Almoussawi Ali

Jonathan Lenoir
email: jonathan.lenoir@u-picardie.fr

Jamoneau Aurélien

Hattab Tarek

Wasof Safaa

Gallet-Moron Emilie

Garzon-Lopez Carol Ximena

Spicher Fabien

Kobaissi Ahmad

Decocq Guillaume
email: guillaume.decocq@u-picardie.fr

Guillaume Decoq

Forest fragmentation shapes the alpha-gamma relationship in plant diversity

Keywords: Community assembly, anthropogenic disturbances, alpha diversity, gamma diversity, dispersal limitations, habitat fragmentation, local-regional richness relationship, metacommunity dynamics Agricultural practices, weed community, reduced tillage, permanent plant cover, Camelina sativa agricultural practices, biodiversity, community assembly rules, dispersal limitation, forest plant species, habitat fragmentation, recruitment limitation, vegetation, habitat fragmentation

Main text (5107 words) in 8 pages, 2 tables in 1 page, 5 figures in 2 pages, 11 total pages saturation towards proportional sampling, as a likely consequence of the increased edge effect, which promotes a biodiversity spillover effect along the edge-core gradient.

At the end of three astonishingly unforgettable years, I would like to thank everyone who contributed in one way or another to the success of this work. First and foremost, I would like to thank the jury members for accepting to evaluate this work.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Director, Prof. Guillaume DECOCQ, for giving me the chance to work on this project. Your enthusiasm and encouragement in good times and in bad will always be appreciated. Thank you for inspiring my research and allowing me to grow as a scientist. Had it not been for your patience and those numerous discussions, I would not have been as fortunate to be where I am today. Simply, if it were not for you, I would not have had the chance to embark on this journey and experience the sweet taste of fruitful efforts.

In other respects, I would like to express my profound appreciation for my co-director Dr. Jonathan LENOIR, or as I like to call him "BOSS". I am deeply and eternally grateful for the tremendous amount of time and effort you have put into this project. Although it was never easy working with the perfectionist within you, I am honestly thankful for you forcing me to never accept anything less than whole. Your passion for research and your unwavering vision are truly inspiring, even contagious. With your supervision and guidance, I managed to turn the tide every single time. Your counsel has been the cornerstone I leaned on for support throughout my odyssey. I thank my luck I had the chance to work with you.

For Prof. Ahmad KOBEISSI, my co-supervisor and masters coordinator, Thanks for your patience, your listening, your availability and your support without fault. You were an exceptional supervisor and without you, I would not get the chance to be a PhD student.

Dr. Déborah CLOSSET-KOPP or the SHERIF ;), the kindest and most caring scientist I had ever met, I am very glad of having unforgettable moments with you being the center of every event. Thank you for your encouragement and unlimited kindness.

I would like to thank Dr. Naim BOUSTANY and Dr. Zeinab ASSAGHIR for their continuous support and you were always believing in me. It is a chance for me to gift you my efforts in this report and to express for you my gratitude for being a part of this success.

What I have been vainly trying to convey with words does not come close to expressing the amount of admiration I hold for all four of you. I genuinely cannot find enough words to thank you as I must and you deserve.

My heartfelt thanks go to Emilie GALLET-MORON-Moron (the kindest person you can ever meet on this planet), and I would like to tell you that you were a symptom of optimism in my life during all my stay at GEP. Fabien SPICHER, or the botanist with no limits and the mobile botanical library, I would like to thank you for all your efforts in helping me during the fieldwork, lab work and analysis.

I would like to show a big thank to all the permanent staff, doctoral students, trainees and secretary and to the former colleagues whom I was able to work with during my thesis and who contributed to the good atmosphere that prevails at EDYSAN: Lamine (My brother) thank you for your encouragement and help when I needed it! Thank you for all the discussions, first of all, professionals, who opened up to me many new doors, as well as for our long discussions and debates about different topics. Tarek (or the ARTIST) thank you for launching me in this world of R. Thanks also to my office mates: Olivia; Pedro; Benoit; Camille; Mederic; Vincent; Sabrina; Marine; Aude; and Arnaud. I wish to thank Frédéric BERQUIN for all administrative procedures. I have really bothered you a lot with my questions. Olivier, Hélène, Boris, Sylvie, Jérôme, Frédéric, and Alexandre: thank you all for everything. I would also like to thank all the co-authors of the various projects for their very valuable comments, their motivations and encouragement. I especially want to thank Aurélien, Safaa and Carol.

Many thanks to all the other members of the research unit. My sincere thanks are addressed first to Prof. Frédéric DUBOIS (for allowing me to work at the UFR science and allowing me to borrow the screen and for being a member of my thesis committee), and Prof.

Arnaud AMELINE (for allowing me to use stereoscopes during seed preparation). Thank you all the members of the EDYSAN research unit who are so numerous and I am not going to name you all, but you will recognize yourselves.

During my stay in Amiens, I was also fortunate to make many friends from Amiens and outside France. I am glad I met each and every one of you guys: Abdel-Rahman, Khaled, Johanna, Afaf, Ranim, Douaa, Soukaina, Layal, Ghaya, Maya A, Maya, Rosa, Kareem, Fatima, Rana, Abbass, Walaa, Hussein, Ahmad, Hawraa N., Ihsan, Tarek, Nisrine, Sami, Hiba S., Leila, Zakaria, Hawraa A. Jeanne, Hawraa I., Zeinab, Fayez, Manar, Ali T., Ali N., Ali M. All of you were there since day one, supporting and helping me in every way possible, and thank you for your encouragement, compassion, and the times we spent arguing and discussing ideas, and I hope you all reach what you are aiming for. Louay & Reya I treasure your kindness and the way you care about others, it is truly heart-warming. Hamza, it is said that true friends are never of the same height, which is the case with me and you but be happy that we share the passion for food. This has brought us even closer as friends and guaranteed that we always have something to talk about. Ali J. Thank you for being the brother that I can count on during my whole stay in Amiens, and for being my first guide in every problem I had faced in France. You were the ace in every situation and not just for me but for all the Lebanese students. May God Keep your spirit high and may your wishes (what we share) come true DOCTOR ALI  ;). I was also blessed to have friends outside the lab, amazing people with whom I shared countless moments and being more like family than friends: Mohammad A., Ali C, Ali J.

Mahmoud, Mohammad R., Majd R. Nassim, Issam, Mohammad N., Khaled, Azad, Assi, Amar H., Alaa M. I am grateful to have you as a cousin and as a BIG brother AMYSM where I fearlessly chased all my BIG dreams knowing that my BIG brother will always look out for me. I will never be able to be a BIG bro to you but the least I can do is start by saying a BIG 'Thank You'.

To the people who never believed in me, who thought I was not good enough to have any chance to be successful without their presence. I have to thank you because proving you wrong has been my greatest incentive. Thanks again for providing me with the challenge I set out to conquer.

To my family, the people who never stopped believing in me; thank you for the unconditional love and support. To my grandparents, aunts and uncles with whom I grew up, thank you for instilling in me compassion, forgiveness and the love for others, for making me believe that the best way to predict the future is to create it myself, and that education makes the possibilities endless. Finally, to my parents, brother and my little angel (Loulou), mere words cannot begin to unravel how much you mean to me, but I promise to not let you down and to always be by your side whenever needed.

"Clover Middle East" funded this thesis. I thank everyone involved for allowing me to have this scholarship and I thank General Rida ALMOUSSAWI for his support and his many

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Community assembly processes affecting species' occurrence and abundance across an environmental gradient. (A):

The species is absent from the focal site because of dispersal limitations. (B): The species is absent from the focal site due to recruitment limitations because it can disperse there. (C): Establishment success is achieved once dispersal and recruitment limitations are overcome. (D): Plant-plant positive interactions (e.g. facilitation) may foster species co-existence once dispersal limitations are overcome. E: Plant-plant negative interactions (e.g. competition) may limit species co-existence even after dispersal limitations are overcome. Figure inspired from [START_REF] Zobel | The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence?[END_REF] and [START_REF] Lortie | Rethinking plant community theory[END_REF] The community in this diagram is represented by two species (black and white). Black species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the black zone (lower left half). White species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the white zone (upper right half). Habitat association appears to be very strong at largest scale, where several individuals of each species may be found in their less favoured habitats (black and white squares on the sides opposite to their favoured habitat). At intermediate scales (middle panel), habitat association is still having an impact on the studied community. However, at the smallest scales, one habitat type appears to be eliminated (species favoured by black habitat) with few remaining individuals are distributed by the effect of stochastic processes. The regional species pool is a subset of the global species pool obtained after the first set of filters has been applied (i.e. extinction, speciation and migration) (referred to as phylogeographic assembly). The local species pool is a subset of the regional species pool obtained after accounting for dispersal filters (referred to as dispersal assembly). Actual studied communities are the result of both biotic and abiotic filtering defining the actual assemblage of plant species (referred to as ecological assembly). Adopted and modified from Zobel, (1997) For short or moderate distance dispersal it may take tens of years. (C): For long distance dispersal, it may need hundreds or thousands of years for a species to disperse to another site. Inspired from [START_REF] Hämäläinen | The ecological significance of secondary seed dispersal by carnivores[END_REF] The plant life cycle begins with a diaspore (seed, fruit, spore or vegetative propagule) which successfully reach a focal site by dispersal (A). The diaspore will germinate and produce a tiny, immature plant (called seedling when coming from a seed) (B). The seedling will establish and grow as long as environmental conditions are favorable (C). A mature plant will form with higher survival rates and ability for vegetative propagation (D). During the flowering stage of plant's lifecycle, diaspores will be produced via sexual or vegetative multiplication

competition). (C)

represents the study done by [START_REF] Callaway | Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress[END_REF] showing that the interaction between species is also affected by abiotic factors (effect of elevation of species interactions). Inspired from [START_REF] Callaway | Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress[END_REF] With reduced scale, species fitting the environmental conditions will increase their abundance and dominate (green dots). Therefore, both environmental filters and scale difference will illustrate the dissimilarity among species traits and decide the coexistence potential of species at the local scales. Inspired from de [START_REF] De Bello | Evidence for scale-and disturbance-dependent trait assembly patterns in dry semi-natural grasslands[END_REF] (FG). For FS in non-fragmented (NF) systems, we expect proportional sampling patterns (Type I) (i.e. -diversity increases linearly as -diversity increases) to predominate while in highly-fragmented (HF) systems, we expect FS to display a predominance of curvilinear-plateau patterns (Type II) (i.e. -diversity increases until reaching a plateau as diversity increases). For FG, we expect the exact opposite situation as fragmentation increases.

