Maps of the Loonse en Drunense Dunes

This maps is that of Phase 2 at its most latest. One can also see the different sample sites in this map.

This shows where Phase 2 is in terms of the other sites.

Maps

Here are a few maps used during the project. These maps were produced using the data from Ecology and Chemistry.

Conclusion

From the mentioned above, it is therefore to conclude that the aerial photographs provide an effective and concise, but a rather a simplified, representation of the findings of the ecology and chemistry subgroups. The maps can provide good guidelines for the management of Natuurmonumenten regarding the progress of the dune restoration. However, the conservation measures might not be the most appropriate ones, if solely based on the analysis done with the GIS tool created in this project since the data represented in the maps is based on laboratory and field work that will require further investigation.

Discussion

The final products for the GIS group are 6 thematic maps and an evolution graph for the succession classes between the years 1955-2015. The maps visualize the findings of both the ecology and the chemistry groups by displaying the most relevant data gathered from the field and the laboratory work.

While some of the thematic maps allow to make the linkages between various factors as the different succession classes (forest, grass and sand) to prominent tree types, the dominant herbaceous types, or concentration levels of. Other maps show more straight forward data as the content of organic matter.

Both the thematic maps and the succession graph show the influence of human activity on the dunes, and the efforts of Natuurmonumenten to preserve the dunes. The concentration levels of nutrients deposition and farm run-offs, as ammonium, phosphate and nitrate are linked to the type of vegetation that thrives on the dunes, and the ecology team has provided the types of prevailing vegetation. Also, the succession graph shows clearly the decline in forest area and the rise of bare sand coverage in the study area.

However, the GIS research has encountered several limitations, which can have a certain effect on the accuracy of the produced maps and graphs. Server issues did not allow to import/export data between Microsoft Excel and ArcGIS, which forced the team to input large amounts of data manually into the attribute table. Some of the polygons were also created manually (and not with the “automatic fill polygon option”), this resulted in minor deviation in the boundaries and small sections of the map that are not classified in neither of the polygons. Value classification for the 3-color pixels (black, gray and white) was chosen arbitrarily while attempting to match the field conditions as best as possible. Nevertheless, even minor variations in the values can result in considerable changes in the results of the succession classes evolution graph. The final succession graph is based only on 3 reference time points producing a general trendline, and doesn’t allow to link/track specific changes in the environment with regards to actions taken by the preservation team.

Since the work of the GIS group was heavily dependent on the input of the other 2 groups and assuming the data delivered by the other groups was correct, it is safe to say the graphs and maps provide a good overview of the current situation in the dunes.

Flora of the Loonse en Drunense Dunes

The Loonse en Drunense Dunes are home to many breathtaking species of flora. The list is available as a word document below, which was created with lots of help from mentor Ilse Rovers, who specialises in ecology–specifically plants. The document is arranged per habitat type, and the flora species within each habitat type are only SOME of the wonderful plants that can be found there!

Download document: Flora of the Loonse here!

Conclusion and Advice (According to Ecology!)

Conclusion
According to the visual data gathered at the site, as well as those that were taken through the manipulation and observation of maps by the GIS team, it can be concluded that the conservation effort by Natuurmonumenten is working quite well. The increase of bare sands during the last thirty yearsn doubled the total sand area from the year 1982. There is also a lot of diverse species in the sample sites, most notably the lichens, which were prolific in the grasslands and heathlands—existing under dwarf shrubs of the common heather (Calluna vulgaris). The neophyte Campylopus introflexus was only present in the sites B1 and B2 which were both close to the north of the site where farmlands lie. It could be due to the nitrogen run-off from these areas. However, in terms of species richness, those that were further away from the north were richer in diversity, especially the far off forest to the south of the transect which was overgrown by moss, lichens and mushrooms. This supports the claim that the conservation effort by the party responsible is effective in conserving the species diversity in the area.

Conservation of the dunes is fragile, as too much culling of trees might destroy the vibrant woodlands that surround the area. Not enough would destroy the shifting sands. It would seem that through this investigation, it could be found that Natuurmonumenten’s conservation plan for Phase 2 is well thought out and considerate of not only the sands but also the other habitats that surely are home to many species—indigenous or not.

Advice
Natuurmonumenten should maintains the speed and intensity of their conservation efforts so that the dunes would continue to recover. It would seem as if the nature entity has found a conservation plan that preserves the greenery that stops the sands from expanding too far, and one that can help the sand expand within the borders of a forest at an optimal rate that does not compromise the health of any of the vegetative classes in the dunes, as all of which are vital recreational wonders in the Loonse en Drunense.

