phytotax. 1973, 8, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rejmanek, M.; Rosen, E. Cycles of Heterogeneity during Succession: A Premature Generalization? Ecology 1992, 73, 2329–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podani, J.; Czárán, T.; Bartha, S. Pattern, area and diversity: The importance of spatial scale in species assemblages. Abstr. Bot. 1993, 17, 37–51. [Google Scholar]
- Bartha, S.; Canullo, R.; Chelli, S.; Campetella, G. Unimodal Relationships of Understory Alpha and Beta Diversity along Chronosequence in Coppiced and Unmanaged Beech Forests. Diversity 2020, 12, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Gillet, F.; Bartha, S.; Alato, J.M.; Biurrun, I.; Dembicz, I.; Grytnes, J.-A.; Jaunatre, R.; Pielech, R.; Van Meerbeek, K.; et al. Scale dependence of species–area relationships is widespread but generally weak in Palaearctic grasslands. J. Veg. Sci. 2021, 32, e13044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juhász-Nagy, P. Spatial dependence of plant populations. Part 2. A family of new models. Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 1984, 30, 363–402. [Google Scholar]
- Juhász-Nagy, P. Notes on compositional diversity. Hydrobiologia 1993, 249, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arrhenius, O. Species and area. J. Ecol. 1921, 9, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dengler, J.; Matthews, T.J.; Steinbauer, M.J.; Wolfrum, S.; Boch, S.; Chiarucci, A.; Conradi, T.; Dembicz, I.; Marcenò, C.; García-Mijangos, I.; et al. Species–area relationships in continuous vegetation: Evidence from Palaearctic grasslands. J. Biogeogr. 2020, 47, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartha, S.; Campatella, G.; Canullo, R.; Bódis, J.; Mucina, L. On the importance of fine-scale spatial complexity in vegetation restoration. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2004, 30, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
- Lepš, J.; Rejmánek, M. Convergence or Divergence: What Should We Expect from Vegetation Succession? Oikos 1991, 62, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samuels, C.L.; Drake, J.A. Divergent perspectives on community convergence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1997, 12, 427–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prach, K. Succession of vegetation in abandoned fields in Finland. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 1985, 22, 307–314. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.-p.; Cadotte, M.W.; Meiners, S.J.; Pu, Z.; Fukami, T.; Jiang, L. Convergence and divergence in a long-term old-field succession: The importance of spatial scale and species abundance. Ecol. Lett. 2016, 19, 1101–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inouye, R.S.; Huntly, N.J.; Tilman, D.; Tester, J.R.; Stillwell, M.; Zinnel, K.C. Old-Field succession on a Minnesota Sand Plain. Ecology 1987, 68, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prach, K.; Jírová, A.; Doležal, J. Pattern of succession in old-field vegetation at a regional scale. Preslia 2014, 86, 119–130. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, A.T.; Knops, J.M.H.; Tilman, D. Contingent factors explain average divergence in functional composition over 88 years of old field succession. J. Ecol. 2019, 107, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, N.L.; Peet, R.K. Convergence during Secondary Forest Succession. J. Ecol. 1984, 72, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, F.; Shao, H.-B.; Shan, L.; Liang, Z.-S.; Shao, M.-A. Secondary succession and its effects on soil moisture and nutrition in abandoned old-fields of hilly region of Loess Plateau, China. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2007, 58, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chelli, S.; Tsakalos, J.L.; Zhu, Z.; De Benedictis, L.L.M.; Bartha, S.; Canullo, R.; Borsukevych, L.; Cervellini, M.; Campetella, G. The diversity of within-community plant species combinations: A new tool for assessing changes in forests and guiding protection actions. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 163, 112089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarmiento, L.; Llambí, L.; Escalona, A.; Marquez, N. Vegetation patterns, regeneration rates and divergence in an old-field succession of the high tropical Andes. Plant Ecol. 2003, 166, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peet, R.K.; Christensen, N.L. Changes in species diversity during secondary forest succession on the North Carolina Piedmont. In Diversity and Pattern in Plant Communities; During, H.J., Werger, M.J.A., Willems, J.H., Eds.; SPB Academic Publishing: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 233–245. [Google Scholar]