In the case of semi-fragmented (SF) systems, where both FS and FG species may locally cooccur, we expect intermediate or even indeterminate patterns to predominate for both FS and FG. For illustrative purpose, three forest patches (A, B and C), being connected or not by corridors (e.g. hedgerows), are depicted within three different types of matrices (forest, pastures with hedgerows, croplands). The less disturbed matrix is a forest matrix with continuous forest patches depicted by the white dotted lines while the most disturbed matrix is an agricultural landscape of croplands with forest patches being isolated from each other. The intermediate matrix is a matrix of pastures with forest patches being connected by hedgerows. The red squares inside the forest patches represent -diversity while the total patch area represents diversity. . (Forest, Bocage, Openfield), totaling nine landscape windows with 15 quadrats per window (n = 135 quadrats). Each quadrat is a set of four spatial resolutions, in addition to total patch area, nested within each other: 1m 2 ; 10m 2 ; 100m 2 ; and 1000m 2 . . that can be derived from the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable that we extracted from the log-ratio model (see Equation 1in the main text). Slope values may be either close to and not significantly different from zero (black bold line) or significantly lower than zero (grey dotted line) in the log scale (A) showing either linear (Type I) or curvilinear (Type II) pattern in the natural scale (see Equation 2 in the main text to switch from the log scale to the natural scale) (B), respectively. Based on the 95% confidence interval of each slope value, four different patterns may appear: Type I (the confidence interval includes 0 but not -1); Type II (the confidence interval includes -1 but not 0); intermediate (the confidence interval includes neither 0 nor -1); and indeterminate (the confidence interval includes both 0 and -1) (C). .... 52 Figure 2-4: Variation in the distribution of the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable that we extracted from the log-ratio model (see Equation 1in the main text) and that we used to quantitatively assess the shape of the  ~  relationship (AGR). Panel (A) represents the distribution of the slope parameter for the combined pool comprising both forest specialists and generalists (FS+FG ~ FS+FG). Panels (B) and (C) represent the distribution of the slope parameter, separately, for forest specialists (FS ~ FS) and generalists (FG ~ FG), respectively. The FS, FG, NF, SF and HF acronyms refer to forest specialists, forest generalists, non-fragmented systems, semi-fragmented systems and highly-fragmented systems, respectively. Green, blue and red colors represent non-fragmented systems, semi-fragmented systems and highly fragmented systems, respectively. . Panel (A) represents the AGR of the combined pool comprising both forest specialists and generalists (FS+FG ~ FS+FG) showing linear (slope = 0.04) and curvilinear-plateau (slope = -0.44) AGR in non-and highly-fragmented systems, respectively. Panels (B) and (C) represent the AGR for forest specialists (FS ~ FS) and generalists (FG ~ FG), separately, with opposite patterns between the two guilds when shifting from non-to highly-fragmented systems. The FS, FG, NF and HF acronyms refer to forest specialists, forest generalists, non-fragmented systems and highly fragmented systems, respectively. Colors and drawings in Figure 5 from the model used (see section 2.5.3 in materials and methods) at 3 different dates (July -August -September) studying the relative abundance change of weed species as function of soil cover rotations (4 levels) and soil preparation (reduced tillage vs direct seedling). CS corresponds to Camelina and sunflower rotation. COS corresponds to CC-mix with sunflower rotation. NN corresponds to the soil left without both winter and summer covers. NS corresponds to soil left in winter and cultivated with sunflower as summer crop. Species are oriented along the vertical axis according to decreasing order of the mean rank difference between treatments. Note that only the species that succeeded to germinate in either the subplots or the plots (baseline study) are presented along the vertical axis. Marcelcave for hedgerows; and (B) the forest experimental site near Amiens as a control. Five isolated and recent hedgerows (H1-H2-H3-H4-H5) were used to install the five transects containing both the seed and transplant quadrats (17 and 13 quadrats per hedgerow, respectively). Four separated transects were used in the experimental forest near Amiens: two transects were installed for the seed quadrats (S1 and S2) and two others were installed for the transplant quadrats (T1 and T2). For each of the nine transects (hedgerow and forest transects), every single quadrat of 50cm × 50cm is divided into two sub-quadrats of 20cm × 50cm each, where the right sub-quadrat is the disturbed or vegetation removal treatment and the left subquadrat is the non-disturbed treatment or competition treatment separated by a 10cm × 50cm buffer zone (C). . Figure 5-4: Community assembly is believed to be affected by different processes operating with a wide range of spatio-temporal scales. Species inside the regional species pool are the result of different historical processes (e.g. speciation and evolution). Potential species that are ready for colonization will be affected by dispersal events before passing through biotic and abiotic filters in order to achieve the local or actual communities. All the mentioned post-dispersal processes, in addition to the local species interactions, are considered the main aspects for studying species abundance and coexistence. Extracted from (HilleRisLambers, [START_REF] Hillerislambers | Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory[END_REF]

Summary:

The rules by which plant species are assembled into communities is a major issue in ecology. Two different theories explain the presence of a plant species in a given community:

the "niche theory" and the "neutral theory". The niche theory is based on the differences between species in terms of their ability to consume available resources where communities are built by the local coexistence of species. On the contrary, the neutral theory considers all species as similar in their community and that "stochasticity" is the main cause of local species composition. More recently, scientists have proposed intermediate models, unifying the two theories and combining stochastic processes and deterministic processes. For a plant to establish itself in a given site, it must succeed in reaching that site and overcome a series of limitations or filtering events. Some species are not present in the focal site because their propagules could not reach the site (dispersal limitation), while others may not be established under the effect of local conditions (recruitment limitation) or not to establish itself durably (persistence limitation). Recruitment limitation may be due to unfavorable abiotic conditions (e.g. harsh environmental conditions leading to environmental filtering) and / or biotic factors (i.e. interspecific interactions of species such as competition, predation or the absence of mutualists).

Thus, the assembly of the plant community is the result of regional and local processes.

Regional processes are those that determine the group of potential species to colonize (for example, landscape structure, history and heterogeneity). Local processes control the establishment of plant species in actual communities (e.g. biotic and abiotic conditions). The relative importance of the two community assembly processes is debated, with some ecologists believing that recruitment follows the neutralist theory and that the only constraint is dispersal limitation. However, other ecologists consider that recruitment limitations, biotic interactions and abiotic conditions are more important than dispersal.

Today, fragmentation and habitat loss are considered a major threat to biodiversity in global terrestrial ecosystems. Fragmented habitats are characterized by reduced population size and extinction events. With the increase in human activities, species extinction rates are higher than in previous records. Fragmentation is defined as a complex process by which a large continuous habitat is divided into many smaller and smaller plots. Fragmented habitats are separated by a matrix that differs in structure and composition from the large original habitat. Most researchers described the negative, qualitative and quantitative effects of fragmentation on different habitat types (e.g. forests). However, other studies have indicated that habitat fragmentation may have a positive effect on increasing species richness locally and regionally, due to crowding effect.

In the context of reducing the effects of habitat fragmentation, several questions may arise and require attention before taking action. Is it better for fragmented habitats to be connected to dispersal corridors or left as self-evolving isolates? Is it better to preserve a single large area or several small isolated biological reserves (SLOSS)?

Forest fragmentation occurs when a large continuous forest is split into two or more small forest patches surrounded by a non-forest matrix. At the global level, it is thought that forest fragmentation affects the sustainability of ecosystems (e.g. global species diversity). As long as fragmentation continues, several local processes are affected (local species richness, interspecific interactions, seed dispersal, and local microclimate).

Large populations of understory vascular plant species characterize forests and these include forest specialists, who play an important role in the functioning of ecosystems (e.g. nutrient cycling and organic material). However, the current fragmentation of forests threatens this relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning throughout the loss of habitat. As a result, the impact of forest fragmentation on local (i.e. alpha) and larger (i.e. gamma) diversity has been widely studied in forest ecosystems. However, the impact of forest fragmentation on the alpha-gamma relationship remains totally unknown. The study of this alpha-gamma relationship, rather than alpha and gamma diversity separately, makes it possible to evaluate the relative importance of local processes and, on a larger scale, for the assembly of the community. Surprisingly, no one has ever verified whether forest fragmentation shapes the alpha-gamma relationship and in which direction. Answers to this question could help provide clear management guidance to limit the adverse effects of forest fragmentation on biodiversity and thus the functioning of ecosystems. By comparing the impact of forest fragmentation on the alpha-gamma relationship of vascular plants for specialist and general forest species, we bring here, for the first time, clear answers to this topical issue.

To help answer our study question, we compared the alpha-gamma relationship of both forest specialists and generalists between different regions in North France (Hauts-de-France) differing in spatial resolution (species pool) and landscape context, i.e. non-(fake patches within a forest matrix), semi-(small, connected patches within a matrix of grasslands) and highly-fragmented (small, isolated patches within a matrix of crop fields) systems. Noteworthy, we used the most recent scientific advances to analyse the alpha-gamma relationship (i.e. the log-ratio model developed by Szava-Kovats, R. C., [START_REF] Szava-Kovats | Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited[END_REF]. Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited. Ecology, 94(9), 1986Ecology, 94(9), -1992Ecology, 94(9), . doi:10.1890/13-0244.1)/13-0244.1).

We found a clear interaction between the level of fragmentation of the forest and the type of species (specialist or generalist) on the form of the alpha-gamma relationship, the fragmentation of the forest being detrimental to specialist species and benefiting generalist species. . Indeed, the alpha-gamma relationship of forestry specialists has shifted from a linear form (proportional sampling) to a low degree of fragmentation, to a curvilinear form (community saturation) with a high degree of fragmentation. This suggests that diversity in forest specialists, within their most preserved and functional habitats (non-fragmented systems or strongly connected forest plots), is more influenced by large-scale processes related to dispersal, biogeography and species evolution rather than local and more deterministic processes such as competition and environmental conditions.

Based on our findings, we affirm that the conservation of a network of highly interconnected forest patches, particularly fragments of old-growth forest, should be a priority target for the long-term conservation of forest-dwelling species, which are also the most endangered species in the context of forest fragmentation and intensification of agricultural landscape management.

Our findings have strong implications for biodiversity conservation and landscape management, suggesting that the strategy of maintaining or restoring connectivity between forest plots through a dense network of hedgerows would benefit mainly to forest specialists.