As evident in the succession graphs and the maps produced by the GIS team, the forest succession was cut down by approximately 21%. If they continue at the rate they are now, they achieve a similar projection from past 33 years. Bare sand areas could increase by at least 10%

Discussion

In the succession graph in the results, it is shown that during the years that Natuurmonumenten had obtained ownership of the dunes, forest areas have begun to decrease by 5% and grasslands have increased by 8% between the years 1955 to 1982. Bare sand areas decreased by 3% during these years. Vegetative succession was slowed perhaps by the efforts of Natuurmonumenten, supported by the Dutch government and the majority of the public as the world entered the era of environmental awareness. From 1982 to 2015, bare sand and grassland coverage increased by 10%. Forest areas decreased by double that increase, by 21%. This change perhaps could be attributed to the efforts of those that are fighting to preserve the dunes, especially since between 2011 and 2012, Phase 2 of the conservation plan occurred.

Within the plans for phase 2, there was mention of top soil removal and removal of detritus and some wooded areas. It was also mentioned by Laurens Sparrius, a specialist that has spent years to study the Loonse en Drunense Dunes that yearly, areas of Natuurmonumenten are combed and maintained by volunteers who take out pine saplings by hand. This appears to be working as in the forest forefronts, heather fields and grasslands, there are no pine trees that have been allowed to grow too big. The pine trees’ distribution method by wind and fauna is effective though, as saplings could be found at site B4, which was between both the open and the closed forest. This also shows that volunteer action, and perhaps sheep grazing, has been effective as well. There might be pine distributed almost everywhere in the area, but they are well controlled, and thus preventing forest encroaching upon grasslands.

Prompted by the abundance of flora in every site sampled, it was hypothesized that the area had high nitrogen deposition—from both the farmlands to the north and the precipitation of nitrates from public traffic, since most of the areas that were sampled were overgrown by moss and grass—especially the forest sample quadrats. The Carex grass species and Stereocaulons were prominent in the dunes; however this did not alter how varied the species were in the sampled areas. In previously examined documents, oftentimes high nitrogen deposition meant faster vegetative succession and higher nitrogen mineralisation, which would cause a higher amount of nitrogen to be in the soil, essentially promoting the growth of the neophyte Campylopus introflexus.

However, this was not the case. Some sites can have up to 17 different types of flora, and the invasive moss was only found in two sites, both of which relatively close to the agricultural north side of the park.  Moss and grass generally grow fast and are very hardy plants, which is why they are good indicators for the conditions in the dunes. Most of the areas that were sampled—as described previously—had moss coating the floor like a carpet, the only place it was not present in was the area of bare sand, sample site B3. Most of the conditions that moss were found was wet or damp, which was expected since moss thrive in damp places. It was not surprising at all to find moss in almost all sites because most of the sites seem to have structures that aid the moss to stay damp. The first site was situated in the forest and the consequent sites, excluding B2 and B3 had large plants that either grow tall or grow wide that trap the moisture down to the ground.

With this in mind, bryophytes—lichens—would also be comfortable in the shade of plants with ample moisture. In the dunes, the amount of lichen species increased further down the transect, up until the dense forest that was the site for the final sampling. Heavy grasslands seemed to have catered to the lichen’s fragility because while there was moss in the heavy grasslands, the Campylopus introflexus was nowhere in sight within these grasslands. Instead of competing with the lichens, Dicranum montanum and Lophozia ventricosa grew alongside the lichens that were hiding under the foliage of low-growing heathers (Calluna Vulgaris). It would seem as if the shade of the grasses and heathers that grew there prevented Campylopus introflexus from growing there, even if the area was damp (4). In fact, this invasive moss was only present in the open forest where sample site B1 was. Interestingly, this particular site in the dunes is quite close to the farmlands north of it, as well as being quite low since it was within a forest and there were no dunes elevating it far from the water table.

Another indicator plant was the Corynephorus canescens which was known to grow on bare sands that had high nitrogen content. The sight of this plant on sand is an indicator of high nitrogen at that sight. While there were a few jutting out of the sand at the bare sand site examined, it was also somewhat to be expected as the bare sand site was situated between the large dunes and the light grasslands. It exists in a sort of dip between the two succession stages—it is not at the same level as dunes that slope down towards it nor to the grasslands that come to meet it. The nitrogen from both areas seem to drain towards the bare sand like the sides of a sink. The sand may be at a geographical disadvantage, which allows C. canescens to thrive in otherwise inhospitable soils.

Identifying Samples

by Patrisha Maghanay

After collecting plant species from the various sites, the plants were identified in a lab at the university. Various dichotomous keys were used in order to identify plant species. These keys were found electronically, through scientific sites on the internet, and most of the species were keyed in two different identification softwares in order to ensure that the species was correct. The most distinctive features of the plant in question were first determined, as well as its general properties like colour, height, leaf type and reproduction method. After that, the necessary information was inputted into the identifier and a possible list of species is produced. At this point, visual analysis was done in order to find the best match for the plant. Afterwards, a picture of the plant is taken and its name is written down on an Excel sheet that is organised per sample site. Since the excel sheet is far too big to fit as an image, it is available under Videos and Other Media > Documents > Species List.