- Armesto, J.J.; Pickett, S.T.A.; McDonnell, M.J. Spatial heterogeneity during succession: A cyclic model of invasion and exclusion. In Ecological Heterogeneity; Kolasa, J., Pickett, S.T.A., Allen, T.F.H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 256–269. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, C.; Chai, Z.; Liu, G.; Xue, S. Changes in species diversity patterns and spatial heterogeneity during the secondary succession of grassland vegetation on the loess plateau, China. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stadler, J.; Brandl, R.; Klotz, S. Plant communities converge to resource-dependent transient states during succession on old fields. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 31070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogeweg, P.; Hesper, B.; van Schaik, C.P.; Beeftink, W.G. Patterns in vegetation succession, an ecomorphological study. In The Population Structure of Vegetation; White, J., Ed.; Dr. W. Junk Publishers: Dordreht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 637–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cramer, V.A.; Hobbs, R.J.; Standish, R.J. What’s new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prach, K.; Durigan, G.; Fennessy, S.; Overbeck, G.E.; Torezan, J.M.; Murphy, S.D. A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27, 917–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prach, K.; Walker, L.R. Comparative Plant Succession Among Terrestrial Biomes of the World; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; p. 399. [Google Scholar]
- Pickett, S.T.A. Space-for-time substitution as an alternative to long-term studies. In Long-Term Studies in Ecology; Likens, G.E., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 110–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molnár, Z.; Botta-Dukát, Z. Improved space-for-time substitution for hypothesis generation: Secondary grasslands with documented site history in SE-Hungary. Phytocoenologia 1998, 28, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, L.R.; Wardle, D.A.; Bardgett, R.D.; Clarkson, B.D. The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. J. Ecol. 2010, 98, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickett, S.T.A. Population patterns through twenty years of oldfield succession. Vegetatio 1982, 49, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csathó, A.J.; Csathó, A.I. The floralist of the Külső-gulya meadow of Battonya-Tompapuszta (SE Hungary). Crisicum 2009, 5, 51–70. [Google Scholar]
- Guller, Z.E.; Házi, J.; Bartha, S.; Molnár, C.; Purger, D.; Szabó, G.; Zimmermann, Z.; Csathó, A.I. Grassland Reconstruction of a loess old-field by sowing the dominant grass besides other target species. Tájökológiai Lapok—J. Landsc. Ecol. 2022, 20 (Suppl. S2), 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podani, J. Analysis of mapped and simulated vegetation patterns by means of computerized sampling techniques. Acta Bot. Hung. 1984, 30, 403–425. [Google Scholar]
- Podani, J. Computerized sampling in vegetation studies. Coenoses 1987, 2, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, M.W.; van der Maarel, E. Variance in species richness, species association, and niche limitation. Oikos 1995, 73, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsakalos, J.L.; Chelli, S.; Campetella, G.; Canullo, R.; Simonetti, E.; Bartha, S. Comspat: An R package to analyze within-community spatial organization using species combinations. Ecography 2022, 2022, e06216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podani, J. Introduction to the Exploration of Multivariate Biological Data; Backhuys Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2000; p. 407. [Google Scholar]
- Buonaccorsi, J.P.; Elkinton, J.S.; Evans, S.R.; Liebhold, A.M. Measuring and testing for spatial synchrony. Ecology 2001, 82, 1668–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liebhold, A.; Koenig, W.D.; Bjornstad, O.N. Spatial synchrony in population dynamics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35, 467–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartha, S.; Meiners, S.J.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L. Plant colonization windows in a mesic old field succession. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2003, 6, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartha, S.; Szabó, G.; Csete, S.; Purger, D.; Házi, J.; Csathó, A.I.; Campetella, G.; Canullo, R.; Chelli, S.; Tsakalos, J.L.; et al. High-Resolution Transect Sampling and Multiple Scale Diversity Analyses for Evaluating Grassland Resilience to Climatic Extremes. Land 2022, 11, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartha, S.; Házi, J.; Purger, D.; Zimmermann, Z.; Szabó, G.; Guller, Z.E.; Csathó, A.I.; Csete, S. Beta Diversity Is Better—Microhabitat Diversity and Multiplet Diversity Offer Novel Insights into Plant Coexistence in Grassland Restoration. Diversity 2024, 16, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manly, B.F.J. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology, 2nd ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1997; p. 399. [Google Scholar]