The challenge of the 21st century, and especially since the green revolution, is to meet the growing demands for food while reducing the negative impacts on the environment. Intensive farming practices using excess pesticides and fertilizers, associated with severe soil disturbance, have had adverse effects on biodiversity in plant communities. Therefore, there is an urgent need to find alternative farming techniques that respect the environment, while maintaining or even increasing crop yields. Integrated weed management systems are thought to be promising in that they aim to provide high yields and less environmentally damaging crops by using biological, less chemical and less mechanical approaches. The use of different cover crops (CC) with reduced tillage practices offers a range of environmental benefits such as soil erosion prevention, weed control, increased fertility soil, improving the nitrogen cycle, increasing the soil organic matter content and maintaining high yields. However, our knowledge of how different CCs (such as Camelina) and reduced tillage practices affect the assembly of weed communities in agricultural landscapes is still limited. Thus, experimental approaches studying the effect of different CCs and different tillage practices on the occurrence and persistence of weeds help to better understand the response of weed communities to different farming practices.

In this chapter, we present a controlled experiment (specific composition and propagule pressure) aimed at evaluating the combined effect of different tillage techniques (simplified soil work reduced vs. no tillage) and rotations of the cover soil (two CC vs no CC) on weed community assemblage and crop yield in sunflower crops. To this end, we have set up a controlled experiment using a random block plan, with rotation between barley, sunflower and wheat crops, either with Camelina sativa in intercrop or with winter plant cover. Mixed leguminous, inserted between barley and sunflower. We assume that winter CCs along with less tillage could have significant weed control activity (via allelopathy and / or diversity complementarity), while improving sunflower yields.

We followed diachronically the richness and abundance of weed species, the change in their relative abundance compared to an initial state (change of abundance rank) and, at the end of monitoring, measured the sunflower yields (height of sunflower and weight of sunflower seeds per stem). Using generalized linear models, we analyzed the effect of soil cover and tillage on weed species richness, abundance, and sunflower yields. For relative abundance change, we used mixed-effect linear models to compare the relative abundance change with the baseline.

Our results support some of the proposed hypotheses that winter CC-mix removes the most dominant weed species by the diversity complementarity rather than an allelopathic effect of camelina. A CW in winter does not affect species richness, while soil preparation appears to impact species richness of weeds in a complex way. In addition, the use of Camelina as an intercrop enhances the relative abundance of patrimonial species at the expense of noxious species. Finally, the winter CC has a positive effect on the yield of sunflower crops while Camelina shows a contrasting effect.

A decline was recorded in the biodiversity of natural ecosystems because of human-driven extensive alterations and conversions (e.g. intensive and expansive agricultural practices leading to environmental degradation). Over the past 40 years, conservation ecologists have increased the awareness about the importance of maintaining the biodiversity and ecological processes delivered by natural ecosystems. Ecologists have focused on the maintenance of native ecosystems as a conservation strategy facing landscape transformation. Habitat corridors (e.g. hedgerows) as a landscape feature promoting connectivity between isolated habitat fragments are considered one of the strategies for conserving biodiversity in fragmented landscapes.

Most forest herbs are perennials with long-living lifecycles. However, they are showing an increase in their vulnerability for extinction events due to increased forest fragmentation.

Forest herbs are stress-tolerant and characterized by higher tolerance to low light availability.

In addition, forest herbs are characterized by lower germination rates, lower seed production and lower long-ranged dispersal events. All these limitations interfere in the assembly and longterm persistence of forest plant species.

In agricultural landscapes, it is suggested to maintain hedgerows as corridors that would allow the movement across the forest patches. Hedgerows are considered forest-like habitats that may represent a potential refuge for forest specialist species. However, the knowledge about the extent to which hedgerows are suitable habitats for the germination and persistence of forest plant species is still poor and debatable. The idea of hedgerow possibilities for acting as a corridor for forest specialists falls between three theories. The first theory assumes that almost all hedgerows are suitable habitats that ensure the conservation of forest species. The second theory states that hedgerows are subjected to intensive human disturbances making them highly different from forests in the context of forest species conservation. The third theory is an intermediate theory assuming that hedgerows may provide a suitable habitat for a subset of forest plant species. The intermediate theory was suggested due to the low dispersal capacity of forest plant species requiring large time intervals to reach the hedgerow. Trying to solve this debate, we had made this study aiming to increase our knowledge about the possibility of forest specialists to be presented in hedgerows. Assuming that forest specialists are dispersal limited, we implemented this controlled experiment where several forest plant species were sown in both recent hedgerows and open field landscapes to study the dispersal and recruitment limitations. In the same hedgerows, we performed transplantation experiment to test the persistence limitation of forest plant species by comparing their persistence between both hedgerows and forest. For the two tested approaches (i.e. germination and persistence), we had studied the possibility of biotic interactions (i.e. competition) by removing resident vegetation from one side of the transect (5 transects of hedgerows and 2 transects of forest) and keeping them on the other facing part of the same studied transect.

Our study is still underway and needs longer-term follow-up to properly assess the possibility for hedgerows to serve as corridors for forest species. Our preliminary results show that few planted species have established themselves in hedgerows, suggesting that the presence of a species in hedgerows is subject to both dispersal limits and recruitment limits.

Chapter 1: General introduction

Background

One challenge for ecologists is to understand the abundance of species, their distribution, and their interaction with other species. Community ecologists concentrate on the scale at which species locally assemble. Habitat fragmentation as a world widespread phenomenon has fostered the study of metacommunity dynamics. A metacommunity is defined as the set of interacting (or interconnected) local communities that are linked (or connected) by species dispersal and into which species have the potential to interact with each other (M. A. Leibold et al., 2004b). The theory of metacommunity tries to explain the scale-dependent processes patterning species assemblages. The change in spatial dynamics of local communities may directly and indirectly alter local community processes [START_REF] Jackson | Community ecology in a changing environment: Perspectives from the Quaternary[END_REF]. This is why it has been a challenging question in metacommunity ecology to study how local processes affect patterns observed at landscape to regional scales. The concept of metacommunity relies not only on how species interact within local communities, but on how spatial heterogeneity and disturbances lead to the formation of suitable habitat patches within a matrix of non-suitable habitats [START_REF] Van Teeffelen | Species in a dynamic world: Consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning[END_REF]. Metacommunity ecologists seek to understand the types of interactions at different spatial scales, the relative importance of these speciesspecific interactions and the effect of species' dispersal abilities in patterning natural communities (Chapter 2) [START_REF] Rajala | When do we have the power to detect biological interactions in spatial point patterns?[END_REF].

Plant communities are major key players in all ecosystems on Earth, and are considered at the basis of global food and biogeochemical cycles. Therefore, within plant communities, plant species may affect each other's behavior and consequently affect the overall functioning of the community and abovementioned biogeochemical cycles (Fig. 1D &1E). [START_REF] Zobel | The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence?[END_REF] and [START_REF] Lortie | Rethinking plant community theory[END_REF].

In addition, the occurrence of a given plant species within a given plant community depends on the abiotic conditions of the habitat hosting this community, which should meet all conditions (e.g. microclimate & soil properties) required by the plant to germinate and persist locally (i.e. successful establishment) (Fig 1 -1B) with anthropogenic or natural disturbances potentially disrupting the local abiotic conditions. Therefore, we need to understand the processes that shape and influence these plant communities in order to manage them in a sustainable manner.

Several attempts have been made to generate general rules explaining species distribution across a given landscape. MacArthur and Wilson´s theory of island biogeography was one of the first attempts in fixing ecological assembly rules that control local species assemblages [START_REF] Wilson | The theory of island biogeography[END_REF]. Ecological assembly rules consider that plant assembly results from the effect of three biological filters acting on a regional species pool: dispersal (Fig. 1-1A); abiotic environmental conditions; and biotic interactions (Fig. 1 [START_REF] Götzenberger | Ecological assembly rules in plant communities-approaches, patterns and prospects[END_REF][START_REF] Weiher | ECOLOGICAL ASSEMBLY RULES: Perspectives, advances[END_REF].

-1B & 1- 1C)
Several questions arise starting from the fact that plant species are living in a complex web of interactions inside ecological communities. What is the effect of the environment itself on the germination success and the relative abundance of a given plant species within a given community? What are the effects of a given species on the other species of the community and how strong is its impact? How can it be possible for different species to coexist in the same community? What pattern of species composition and level of species diversity can we observe if community structure is strongly affected by species interactions? These are common questions tackled by ecologists. Thus, increasing our knowledge about the processes that control the assembly of plant communities supposes that we assess the effect of each filter alone and its interaction with other filters (e.g. plant-environment interactions, plant-plant interactions) at different spatial scales.

Community structure can be described via species richness (i.e. species diversity or species density) [START_REF] Kelt | ENERGETIC CONSTRAINTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BODY SIZE AND HOME RANGE AREA IN[END_REF]. Another measure reflecting ecosystem properties is aboveground biomass (i.e. a proxy for productivity). Combining these two measures (Fig. 12) into an ecological study is a common approach [START_REF] Newbold | Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity[END_REF]; this will be discussed extensively in Chapter 3. Several theories exist on the relationship between species richness and species productivity, such as: the "dynamic equilibrium" model [START_REF] Huston | A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity[END_REF]; the "humped back" model (J. Philip Grime, 2006a;[START_REF] Hodáňová | Plant strategies and vegetation processes[END_REF]; and the "resource-ratio" or "R*" model [START_REF] Tilman | Resource Competition and Community Structure[END_REF]. Despite differences, these models all assume a unimodal relationship between plant species richness and aboveground biomass (Adler, Seabloom, Borer, Hillebrand, Hautier, Hector, Harpole, Yang, et al., 2011). Several recent studies examined the relationship between plant species richness and aboveground biomass (S. Li et al., 2018;[START_REF] Li | Relationships between plant diversity and biomass production of alpine grasslands are dependent on the spatial scale and the dimension of biodiversity[END_REF][START_REF] Venail | Species richness, but not phylogenetic diversity, influences community biomass production and temporal stability in a re-examination of 16 grassland biodiversity studies[END_REF]. [START_REF] Hooper | A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change[END_REF] showed that a 21-40% decrease in local plant species richness might lead to 5-10% reduction in biomass production. However, reducing the local biodiversity by 60% induces a greater decline in biomass production. Similarly, [START_REF] Liang | Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests[END_REF] discussed the biodiversity-productivity relationship (BPR) in forest ecosystems, and showed that a 10% reduction in tree species richness led to a loss of 2-3% in the aboveground biomass of trees, while decreasing species richness down to a single species (monoculture forest) led to a decrease of 26-66%. In addition, [START_REF] Newbold | Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity[END_REF] stated that local species richness is more likely to be affected and consequently affecting biodiversity, where the average local species richness declined by 13.6% because of land use and anthropogenic activities. In addition, some areas were more affected showing a decline of 31%, which is enough to affect ecosystem functions and services.