---

<< Previous: Area Analysis (Ecology)

Processed Data

by Patrisha Maghanay

The results above were given to the Geographic Information System (GIS) sector of the project to be processed. They created graphics to correspond with the samples provided to them.
The GIS team analysed maps from various years to determine the various stages of succession at Phase 2, and show how the conservation efforts of Natuurmonumenten have shaped the dunes. The GIS team also produced thematic maps to interpret the raw data they received from the ecology section. There are two maps produced that showcase the information gathered from fieldwork. It shows certain information like dominant species per area, and the distribution of trees around the area.

Results

by Patrisha Maghanay

The results are gathered from the field work done on the Loonse en Drunense dunes and they showcase the vibrant species that thrive in the dunes. Each randomly selected 1x1m2 sample site was examined thoroughly and the flora of the site was noted, as well as the general properties of the site. Fauna was not noted down as there weren’t any present at any of the sites during the time of visitation. Found below is a table containing the identified species found in each sample sites, along with a few observations of the site, such as the dominant species, the proportion of trees around the site, thus not within the site itself, and the percentage of area covered by trees within the site’s general vicinity.

Site#	Species#	Area Type	Dominant	List of species	Extra notation
1	12	open, forest	Moss(1): Dicranum	Campylopus Introflexus	Forest area
			Moss(2): Campylopus	Dicranum montanum	Slippery
			Pinus Syvestris L.	Pinus sylvestris	Slipface
				Betula verucosa	Mossy
			Tree Proportion:	Quercus robur	Wet
			60% Pine	Mycena clavicularis
			30% Oak	Sorbus aucuparia
			10% Birch	Rhamnus frangula
				Leucobryum glaucum
			% tree area (average)	Pinus Mugo
			80%	Lophozia ventricosa
				Sanicula europaea
2	12+2(fauna)	open, forest forefront	Pinus Syvestris L.	Dicranum montanum	+2 fauna
			Corynephorus canescens	Pinus sylvestris	->are digger wasps
			Moss(1): Dicranum	Corynephorus canescens	->Ants
				Scapania compacta	Lots of detritus
			Tree Proportion:	Betula verucosa	Lots of slippery moss
			90% Pine	Quercus robur
			7% Oak	Pinus Mugo
			3% Birch	Sanicula europaea
				Mycena clavicularis
			% tree area (average)	Lophozia ventricosa
			20%	Campylopus Introflexus
				Cladonia monomorpha
3	2	Bare Sand	Carex Arenaria(?)	Corynephorus canescens	Lots of pinecones
				Carex Arenaria(?)	scattered by wind
4	13	Grass/Heathland	Calluna Vulgaris	Calluna Vulgaris	++Sheep droppings
			Dicranum montanum	Dicranum montanum	Evidence of grass
				Cladonia monomorpha	being eaten
			Tree Proportion:	Festuca ovina ssp. Hirtula	Trampled heather
			90%Pine	Carex hostiana	Slippery moss
			10%Oak	Carex pulicaris
				Cantharellus cibarius
			% tree area (average)	Stereocaulon condensatum
			5%	Genista pilosa
			(Including saplings)	Lycopodium tristachyum
				Cladonia floerkeana
				Cladina portentosa
				Pinus sylvestris
5	14	Grassland	Grass(2)(?)	Grass(2)(?)	Slippery moss
				Lycopodium tristachyum	Sheep droppings
				Carex hostiana	Heather grass grows
			Tree Proportion:	Carex pulicaris	below level
			99% Pine	Scapania compacta
			1% Others	Cladonia floerkeana
			(Including saplings)	Cladina portentosa
				Cladonia subulata
			% tree area (average)	Erica tetralix
			5%	Cladonia borealis
				Stereocaulon condensatum
				Stereocaulon saxatile
				Dicranum spurium
				Corynephorus canescens
6	14	Wet grass/heathland	Scapania compacta	Scapania compacta	Slippery moss
			Cladonia rangiferina	Cladonia subulata	Sheep droppings
			Moss(generally)	Cladina portentosa	Heather grass grows
				Dicranum spurium	below level
			Tree Proportion:	Archidium Alternifolium(?)
			99% Pine	Bryum Capillare
			1% Others	Pseudocrossidium revolutum
				Cladonia borealis
			% tree area (average)	Stereocaulon condensatum
			5%	Stereocaulon saxatile
				Dicranum spurium
				Corynephorus canescens
				Lycopodium tristachyum
				Cladonia rangiferina
7	17	Forest, closed	Pinus Syvestris L.	Leucobryum glaucum	Moist, wet forest
			Betula verucosa	Pinus sylvestris L.	Lots of detritus
			Quercus robur	Tilia cordata	Lots of fungi
				Mycena clavicularis	Frogs present
				Pinus Mugo
				Lophozia ventricosa
				Sanicula europaea
				Cantharellus cibarius
			Tree Proportion:	Russula cyanoxantha
			60% Birch	Russula vesca
			25%Oak	Lactarius chrysorrheus
			15% Pine	Stereocaulon condensatum
				Cladonia pulvinata
				Lophozia ventricosa
			% tree area (average)	Dicranum spurium
			80%	Cladonia floerkeana
				Cladina portentosa
				Amanita Gemmata
				Suillus variegatus
				Cortinarius semisanguineus