- Davison, A.C.; Hinkley, D.V. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; p. 582. [Google Scholar]
- Chase, J.M.; Kraft, N.J.B.; Smith, K.G.; Vellend, M.; Inouye, B.D. Using null models to disentangle variation in community dissimilarity from variation in alpha-diversity. Ecosphere 2011, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraft, N.J.B.; Comita, L.S.; Chase, J.M.; Sanders, N.J.; Swenson, N.G.; Crist, T.O.; Stegen, J.C.; Vellend, M.; Boyle, B.; Anderson, M.J.; et al. Disentangling the drivers of beta diversity along latitudinal and elevational gradients. Science 2011, 333, 1755–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swenson, N.G.; Anglada-Cordero, P.; Barone, J.A. Deterministic tropical tree community turnover: Evidence from patterns of functional beta diversity along an elevational gradient. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2011, 278, 877–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartha, S.; Czárán, T.; Podani, J. Exploring plant community dynamics in abstract coenostate spaces. Abstr. Bot. 1998, 22, 49–66. [Google Scholar]
- Podani, J. SYN-TAXpc. Version 5.0. User’s Guide; Scientia Publishing: Budapest, Hungary, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Kershaw, K.A. Pattern in vegetation and its causality. Ecology 1963, 44, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greig-Smith, P. Pattern in vegetation. J. Ecol. 1979, 67, 755–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greig-Smith, P. Quantitative Plant Ecology, 3rd ed.; Blackwell Sci. Pub.: London, UK, 1983; p. 359. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, V.K.; Southwood, T.R.E. Secondary succession: Patterns and strategies. In Colonization, Succession and Stability; Gray, A.J., Crawley, M.J., Edwards, P.J., Eds.; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK,, 1987; pp. 315–338. [Google Scholar]
- Glenn-Lewin, D.C.; van der Maarel, E. Patterns and processes of vegetation dynamics. In Plant Succession: Theory and Prediction; Glenn-Lewin, D.C., Peet, R.K., Veblen, T.T., Eds.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1992; pp. 188–214. [Google Scholar]
- Li, S.-p.; Cadotte, M.W.; Meiners, S.J.; Hua, Z.-s.; Jiang, L.; Shu, W.-s. Species colonisation, not competitive exclusion, drives community overdispersion over long-term succession. Ecol. Lett. 2015, 18, 964–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacCain, K.N.S.; Baer, S.G.; Blair, J.M.; Wilson, G.W.T. Dominant grasses suppress local diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Restor. Ecol. 2010, 18, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Házi, J.; Bartha, S.; Szentes, S.; Wichmann, B.; Penksza, K. Seminatural grassland management by mowing of Calamagrostis epigejos in Hungary. Plant Biosyst. 2011, 145, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szentes, S.; Sutyinszki, Z.; Szabó, G.; Zimmermann, Z.; Házi, J.; Wichmann, B.; Hufnágel, L.; Penksza, K.; Bartha, S. Grazed pannonian grassland beta-diversity changes due to C4 yellow bluestem. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2012, 7, 1055–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anibaba, Q.A.; Dyderski, M.K.; Woźniak, G.; Jagodziński, A.M. The inhibitory tendency of Calamagrostis epigejos and Solidago spp. depends on the successional stage in postindustrial vegetation. Land. Degrad. Dev. 2024, 36, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akatov, V.V.; Akatova, T.V.; Eskina, T.G.; Sazonets, N.M.; Chefranov, S.G. Dominants in plant communities: The nature of impact on biomass determines the thresholds of impact on local species richness. Biol. Bull. Rev. 2025, 15, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akatov, V.V.; Akatova, T.V.; Chefranov, S.G. Impact of Solidago canadensis L. on Species Diversity of Plant Communities at Different Spatial Scale. Russ. J. Biol. Invasions 2021, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Li, B.; Collins, S.L. Multiscale monitoring of a multispecies case study: Two grass species at Sevilleta. Plant Ecol. 2005, 179, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, S.L.; Xia, Y. Long-term dynamics and hotspots of change in a desert grassland plant community. Am. Nat. 2015, 185, E30–E43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fehmi, J.S.; Bartolome, J.W. A grid-based method for sampling and analysing spatially ambiguous plants. J. Veg. Sci. 2001, 12, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocchini, D.; Luque, S.; Pettorelli, N.; Bastin, L.; Doctor, D.; Faedi, N.; Feilhauer, H.; Fére, J.