The niche-neutral debate

Within a given habitat patch, two or more species may be absent and thus cannot co-exist locally as parts of a given community of the focal habitat patch. This can happen because one species outcompetes the others and excludes them from the local community; or simply because the habitat patch does not match the species' autecological requirements. Two opposite theories have influenced assembly rules: the niche theory and the neutral theory. Different definitions for the ecological niche have been advocated by different ecologists [START_REF] Elton | Animal ecology[END_REF][START_REF] Grinnell | An account of the birds and mammals of the San Jacinto area of southern California with remarks upon the behavior of geographic races on the margins of their habitats[END_REF][START_REF] Hutchinson | The Paradox of the Plankton[END_REF]. Each definition is unique in some way, but all state that not all species interact similarly with the environment, and that the species-environmental interactions are the main attributes to assess when studying ecosystem structure. [START_REF] Tilman | Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity[END_REF].

According to the niche theory, species co-existence is stabilized by density-dependent interactions and the species composition may remain steady for a long time in the absence of external disturbance (Chesson, 2000a). Niche complementarity is one of the mechanisms suggested to explain the relationship between plant species diversity and ecosystem functioning [START_REF] Huston | A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity[END_REF]Loreau et al., 2001a). This mechanism suggests that species exploiting various resources (e.g. species with different strategies in nutrient use or species differing in phenology or physiology) will be able to coexist, thereby increasing species richness and resource uptake, and thus productivity [START_REF] Bruno | Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory[END_REF][START_REF] Kareiva | Re-examining the Role of Positive Interactions in Communities 1[END_REF]. [START_REF] Tilman | Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity[END_REF] explained niche differentiation and species coexistence using the "snowball on the barn" model (Fig. 1-3B and 1-3C). Niche differentiation causes an increase in plant diversity, which will in turn predict an increase in the plant community productivity. Every species exists in a defined range of conditions (circles of the model), and two or more species can share a subset of these conditions (intersecting circles) forming heterogeneous communities. The more heterogeneous the community is; the more diverse plant community will be. In addition, increased diversity will cause an increase in the coverage of habitat conditions, resource uptake efficiency and eventually total plant community biomass (Fig. 1-3C). Another study of grassland communities by [START_REF] Harpole | Grassland species loss resulting from reduced niche dimension[END_REF] explains the impact of the differences among species niche requirements (nitrogen and phosphorous) on their abundance and distribution (Fig 1 -3A). In this experiment, species are categorized according to their tolerance towards low nitrogen and phosphorous availability. In case of nitrogen (or phosphorous) depletion, one of the species will be a superior competitor over the other, facilitating their coexistence. However, in the same experiment, plant species abundance decreased when nutrients were added so that neither phosphorous nor nitrogen were limiting anymore. Species were no longer able to balance between the available space and their niche requirements, making it harder for them to coexist. Therefore, understanding the patterns of plant species abundance and distribution requires accurate information about species dispersal, niche requirements, stress tolerance and reproduction [START_REF] Di Musciano | Distribution of Plant Species and Dispersal Traits along Environmental Gradients in Central Mediterranean Summits[END_REF].

The neutral theory in explaining species abundance is as old as the niche theory, but the attention for the neutral theory was raised after Hubbell (2001)'s book "The unified natural theory of biodiversity and biogeography". Several studies adopted this theory to explain patterns of local species diversity in a metacommunity context [START_REF] Leigh | Neutral theory: a historical perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Rosindell | The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten[END_REF]. The neutral theory assumes that all species are identical in terms of niche [START_REF] Mcgill | A test of the unified neutral theory of biodiversity[END_REF][START_REF] Volkov | Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology[END_REF], and that species abundance and distribution are only under the dependence of stochastic processes (Fig 1234), namely immigration, death, birth and speciation rates [START_REF] Hubbell | A unified theory of biogeography and relative species abundance and its application to tropical rain forests and coral reefs[END_REF]. Moreover, the neutral theory is based on two assumptions: saturation and neutrality [START_REF] Etienne | A neutral sampling formula for multiple samples and an 'exact' test of neutrality[END_REF]. Saturation means that the community size is fixed with time scale and the number of species inside is finite [START_REF] Cornell | Species Interactions, Local and Regional Processes, and Limits to the Richness of Ecological Communities: A Theoretical Perspective[END_REF]. In addition, saturation states that resources are fixed and none of these resources is left without being consumed as long as communities are undisturbed (Hubbell, 2001).

Secondly, neutrality states that species inside the community are functionally equivalent.

Therefore, neutral theory assumes that species compete equally and randomly for space (speciation and immigration) [START_REF] Chave | Neutral theory and community ecology[END_REF]. [START_REF] Rosindell | The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten[END_REF]. Biodiversity loss due to environmental disturbances highlights the importance of studying species abundance and coexistence in both space and time [START_REF] Cordonnier | Managing tree species diversity and ecosystem functions through coexistence mechanisms[END_REF][START_REF] Weiher | Advances, challenges and a developing synthesis of ecological community assembly theory[END_REF][START_REF] White | Spatiotemporal scaling of plant species richness and functional diversity in a temperate semi-natural grassland[END_REF]. Between niche-based and neutral-based community assembly rules, a trade-off may better explain the patterns of species distribution by treating both processes as two ends of a continuum [START_REF] Fargione | Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes[END_REF]. While niche-based local processes are fundamental in studying plant community composition, dispersal and neutral processes are essential by being the first events before species can even establish in a community, especially so in disturbed communities with ecological alterations (Brown & Kodric-Brown, 1977a;[START_REF] Thrush | The effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, and community homogenization on resilience in estuaries[END_REF]. Increased dispersal makes local communities reachable and allows the immigration in and emigration out of species [START_REF] Mouquet | Coexistence in metacommunities: the regional similarity hypothesis[END_REF]. Immigration and emigration may affect both local gains and local losses of species (M.

A. Leibold et al., 2004b). In addition, immigration will lead to the establishment of new species with different resource demands and uptake strategies, thus fostering niche complementarity (explained above). Other studies [START_REF] Chase | Spatial scale resolves the niche versus neutral theory debate[END_REF] had shown that the sampling scale better explains the relative importance of environment (niche) and stochasticity (neutral) (Fig 12345).

Therefore, the applicability of these two theories depends on the size of the species pool, environmental conditions and the spatial scale at which community is assessed. Niche and neutral processes operate simultaneously rather than alternatively.

Community assembly concepts

Community assembly seeks to understand the processes shaping local communities at the level of species identity and abundance. Community assembly rules start with the species pool concept that had been subjected to several "filtering events" before it becomes the actual studied local community. Several studies tried to understand the effect of dispersal, biotic interactions and abiotic conditions in shaping local communities and filtering the regional species pool [START_REF] Woods | Assessing the relative influences of abiotic and biotic factors on American eel Anguilla rostrata distribution using hydrologic, physical habitat, and functional trait data[END_REF]. Community assembly involves two sets of filters with (1) biogeographic processes encompassing the first set of filters directly shaping the species pool from global to regional scales (e.g. migration, extinction and speciation) and (2) ecological processes encompassing the set of filters by which the actual community is obtained from the regional species pool (Figure 1-6) [START_REF] Karger | Delineating probabilistic species pools in ecology and biogeography[END_REF].

Figure 1-6:

Processes behind community assembly rules and their corresponding scales. The regional species pool is a subset of the global species pool obtained after the first set of filters has been applied (i.e. extinction, speciation and migration) (referred to as phylogeographic assembly). The local species pool is a subset of the regional species pool obtained after accounting for dispersal filters (referred to as dispersal assembly). Actual studied communities are the result of both biotic and abiotic filtering defining the actual assemblage of plant species (referred to as ecological assembly). Adopted and modified from Zobel, (1997).

In the context of plant ecology, community assembly rules were defined as the nonrandom patterns of community structure caused by both biotic interactions and environmental conditions [START_REF] Weiher | Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats[END_REF]. In a general sense, assembly rules encompass any filter altering the regional species pool [START_REF] Diaz | Functional implications of trait-environment linkages in plant communities[END_REF][START_REF] Keddy | Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology[END_REF][START_REF] Weiher | Assembly rules as general constraints on community composition[END_REF], 1995). [START_REF] Keddy | Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology[END_REF] reviewed community assembly as a process of deletion, where abiotic conditions and biotic interactions are considered nested sieves sorting species from the regional species pool depending on their habitat requirements. Consequently, species having specific functional characteristics and matching a specific set of filters will be able to colonize and assemble into a given plant community. However, [START_REF] Wilson | Limitations to species coexistence: evidence for competition from field observations, using a patch model[END_REF] restricted the definition of community assembly rules as "the restrictions on the presence or abundance of a certain species in a community due to the presence or abundance of other species, or group of species". According to [START_REF] Zobel | The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence?[END_REF], community composition is based on a combination of broad and small-scale processes (Fig. 123456).

The broad-scale processes (e.g. extinction, speciation and migration) are the key factors determining the size of the regional species pool that is available for communities to assemble (Fig. 1-10 & 1-5). At a smaller spatial scale, the actual species composition is constrained by dispersal, abiotic conditions and biotic interactions, that act as nested sieves, through which the species are sorted. [START_REF] Lortie | Rethinking plant community theory[END_REF] proposed the "Integrated community concept" stating that four different processes (biogeographical events, local environmental conditions, plant interactions and direct interactions with other organisms) control the magnitude of variation within a plant community over space and time.

Two concepts of community assembly are thus central in analyzing any plant community. The first one is the "species pool" concept, which is defined as the group of available species that have the potential to colonize in the local site being studied [START_REF] Connor | The assembly of species communities: chance or competition?[END_REF][START_REF] Strong | Tests of community-wide character displacement against null hypotheses[END_REF]. The second one is the "filter" or "sieve" concept which is represented by the biotic or abiotic conditions that affect the establishment of plant species in the local site [START_REF] Woodward | Functional approaches to predicting the ecological effects of global change[END_REF]. Inspired from [START_REF] Hämäläinen | The ecological significance of secondary seed dispersal by carnivores[END_REF].

Dispersal

Dispersal is defined as the process by which an organism will transport the next generation across space. For sessile organisms like plants, this is the only way to physically move, through immigration of the next generation in the community and through emigration out of the community by means of local extinction [START_REF] Nathan | A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research[END_REF]. Another general definition states that dispersal is the movement of an individual organism from its birthplace to the location where it will germinate, reproduce and have offspring [START_REF] Pearson | Long-distance plant dispersal and habitat fragmentation: identifying conservation targets for spatial landscape planning under climate change[END_REF]. Plant dispersal occurs only at the seed or propagule stage of the plant life cycle. After germination of the seed for seed-bearing plants, the individual settles down in a specific location where it will spend the rest of its life. As stated above, dispersal is considered a primary component of community assembly. It is thus important when studying dispersal ability of a certain species to take into consideration the different aspects of the dispersal process (i.e. dispersal mechanisms, dispersal distance and impact of dispersal on community assembly).