-B.; Foody, G.M.; Gavish, Y.; et al. Measuring β-diversity by remote sensing: A challenge for biodiversity monitoring. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 1787–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camarretta, N.; Harrison, P.; Bailey, T.; Potts, B.; Lucieer, A.; Davidson, N.; Hant, M. Monitoring forest structure to guide adaptive management of forest restoration: A review of remote sensing approaches. New Forests 2020, 51, 573–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholizadeh, H.; Gamon, J.A.; Helzer, C.J.; Cavender-Bares, J. Multi-temporal assessment of grassland α- and β-diversity using hyperspectral imaging. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herben, T. Permanent plots as tools for plant community ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 1996, 7, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, J.P.; Ollf, H.; Willems, J.H.; Zobel, M. Why we need permanent plots in the study of long-term vegetation dynamics. J. Veg. Sci. 1996, 7, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bello, F.; Valencia, E.; Ward, D.; Hallett, L. Why we still need permanent plots for vegetation science. J. Veg. Sci. 2020, 31, 679–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, S.L.; Glenn, S.M.; Roberts, D.W. The hierarchical continuum concept. J. Veg. Sci. 1993, 4, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Loucks, O.L. From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 1995, 70, 439–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podani, J. With a machete through the jungle: Some thoughts on community diversity. Acta Biotheor. 2006, 54, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baselga, A.; Jiménez-Valverde, A.; Niccolini, G. A multiple-site similarity measure independent of richness. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 642–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podani, J.; Schmera, D. A new conceptual and methodological framework for exploring and explaining pattern in presence—Absence data. Oikos 2011, 120, 1625–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legendre, P.; Condit, R. Spatial and temporal analysis of beta diversity in the Barro Colorado Island forest dynamics plot, Panama. For. Ecosyst. 2019, 6, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roswell, M.; Dushoff, J.; Winfree, R. A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. Oikos 2021, 130, 321–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiens, J.; Milne, B.T. Scaling of ’landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Land. Ecol. 1989, 3, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jost, L. Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology 2007, 88, 2427–2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baselga, A. Partitioning the Turnover and Nestedness Components of Beta Diversity. Global Ecol. Biogeog. 2010, 19, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baselga, A. The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness. Global Ecol. Biogeog. 2012, 21, 1223–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCallum, K.P.; Lowe, A.J.; Breed, M.F.; Paton, D.C. Spatially designed revegetation—Why the spatial arrangement of plants should be as important to revegetation as they are to natural systems. Restor. Ecol. 2018, 26, 446–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watt, A.S. Pattern and Process in the Plant Community. J. Ecol. 1947, 35, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, M.G. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1989, 20, 171–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H.; O’Neill, R.V. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process; Springer: New York, NY, US, 1999; p. 482. [Google Scholar]