Seed dispersal implies several mechanisms (Fig 1-7A & 1-7B) including dispersal by animals, wind, gravity (i.e. seeds that fall below the germinating-source plant) and water. Most flowering plants use animals to carry their seeds (i.e. seeds carried on fur or feathers, seeds contained in eaten edible fruits and deposited later through droppings), over short or long distances. It has been shown that interaction with animals, especially the super diverse taxonomic class of insects, have helped flowering plants to become the most successful plants on earth [START_REF] Tur | Linking plant specialization to dependence in interactions for seed set in pollination networks[END_REF]. Wind dispersal mechanism is considered important for small, dry and hard plant seeds (e.g. Milkweed). Although wind-dispersed plants produce large number of seeds with high wind-dispersal ability, most seeds will not germinate and the large number is to ensure that at least some will grow and eventually produce seeds themselves. In addition, phenotypic functional traits of seeds may assist wind dispersal; for example, maple winged fruit seeds act as kites and propellers that aid in wind dispersal for longdistance locations. Several other factors control the distance of seed dispersal by wind, such as horizontal wind speed, the height of seed release and seed terminal velocity [START_REF] Soons | Human effects on long-distance wind dispersal and colonization by grassland plants[END_REF]. By investigating wind dispersal distance in fragmented habitats, [START_REF] Bohrer | Effects of canopy heterogeneity, seed abscission and inertia on wind-driven dispersal kernels of tree seeds[END_REF] suggested that long-distance dispersal might increase the survival of populations having intermediate probabilities of local extinction. Concerning water dispersal, seeds of some plants (e.g. Carex spp, Epilobium tetragonum) float and travel on water bodies (with the dispersal distance which varies depending upon water stream features) before being washed up on the river banks and germinating if conditions are suitable (Araujo Calçada et al., 2013a). In most cases and with the various dispersal mechanisms, seed are undirectedly dispersed with respect to suitable sites for the plant to germinate and subsequently establish (random dispersal) [START_REF] Howe | Ecology of seed dispersal[END_REF].

It is believed that the impact of dispersal on community assembly is time dependent (Fig 1-7C). In other words, the probability of a certain species to disperse to distant sites increases with the temporal extent considered [START_REF] Jacquemyn | Forest plant species richness in small, fragmented mixed deciduous forest patches: the role of area, time and dispersal limitation[END_REF], and hence the establishment of plants in new communities at short spatial distances from seed sources can occur within short time scales (few years) while the establishment at long distance through long-distance dispersal (LDD) events is likely to occur over long time scales (from centuries to millennia). Some plant species (i.e. short dispersers) may have capacity for LDD events to happen but it depends upon the combination of dispersal mechanism and time interval [START_REF] Schurr | Long-Distance Seed Dispersal[END_REF]. In their study [START_REF] Schurr | Long-Distance Seed Dispersal[END_REF] used two parameters: seed-dispersal retention time (i.e. the amount of time spent by the seed inside the vector before being translocated to the focal site) by the vector (P), and the vector's velocity relative to the dispersal retention time (V). For example, seed dispersal with higher velocity mechanisms (e.g. large and fast vectors like mammals, birds or strong wind activity with elevated seed heights) results in LDD as long as retention time (P) is high. In the community assembly context, several studies assumed that plant species belonging to a given regional species pool have the capacity to disperse at any location over the corresponding region when considering a sufficiently long time [START_REF] Fenchel | The ubiquity of small species: patterns of local and global diversity[END_REF][START_REF] Nekola | The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology[END_REF]; J. J. [START_REF] Wiens | Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness[END_REF]. Consequently, community assembly patterns would mostly rely on local biotic and abiotic interactions after dispersal being achieved, making these interactions crucial to determine the local community composition and species abundance.

Abiotic conditions are "filters" for potential recruitment once dispersal happened

Abiotic conditions are considered a major process in "filtering out" species by exerting several limitations on species establishment and survival. Plant species show a wide variety of requirements to germinate and establish in a certain community. These requirements include, among other things, soil nutrients, light conditions, water availability and climate conditions in all its components (e.g. humidity, moisture and temperature). Following dispersal, seeds of plant species might reach a location where condition are unsuitable for their germination and the subsequent survival of the individual, so that the species fails to recruit. It may be the result of one or a combination of abiotic factors that limit the presence of a species in the local community. However, when conditions are unsuitable, some species might have the ability to incorporate the soil seed bank as a dormant diaspore waiting for conditions to become suitable to germinate [START_REF] Willson | The ecology of seed dispersal[END_REF]. Therefore, assessing the soil seed bank species composition is needed to confirm the presence or absence of a given species at a given site, although there still a wonder in considering seed bank in local measurements [START_REF] Plue | Where does the community start, and where does it end? Including the seed bank to reassess forest herb layer responses to the environment[END_REF]. Some species may establish despite unsuitable local conditions, via a mechanism called "mass effect" [START_REF] Waller | Do metacommunity mass effects predict changes in species incidence and abundance?[END_REF]. In such a case, the locally established population acts as a sink population [START_REF] Pulliam | On the relationship between niche and distribution[END_REF]. This mechanism appears at different sites connected by dispersal, where species flow from habitats with higher quality to habitats that are less suitable. The mass effect may allow species to locally coexist with species having different ecological requirements [START_REF] Waller | Do metacommunity mass effects predict changes in species incidence and abundance?[END_REF], hence providing support to the neutral theory of Hubbell, (2001) and the source-sink populations concept [START_REF] Pulliam | On the relationship between niche and distribution[END_REF]. Abiotic conditions can impact all plant species at any growth stage (i.e. seeds, germination stage and flowering stage) (Fig 123456789) [START_REF] Bobbink | Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis[END_REF]. They can also alter the reproduction success and maturation, and even when the abiotic conditions are extreme, they may kill the established plant species preventing local persistence through the establishment of the next generation (Fig 123456789) [START_REF] Walther | Ecological responses to recent climate change[END_REF][START_REF] Wiens | Reproductive success, spontaneous embryo abortion, and genetic load in flowering plants[END_REF]. It is often challenging to disentangle the effect of abiotic filtering and dispersal limitation since it usually requires experimental approaches, for example by introducing a given species in a target community to avoid dispersal limitation (approach adopted in Chapters 3 & 4). Alternatively, studying the soil seed bank composition within a given community at a given time in parallel to assessing plant species composition of the focal community may help to identify plant species which overcame dispersal limitations but face recruitment limitations under current conditions.

It is well accepted that the presence of a plant species in a certain habitat depends on its tolerance to environmental stress and disturbance [START_REF] Li | Community divergence and convergence along experimental gradients of stress and disturbance[END_REF]. Habitats exhibiting harsh environmental conditions often host a low species richness (Fig 1 -8B) [START_REF] Begon | Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems[END_REF]. However, some species are able to withstand and even colonize sites despite extreme conditions (e.g. freezing temperatures, low pH, salinity and shortage of water and nutrients) [START_REF] Begon | Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems[END_REF]Van der Meulen, Hudson, & Scheiner, 2001). In this case, colonization, competitive success, tolerance and survival will trigger the dominance of one to few species, whilst other species will be unable to establish or will go extinct [START_REF] Maestre | Refining the stressgradient hypothesis for competition and facilitation in plant communities[END_REF][START_REF] Michalet | Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities?[END_REF]. As long as a plant community is facing harsh conditions, it will achieve low productivity levels (Fig 1 -8B), eventually limiting alpha diversity (i.e. local species richness). A low alpha diversity is often associated with a low productivity because of resource shortening and physical stress (Adler, Seabloom, Borer, Hillebrand, Hautier, Hector, Harpole, O'Halloran, et al., 2011;[START_REF] Chesson | The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities[END_REF][START_REF] Gillman | The influence of productivity on the species richness of plants: a critical assessment[END_REF]. In addition, less productive sites are associated with less competition events and more facilitation relationships compared to more productive sites (Fig 1 -8A). In the latter (non-harsh environmental conditions), competition for resources likely increases and community saturation may occur (chapter 2). Therefore, abiotic conditions affect the productivity of plant communities, which affects community structure, function and species composition. During the flowering stage of plant's lifecycle, diaspores will be produced via sexual or vegetative multiplication (E) allowing the beginning of a new life cycle.

Biotic interactions Figure 1-10: Biotic interactions occurring at the local scale. (A) represents positive plant interactions (e.g. facilitation). (B) represents negative plant interactions (e.g. competition). (C)

represents the study done by [START_REF] Callaway | Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress[END_REF] showing that the interaction between species is also affected by abiotic factors (effect of elevation of species interactions). Inspired from [START_REF] Callaway | Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress[END_REF].

Biotic interactions are thought to impact community structure after the community has been filtered by abiotic constraints, while the reality is that both biotic and abiotic factors may simultaneously and not independently affect plant species throughout their life cycle. Biotic interactions are those interactions that occur between plants themselves (cf. plant-plant interactions) and between plants and other organisms (animals, microbes) in a pattern that affects community assembly and thus community structure [START_REF] Austin | Continuum concept, ordination methods, and niche theory[END_REF][START_REF] Brooker | Plant-plant interactions and environmental change[END_REF][START_REF] Michalet | Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities?[END_REF]. Plant-plant interactions can be positive (e.g. facilitation) or negative (e.g. competition) (Fig. 1-10 & 1-1).

Positive interactions (i.e. facilitation) usually occur between neighboring and physiologically independent organisms (e.g. non-parasitic plants) (R. W. Brooker et al., 2008)

(Fig. 1-10A & 1-1D).
The neighboring species will protect plants from the consequences of extreme climatic episodes and pest invasion, enhance soil nutrient availability, provide a shelter or adequate microsite conditions such as modulated temperature and soil moisture [START_REF] Bonanomi | Assessing occurrence, specificity, and mechanisms of plant facilitation in terrestrial ecosystems[END_REF]R. W. Brooker et al., 2008;[START_REF] Muoghalu | Priority parameters: abiotic and biotic components[END_REF]. An example of positive interactions is the presence of "nurse plants" that are species arising in hot and dry environments, and generate microclimatic conditions making it possible for other species to recruit. Therefore, facilitation plays a crucial role in determining the diversity and structure of plant communities.

Conversely, negative interactions among species and between plants and other organisms would reduce chances of establishment and survival in a particular community (Fig.

1-10B & 1-1E

). Competition and the presence of natural enemies (e.g. parasites, herbivores) are considered important means by which plant communities are filtered (R. W. [START_REF] Brooker | Plant-plant interactions and environmental change[END_REF], where neighbouring plants and other species compete for nutrients, light and space (R. W. Brooker et al., 2008). In his "Competitive Exclusion Principle", [START_REF] Hardin | The competitive exclusion principle[END_REF] proposed a hypothesis stating that two competitors cannot coexist unless they have difference in their niche requirements (niche theory). [START_REF] Callaway | Positive interactions among alpine plants increase with stress[END_REF] showed that the same plant species growing at different elevations shows different responses with respect of its interactions with neighbouring plants (Fig. 1-10C). In this study, plants grown at lower elevations showed negative interactions through competition, whereas those grown at higher elevations (harsher conditions) showed positive interactions through facilitation. Thus, both positive and negative biotic interactions may differ along a gradient of abiotic conditions, and thus influence differently community structure and species diversity.

Spatial scale and environmental heterogeneity Figure 1-11: Nested filtering effects from large scale to the fine scale (extent community).

With reduced scale, species fitting the environmental conditions will increase their abundance and dominate (green dots). Therefore, both environmental filters and scale difference will illustrate the dissimilarity among species traits and decide the coexistence potential of species at the local scales. Inspired from de [START_REF] De Bello | Evidence for scale-and disturbance-dependent trait assembly patterns in dry semi-natural grasslands[END_REF].

Scale dependency is not a recent challenge for ecologists. It has been proven to affect the means by which a community can be interpreted [START_REF] Colwell | A null model for null models in biogeography[END_REF][START_REF] Levin | The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture[END_REF]. The scale by which a community is studied clarifies the perception of the researcher towards the hypothesis proposal and the way by which results are interpreted (Fig 12345) [START_REF] Swenson | The problem and promise of scale dependency in community phylogenetics[END_REF]. When dealing with small spatial scales, the interspecific and intraspecific interactions between species may drive the biotic filters which shape community structure at these small scales (Fig 12345) [START_REF] Stoll | The Geometry of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity[END_REF]. The impact of biotic filters on the neighboring species may range from few millimeters to one square meter (minimal scale studied in Chapter 2) for herbaceous species (less impact on trees and shrubs) (Fig [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. However, considering larger spatial scales (e.g. 1000 m 2 ) with their environmental gradients elucidates the importance of biotic interactions relative to abiotic conditions and dispersal ability [START_REF] Gotelli | Species co-occurrence: a meta-analysis of JM Diamond's assembly rules model[END_REF][START_REF] Watkins | Local texture convergence: a new approach to seeking assembly rules[END_REF]. This can be applied when focusing on plant communities, while for other organisms (e.g. birds); it is more complex when studying the impact of biotic interactions at larger spatial scales. [START_REF] Fukami | Community assembly dynamics in space[END_REF].

Figure 1-12: Different patterns of environmental heterogeneity. (A) & (B) represent communities with no heterogeneity across their local patches. (C) represents communities showing heterogeneity within their local patches. (D) represents communities showing heterogeneity between their local patches. Extracted from

Environmental heterogeneity, measured as the diversity of the available ecological niches in an ecosystem, is thought to determine species diversity and composition and the structure of plant communities (H. V. Cornell & Lawton, 1992a;David Tilman, 1999a). A study by [START_REF] Hutchinson | The Paradox of the Plankton[END_REF] predicted that, when habitat heterogeneity is at its maximum, species diversity reaches its highest values since each species is directed towards its compatible niche and competition will be minimal ("niche diversification hypothesis"). [START_REF] Shurin | Alternative stable states and regional community structure[END_REF] conducted an experiment into which two competing species were introduced in multiple patches with different resource supply. The results showed that in case of patches having similar resources, one of the species outcompetes the other species; but in case of patches varying in the resource ratio, one of the species dominates while the other still persist but as dominated species. This study clearly links the spatial scale to environmental heterogeneity in the context of community assembly, where species richness in the metacommunity is maximal when heterogeneity in environmental conditions occurs between (Fig. 1-12d) rather than within the [START_REF] Williams | Experimental evidence that soil heterogeneity enhances plant diversity during community assembly[END_REF].

local patches (Fig 1-12c) (B. M.
It is therefore of great importance for ecologists studying community assembly to take into consideration what characterizes the community itself (i.e. heterogeneity), the plant species pool (i.e. spatial scale) and their interaction in determining community structure [START_REF] Kneitel | Trade-offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence[END_REF].

Stochastic processes vs. deterministic processes

Stochastic processes are the processes that lead to a random change in the local populations with time (Hanski, Gilpin, & McCauley, 1997). From an ecological time scale point of view, we can distinguish two stochastic processes that are believed to affect plant populations, namely demographic stochasticity and environmental stochasticity [START_REF] Lande | Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes[END_REF][START_REF] Melbourne | Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity[END_REF]. Demographic processes include species mortality and reproduction events that make population growth rates fluctuating randomly [START_REF] Engen | Demographic and environmental stochasticityconcepts and definitions[END_REF]. Even if we assume equal reproduction and death rates for all individuals in the population (neutral theory), the number of offspring and the death time of every single individual is clearly unpredictable, which leads to random differences in species-specific population size. Environmental stochasticity encompasses processes that generate unpredictable changes in the environmental conditions, thereby leading to variations in population growth rates [START_REF] Lande | Risks of population extinction from demographic and environmental stochasticity and random catastrophes[END_REF]. Natural disturbances are examples of these processes that have the same effect on all species found in the community. Stochastic processes occur in all population regardless of their size, but they are with greater impact in small populations [START_REF] Pavlik | Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Tilman | Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly[END_REF]. In case of random changes in the size of small populations, species are more exposed to local extinction [START_REF] Hanski | Spatially realistic theory of metapopulation ecology[END_REF]. In addition, the ability of species to disperse from nearby populations will be inhibited and the population tends to be more isolated.

Unlike stochastic processes, deterministic processes are those that lead to a predictable change in the population size (i.e. decline or rise) (Loreau et al., 2001a). Population size tends to decrease in case of habitat loss, where the availability of the resources decreases, leading to competitive events and to a decrease in the survival rates and reproduction (D. [START_REF] Goldberg | On the relative importance of competition in unproductive environments[END_REF]. Two deterministic processes are thought to play an important role for community structure: habitat degradation and habitat isolation (Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2007a). Habitat degradation is defined as the breakdown and loss of habitat qualities (resources and conditions) that are considered a prerequisite for population growth and expansion, and mainly occurs at the edges [START_REF] Lindenmayer | Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis[END_REF]. Edge effects (explained in Chapter 2) have a considerable impact on populations and communities by promoting a change in biotic conditions (habitat structure or microclimate) [START_REF] Báldi | Microclimate and vegetation edge effects in a reedbed in Hungary[END_REF], biotic interactions (species abundance, species invasion, interaction strength and quality) (R. J. [START_REF] Hobbs | Impacts of ecosystem fragmentation on plant populations: generalising the idiosyncratic[END_REF] or by increasing the negative impacts of anthropogenic disturbances (fire, hunting and domesticated animals) [START_REF] Meiners | Changes in community and population responses across a forest-field gradient[END_REF]. Habitat isolation is believed to alter populations and communities when the dispersal ability of species is disrupted [START_REF] Van Ruremonde | Effects of woodlot isolation on the dispersion of plants with fleshy fruits[END_REF]. In this case, species are with more chances to disperse in the unsuitable matrix, and consequently with increased risk of mortality [START_REF] Ricketts | The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes[END_REF].

Species are exposed to extinction via stochastic or deterministic processes, both processes often acting together [START_REF] Chase | Stochastic community assembly causes higher biodiversity in more productive environments[END_REF][START_REF] Zambelli | Deterministic versus stochastic models for long term hydrothermal scheduling[END_REF]. This is because, when deterministic processes take place, population size decreases, making it more vulnerable to stochastic processes [START_REF] Bennett | Habitat fragmentation and landscape change[END_REF]. In addition, when one or more species go extinct, this often leads to cascading deterministic effects [START_REF] Soulé | The effects of habitat fragmentation on chaparral plants and vertebrates[END_REF]. For example, when certain predators go extinct due to fragmentation, this will affect the lower trophic levels by increasing the abundance of prey species, which in turn will overconsume resources, leading to the disruption of ecosystem processes and increased vulnerability of other species [START_REF] Ryall | Response of predators to loss and fragmentation of prey habitat: a review of theory[END_REF].

Objectives and thesis structure

The main objective of my PhD thesis was to study the relative importance of dispersal and recruitment limitations in shaping community structure by means of both field observations and experimental approaches. For this purpose, we used different model communities, ranging from anthropogenic habitats (i.e. croplands in intensive openfield landscapes) to semi-natural habitats (forest patches and hedgerows) acting as biological corridors within artificialized landscape matrices.

Chapter 2 is entitled "Forest fragmentation shapes the alpha-gamma relationship in plant communities". In this chapter, we used field observations to analyse the relationship between local richness (alpha diversity) and regional richness (gamma diversity) also coined the alpha-gamma relationship (AGR) or the local-regional relationship (LRR) in the scientific literature [START_REF] Szava-Kovats | Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited[END_REF][START_REF] Cornell | Species Interactions, Local and Regional Processes, and Limits to the Richness of Ecological Communities: A Theoretical Perspective[END_REF]. Patterns emerging from this relationship help to understand the main processes underlying community assembly (Connel & Lawton 1992). In chapter 2, we analysed the AGR for both forest specialists and generalists between different regions in Northern France (Hauts-de-France) differing in spatial resolution (species pool) and landscape context, i.e. non-(fake patches within a forest matrix), semi-(small, connected patches within a matrix of grasslands) and highly fragmented (small, isolated patches within a matrix of crop fields) systems. For this purpose, we used the most recent scientific advances to analyse the AGR (i.e. the log-ratio model developed by [START_REF] Szava-Kovats | Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited[END_REF].

Chapter 3 is entitled "Winter cover crops decreases the abundance of weeds while increasing cash-crop yields". A major limit inherent to any empirical study comparing different agricultural techniques on weed communities is that the absence of a given weed is hardly interpretable: it may be either because seeds are not present (dispersal limitation) or because seeds do not germinate (recruitment limitation) or seedlings die rapidly after emergence and do not establish (recruitment limitation). By seeding the studied species directly in the field and by controlling propagule pressure, we overcome dispersal limitations. Then, we monitored both germination and seedling recruitment to assess whether recruitment limitations matter for weed species. Hence, if the seeded species germinate and establish successfully knowing that it would be absent if we did not seed the species, then we can conclude that dispersal limitations applies; if they are not retrieved, then recruitment limitations also applies in addition to dispersal limitations. Using vascular plant species as a model, we compared the effect of contrasted agricultural practices on a controlled weed community. These practices involve the presence/absence of permanent plant cover (in summer: sunflower; and/or in winter:

Leguminosae or Camelina sativa), as an example of biotic filter; and tillage/reduced-tillage, as an example of abiotic filter (disturbance regime). We used a randomized complete block design with three replicates per treatment.