- Aarssen, L.W. Competitive ability and species coexistence: A ‘plant’s eye’ view. Oikos 1989, 56, 386–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purves, D.W.; Law, R. Fine-scale spatial structure in a grassland community: Quantifying the plant’s-eye view. J. Ecol. 2002, 90, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tracey, A.J.; Stephens, K.A.; Schamp, B.S.; Aarssen, L.W. What does body size mean, from the “plant’s eye view”? Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 7344–7351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvertown, J.; Holtier, S.; Johnson, J.; Dale, P. Cellular automaton models of interspecific comperition for space—The effect of pattern on process. J. Ecol. 1992, 80, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilman, D. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 1994, 75, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durrett, R.; Levin, S. Spatial aspects of interspecific competition. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1998, 53, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolker, B.M.; Pacala, S.W. Spatial moment equations for plant competition: Understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. Am. Nat. 1999, 153, 575–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murrell, D.J.; Purves, D.W.; Law, R. Uniting pattern and process in plant ecology. Tree 2001, 16, 529–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kneitel, J.M.; Chase, J.M. Trade-offs in community ecology: Linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herben, T.; During, H.J.; Krahulec, F. Spatiotemporal dynamics in mountain grasslands: Species autocorrelations in space and time. In Species Coexistence in Temperate Grasslands; Krahulec, F., Goldberg, D.E., Willems, J.H., Eds.; Opulus Press: Uppsala, Sweden, 1995; pp. 79–90. [Google Scholar]
- Silvertown, J.; Wilson, J.B. Spatial interactions among grassland plant populations. In The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity; Dieckman, U., Law, R., Metz, J.A.J., Eds.; Cambridge Univ. Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; pp. 28–47. [Google Scholar]








| Sites | Characteristics | Observed Synchrony | Null Model Synchrony | p-Value | Adjusted p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Field 1 | Jaccard dissimilarity | 0.956 | 0.5018 | 0.0004 | 0.001 |
| Bray–Curtis dissimilarity | 0.956 | 0.5034 | 0.0004 | 0.002 | |
| Field 2 | Jaccard dissimilarity | 0.733 | 0.5002 | 0.0104 | 0.0104 |
| Bray–Curtis dissimilarity | 0.911 | 0.5021 | 0.0004 | 0.001 |
| Sites | Characteristics | Observed Synchrony | Null Model Synchrony | p-Value | Adjusted p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Field 1 | Jaccard dissimilarity | 0.822 | 0.5001 | 0.0008 | 0.0008 |
| Bray–Curtis dissimilarity | 0.956 | 0.5017 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | |
| Field 2 | Jaccard dissimilarity | 0.778 | 0.5009 | 0.0016 | 0.0016 |
| Bray–Curtis dissimilarity | 0.956 | 0.5009 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 |
| No | Hypothesis | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | Divergent patterns within stands | Alternating periods of divergence and convergence | H1 rejected |
| H2 | Multiple beta diversity peaks in succession | Fluctuating heterogeneity with two distinct peaks | H2 confirmed |
| H3 | Minimum heterogeneity driven by strong competitive effects | Minimum heterogeneity driven by increased abundances and decreased spatial patchiness | H3 rejected |
| H4 | Scale-dependent trends Stronger fluctuations at finer scale | Strong synchrony among temporal beta diversity patterns over scales | H4 rejected |
| H5 | Incidence-based beta diversity is more stochastic | Deviations from stochastic null models were smaller with incidence-based data | H5 confirmed |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bartha, S.; Házi, J.; Purger, D.; Zimmermann, Z.; Szabó, G.; Guller, Z.E.; Csathó, A.I.; Csete, S. Fine-Scale Spatiotemporal Variability of Plant Species Composition in Old-Field Succession—The Cycling Heterogeneity Hypothesis Revisited. Land 2025, 14, 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14122381
Bartha S, Házi J, Purger D, Zimmermann Z, Szabó G, Guller ZE, Csathó AI, Csete S. Fine-Scale Spatiotemporal Variability of Plant Species Composition in Old-Field Succession—The Cycling Heterogeneity Hypothesis Revisited. Land. 2025; 14(12):2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14122381
Chicago/Turabian StyleBartha, Sándor, Judit Házi, Dragica Purger, Zita Zimmermann, Gábor Szabó, Zsófia Eszter Guller, András István Csathó, and Sándor Csete. 2025. "Fine-Scale Spatiotemporal Variability of Plant Species Composition in Old-Field Succession—The Cycling Heterogeneity Hypothesis Revisited" Land 14, no. 12: 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14122381
APA StyleBartha, S., Házi, J., Purger, D., Zimmermann, Z., Szabó, G., Guller, Z. E., Csathó, A. I., & Csete, S. (2025). Fine-Scale Spatiotemporal Variability of Plant Species Composition in Old-Field Succession—The Cycling Heterogeneity Hypothesis Revisited. Land, 14(12), 2381. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14122381