Chapter 4 is entitled "Hedgerows as corridors for forest plant species: a test for seed germination and plant establishment". Species that are specialist of forest habitats often are absent from recent hedgerows, but sometimes occur in ancient hedgerows. Since most forest specialists are dispersal-limited, their absence in recent hedgerows can be explained by a lack of dispersion rather than by recruitment limitations. Alternatively, recent hedgerows may provide forest specialists with sub-optimal environmental conditions (e.g. high soil phosphorus content, unfavorable microclimate) or biotic factors (e.g. interspecific competition) so that those species may fail to recruit and persist even if they may disperse inside the recent hedgerows.

We implemented a controlled experiment into which several forest plant species were sown (seed experiment to disentangle dispersal from germination limitations) and transplanted as adults (transplant experiment to test for establishment limitation) in recent hedgerows of controlled composition and structure. As this experiment is still ongoing and was recently initiated, we will only show very preliminary results. Once the full monitoring achieved, we should be able to explain the presence/absence of forest plant species in hedgerows and ultimately, to conclude on their potential function as ecological corridors for forest plant species.

Chapter 5 is a general discussion of the results obtained in the previous chapters. We will summarize the main achievements of this thesis, try to derive a general conclusion and provide future research perspective. This part corresponds to an article under revision in Journal of Vegetation Science ABSTRACT Questions: Forest fragmentation affects species richness at both local (i.e. α-diversity) and relatively large (i.e. γ-diversity) scales, but does it decouple α-from γ-diversity through a shift from proportional sampling (i.e. α-diversity linearly increases with γ-diversity) to community saturation (i.e. α-diversity reaches a plateau as γ-diversity increases)?

Location: North France.

Methods:

We surveyed 116 forest patches at three levels of forest fragmentation: none (continuous forest); intermediate (forest patches connected by hedgerows); and high (isolated forest patches). Plant species richness of both forest specialists and generalists was surveyed at five nested spatial resolutions across each forest patch: 1m 2 ; 10m 2 ; 100m 2 ; 1000m 2 ; and total forest patch area. First, we ran log-ratio models to extract the slope coefficient summarizing, in a quantitative manner, the shape of the α ~ γ relationship. We did that separately for all possible combinations of fragmentation level (none vs. intermediate vs. high) × spatial scale (e.g. α-1m 2 vs. γ-10m 2 ) × species type (e.g. α-specialists vs. γ-specialists). We then used linear mixed-effect models to analyze the effect of fragmentation level, spatial scale, species type and all two-way interaction terms on the slope coefficient extracted from all log-ratio models.

Results:

We found an interaction between fragmentation level and species type, such that forest specialists shifted from a linear to a curvilinear-plateau relationship at low and high fragmentation, respectively, while the opposite pattern was true for generalists.

Conclusions: Forest fragmentation affects the α ~ γ relationship by favoring generalist species over forest specialists, with contrasted mechanisms for these two guilds. As fragmentation increases, (i) forest specialists shift from proportional sampling towards community saturation, as a likely consequence of dispersal limitation while (ii) generalists shift from community

Introduction

Habitat loss and fragmentation (i.e. the breakdown of large and contiguous habitats into smaller and more isolated patches) is widely acknowledged as a major cause of biodiversity loss (D. Tilman, 2004;[START_REF] Wilcox | Conservation Strategy : The Effects of Fragmentation on Extinction Author[END_REF] having an impact on ecosystem functioning through the biodiversity-ecosystem-functioning (BEF) relationship (N. M. [START_REF] Haddad | Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems[END_REF][START_REF] Riitters | Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation[END_REF]. Many empirical and theoretical studies have investigated the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on species richness at different spatial scales from local (i.e. -diversity) to larger (i.e. -diversity) scales [START_REF] Baynes | Effects of fragmentation and landscape variation on tree diversity in post-logging regrowth forests of the Southern Philippines[END_REF][START_REF] Carrara | Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico[END_REF]Fahrig, 2013a;[START_REF] Hanski | Habitat fragmentation and species richness[END_REF][START_REF] Riitters | Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation[END_REF][START_REF] Rybicki | Species-area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation[END_REF][START_REF] Valdés | The contribution of patch-scale conditions is greater than that of macroclimate in explaining local plant diversity in fragmented forests across Europe[END_REF] through intermediate scales (i.e. -diversity) [START_REF] Arroyo-Rodríguez | Plant β-diversity in fragmented rain forests: testing floristic homogenization and differentiation hypotheses[END_REF][START_REF] Baselga | Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity[END_REF][START_REF] Noss | A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity[END_REF]. A decrease in habitat patch size results in lower species richness due to both direct and stochastic area-dependent extinction [START_REF] Few | Floods, health and climate change: a strategic review[END_REF][START_REF] Pimm | On the Risk of Extinction[END_REF]. Increased habitat patch isolation reduces migration among local communities and magnifies dispersal limitations, thereby impeding metacommunity processes (e.g. rescue and mass effects; [START_REF] Leibold | The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology[END_REF] and ultimately reducing species richness of all habitat patches [START_REF] Jamoneau | Fragmentation alters beta-diversity patterns of habitat specialists within forest metacommunities[END_REF]. Moreover, the increase in the edge:core ratio following fragmentation alters habitat quality, which has been shown to be particularly detrimental to habitat specialists [START_REF] Mortelliti | Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on the distribution of two arboreal rodents[END_REF]. Per contra, generalist species originating from the surrounding landscape may benefit from an increase in the edge:core ratio, thereby altering species richness within the habitat patches [START_REF] Hanski | Habitat fragmentation and species richness[END_REF][START_REF] Vandermeer | Metapopulation Dynamics and the Quality of the Matrix[END_REF]. Habitat fragmentation per se (i.e. the breaking apart of habitat after controlling for habitat loss) [START_REF] Fahrig | Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity[END_REF] and management of the landscape matrix may thus alter the relationship between and -diversity [START_REF] Belote | Disturbance alters local-regional richness relationships in appalachian forests[END_REF][START_REF] Cornell | Species Interactions, Local and Regional Processes, and Limits to the Richness of Ecological Communities: A Theoretical Perspective[END_REF]Starzomski, Parker, & Srivastava, 2008). But surprisingly, how fragmentation impacts this  ~  relationshipand potentially decouples and -diversityhas received little attention so far.

(sensu
Local species assemblages result from the interaction between local processes (e.g. competition, disturbance) and processes operating at relatively broad scales (e.g. dispersal) [START_REF] Ricklefs | Community Diversity: Relative Roles of Local and Regional Processes[END_REF]. The relative importance of these two processes and the spatial scale at which they operate are commonly investigated by regressing against -diversity [START_REF] Harrison | Toward a better understanding of the regional causes of local community richness[END_REF][START_REF] He | THE LOCAL-REGIONAL RELATIONSHIP: IMMIGRATION, EXTINCTION[END_REF][START_REF] Hillebrand | Regional and local impact on species diversityfrom pattern to processes[END_REF][START_REF] Leibold | The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology[END_REF], hereafter referred as the  ~  relationship (AGR). A positive linear relationship indicates that the local community proportionally samples the set of species available at a larger spatial extent (i.e. the number of species present in a larger area determines the local community: and -diversity are coupled), whilst a curvilinear-plateau relationship reflects community saturation (i.e. local species interactions limit the number of species that can locally coexist: and -diversity are decoupled) [START_REF] Cornell | Species Interactions, Local and Regional Processes, and Limits to the Richness of Ecological Communities: A Theoretical Perspective[END_REF]Srivastava et al., 2008). However, these patterns have been shown to depend upon environmental severity/stress, with community saturation being predominant under both benign and severe environmental conditions, while proportional sampling dominates under intermediate positions along the environmental severity gradient [START_REF] Michalet | Competition, facilitation and environmental severity shape the relationship between local and regional species richness in plant communities[END_REF]. Since fragmentation can also be considered a stress, we might expect a similar influence of fragmentation on the AGR.

Moreover, the AGR may also change in the course of forest succession, with pseudo-saturation (sensu [START_REF] Lawton | Community Patterns and Competition in Folivorous Insects Author ( s )[END_REF]) in early stages due to the quick colonization of good dispersers, unsaturation at intermediate stages and saturation in late-successional stages following competitive exclusion [START_REF] Srivastava | on the Relationship Between Regional and Local Species Richness: a Test of Saturation Theory[END_REF].

Forest patchiness is not only the result of fragmentation per se, but also the result of the afforestation of former agricultural lands at different times [START_REF] Herault | The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests: an emergent group approach[END_REF]. Forest fragmentation may thus not only happen under stable (no habitat loss) forest cover conditions but even under forest gain [START_REF] Estreguil | Forest Landscape in Europe: Pattern, Fragmentation and Connectivity[END_REF]. This means that total species richness within the landscape does not necessarily decrease with an increasing level of fragmentation [START_REF] Hanski | Habitat fragmentation and species richness[END_REF]. In fact, it may even increase as fragmentation increases until the level of fragmentation reaches a threshold that is detrimental to biodiversity as a whole such that total species richness in the landscape decreases. To illustrate this, consider a set of local sites or plots located in virtual forest patches within a continuous forest matrix (Fig. 1, left panel). Plant community composition within these plots chiefly consists of forest specialists (FS), i.e. species that are more or less restricted to closed-canopy forest as habitat [START_REF] Carrara | Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico[END_REF][START_REF] Schlinkert | Plant size affects mutualistic and antagonistic interactions and reproductive success across 21 Brassicaceae species[END_REF][START_REF] Valdés | The contribution of patch-scale conditions is greater than that of macroclimate in explaining local plant diversity in fragmented forests across Europe[END_REF]. Now, consider a set of plots located in true forest patches with similar sizes and shapes as in the previous example but connected together by linear woody elements (e.g. hedgerows) within a matrix dominated by grasslands (Fig. 1, central panel). Then, forest generalists (FG), i.e. species that have their optimum in open habitats but may survive forest conditions [START_REF] Valdés | The contribution of patch-scale conditions is greater than that of macroclimate in explaining local plant diversity in fragmented forests across Europe[END_REF], are likely to enter the forest patches and co-occur with forest specialists, thereby increasing the number of species co-occurring within the same forest patches compared with the situation in the nonfragmented forests. Finally, if we disconnect the same forest patches and place them within a matrix of intensively cultivated croplands (Fig. 1, right panel), we expect a negative effect primarily on forest specialist species, and ultimately on generalist species, by boosting extinction cascades and by limiting immigration (Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2007) so that the number of species co-occurring within the forest patches will drop.

The pure effect of fragmentation on the AGR will depend upon the balance between colonization and extirpation events that happen at both the local plot scale and the larger forest patch scale. Colonization events of a new plant species not yet occurring within a given forest patch will first happen at the scale of the forest patch before it can happen at the plot scale of local assemblages inside the forest patch (e.g. a generalist species likely entering the patch through the edge). Per contra, extirpation events of a given plant species will occur faster at the local plot scale than at the entire forest patch scale (e.g. local extirpation of a forest specialist). These processes are predicted to be more pronounced in small forest patches and/or within intensively managed agricultural landscapes because of stronger edge effects (e.g. increased light and nutrient levels) which favor generalist plant species at the expense of forest plant specialists [START_REF] Bossuyt | Concentrating samples estimates a larger seed bank density of a forest soil[END_REF][START_REF] Michalet | Competition, facilitation and environmental severity shape the relationship between local and regional species richness in plant communities[END_REF][START_REF] He | THE LOCAL-REGIONAL RELATIONSHIP: IMMIGRATION, EXTINCTION[END_REF]. Based on these considerations, we predict a shift from proportional sampling (i.e. -diversity is coupled to -diversity and increases linearly as -diversity increases) to community saturation (i.e. -diversity is decoupled from -diversity and reaches a threshold as -diversity increases)

for forest plant specialists as the level of fragmentation increases (see before last row in Fig. 1)

while the opposite pattern is expected for forest generalists (see last row in Fig. 1). In addition to this interaction effect between the fragmentation level and species type, we also assume different shapes of AGR for specialists and generalists depending on the difference in spatial resolution between and -diversity, with community saturation more likely to occur when this difference is large [START_REF] Loreau | Are communities saturated? On the relationship between a, b and g diversity[END_REF].

predominate

Materials and Methods

Study area

The study area is located in North France (N49°25'-50°11'; E1°52'-3°55'; alt. 60-220m) (Fig. 2). The climate is oceanic with a mean annual temperature of 10°C and total annual rainfall of 700mm. The geological substrate is dominated by Cretaceous chalks, usually covered by Quaternary loess. The study region is dominated by croplands, intensively cultivated for cereals, rapeseed and sugar beet: the so-called "openfield" landscape. The forest cover is highly fragmented, consisting of small, more or less remote forest patches. In some areas, the forest cover is also fragmented, but forest patches are more or less connected by hedgerows and the use of agrochemicals is lower than in the openfield landscape: this is the so-called "bocage" landscape. Large and "non-fragmented" forests, that are often former royal forests, are rare across the study region. with three different types of habitats (Forest, Bocage, Openfield), totaling nine landscape windows with 15 quadrats per window (n = 135 quadrats). Each quadrat is a set of four spatial resolutions, in addition to total patch area, nested within each other: 1m 2 ; 10m 2 ; 100m 2 ; and 1000m 2 .

Study design and vegetation survey

We selected three replicates of 5km × 5km landscape windows in all three above-mentioned contrasted types of landscape (Fig. 2): ( 1 and in summer (June-September): we walked along parallel transects located 10m apart from each other to record all vascular plant species. We thus obtained a value of species richness per forest patch, i.e. patch-scale diversity. In addition to patch-scale diversity, specific floristic surveys were carried out at four nested spatial resolutions within each of the 135 quadrats of 1000m 2 , using a logarithmic nested-plot design (see Fig. 1c in [START_REF] Wasof | Dominance of individual plant species is more important than diversity in explaining plant biomass in the forest understorey[END_REF]): 1m 2 ; 10m 2 ; 100 m 2 ; and 1000m².

We focused on vascular plant species occurring within the herbaceous layer (height < 1m) solely as it better reflects spontaneous vegetation than in the shrub (height from 1 to 8m) and tree (height > 8m) layers which are more dependent on forest management practices.

Intraspecific taxa and planted ornamentals were omitted. Taxonomic agglomerates (e.g. Rubus fruticosus agg., Taraxacum officinale agg.) were treated as single species. Finally, each of the 175 herbaceous plant species recorded across our study area was classified as either a forest specialist (FS: n = 43) or a forest generalist (FG: n = 132) (see Appendix 2-2).

Patch characteristics, habitat quality and the proportion of forest within the landscape

To correct for the effects of patch characteristics (area, length and age), habitat quality (soil and light conditions) and the amount of habitat around the focal forest patch (proportion of forest habitat within the landscape) on the AGR, we prepared several variables (Appendix 2-3) to be included as covariates in all the log-ratio models we ran (see next subsection entitled "Data analysis"). Including these covariates in the log-ratio models allowed us to determine the shape of the AGR for different levels of fragmentation, scale and species type, but independently from potential confounding effects due to differences in patch size, patch age, patch quality and forest loss or gain in the surrounding landscape (here we are interested in the pure effect of habitat fragmentation and not in habitat loss or gain which may confound with habitat fragmentation per se).

Data analysis

To test our hypotheses, we used a two-step modelling approach. First, we had to assess the shape of the AGR for all possible combinations of fragmentation level (NF, SF, HF) × spatial scale (e.g. α-1m 2 vs. γ-10m 2 ) × species type (e.g. αFS ~ γFS), while controlling for the effect of several covariates (Appendix 2-3). Like in [START_REF] Belote | Disturbance alters local-regional richness relationships in appalachian forests[END_REF], we considered species richness of any spatial resolution nested within a larger one as -diversity relative to the species richness in the larger plot which we considered as -diversity. This leads to a total of ten combinations of nested spatial scales: (1) α-1m 2 vs. γ-10m 2 ; (2) α-1m 2 vs. γ-100m 2 ; (3) α-1m 2 vs. γ-1000m 2 ;

(4) α-1m 2 vs. γ-total; (5) α-10m 2 vs. γ-100m 2 ; (6) α-10m 2 vs. γ-1000m 2 ; (7) α-10m 2 vs. γ-total;

(8) α-100m 2 vs. γ-1000m 2 ; (9) α-100m 2 vs. γ-total; and (10) α-1000m 2 vs. γ-total. Regarding species type, we not only considered FS and FG separately when analyzing the AGR but we also considered the total diversity (FS+FG) to be able to test whether distinguishing between FS and FG changed the effect of forest fragmentation on the shape of the AGR compared to a baseline situation which does not distinguish between both species types. This leads to a total of three possible relationships that we tested: (1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG;

(2) FS ~ FS; and (3) FG ~ FG.

To assess the shape of the AGR, we ran a multiple-regression version of the log-ratio model proposed by Szava-Kovats, Zobel, and Pärtel (2012) (Equation 1) for each landscape window separately, for a given nested spatial scale combination (e.g. α-1m 2 vs. γ-10m 2 ) and for a given combination of species type relationship (e.g. αFS ~ γFS). This makes a total of 270 logratio models: three fragmentation levels × three replicates per fragmentation level × ten nested spatial scales × three species type relationships. The log-ratio model allows circumventing most statistical issues related to the traditional model [START_REF] Cornell | Species Interactions, Local and Regional Processes, and Limits to the Richness of Ecological Communities: A Theoretical Perspective[END_REF] and especially the lack of statistical independence between and -diversity arising from the mathematical

constraint that  is a subset of  (R. C. Szava-Kovats, Ronk, & Pärtel, 2013b) ln ( 𝛼 𝑖 γ 𝑖 -𝛼 𝑖 ) = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ln(𝛾 𝑖 ) + 𝛽 1 𝑍 1,𝑖 + 𝛽 2 𝑍 2,𝑖 + ⋯ + 𝛽 𝑘 𝑍 𝑘,𝑖 + 𝜀 𝑖 Equation 1
According to equation 1, which accounts for the potential confounding effects of covariates (Zk) and for which the response variable is the log-ratio of αand γ-diversity values of a given quadrat i, the significance of the slope parameter b in front of the the log-transformed variable of -diversity allows to test whether the AGR significantly deviates from zero and thus from proportional sampling (linear or Type I curve) (Fig. 3). However, it does not allow to clearly distinguish between community saturation (curvilinear-plateau or Type II curve) and intermediate patterns between Type I and Type II curves (Szava-Kovats, Ronk, [START_REF] Szava-Kovats | Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited[END_REF].

To clearly distinguish between Type I, Type II and intermediate curves, we computed the 95% confidence interval (p-value < 0.05) around the estimated slope parameter b as proposed by [START_REF] Szava-Kovats | Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited[END_REF]. Based on the range of the confidence interval, we can distinguish between four cases (see Fig. 3c): Type I (the confidence interval includes 0 but not -1); Type II (the confidence interval includes -1 but not 0); intermediate (the confidence interval includes neither 0 nor -1); and indeterminate (the confidence interval includes both 0 and -1). The inverse transformation (Equation 2) of equation 1 allows drawing these curves in the original α ~ γ bidimensional space (Fig. 3b).

𝛼 𝑖 = 𝛾 𝑖 ( 𝑒 𝑎+𝑏 𝑙𝑛(𝛾 𝑖 )+𝛽 1 𝑍 1,𝑖 +𝛽 2 𝑍 2,𝑖 +⋯+𝛽 𝑘 𝑍 𝑘,𝑖 +𝜀 𝑖 1 + 𝑒 𝑎+𝑏 𝑙𝑛(𝛾 𝑖 )+𝛽 1 𝑍 1,𝑖 +𝛽 2 𝑍 2,𝑖 +⋯+𝛽 𝑘 𝑍 𝑘,𝑖 +𝜀 𝑖 )

Equation 2

To fit our data to equation 1, we used linear regression models with log(/(-)) as the response variable and log() as the main predictor variable while accounting for several covariates (Equation 3): patch area, length and age; soil pH, C:N and P; light conditions (SCA);

and the proportion of forest within a 500-m radius (for500) (see Appendix 2-3 for more information on the covariates). All covariates were standardized prior to analysis, i.e. the value for each variable was subtracted from its mean and divided by its standard deviation [START_REF] Schielzeth | Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients[END_REF]. Once the 270 log-ratio models were fitted, we extracted the slope coefficient (with the upper and lower limits of the corresponding 95% confidence interval) of log(), which provide a quantitative estimate of the shape of the AGR (Fig. 3). here treated as a quantitative variable measuring the nestedness factor between and diversity (e.g. -1m 2 vs. -10m 2 and -1m 2 vs.-100m 2 have nestedness factor of 1 and 2, respectively). Note that for the first dataset (FS+FG ~ FS+FG), which focuses on all herbaceous plants without distinguishing between specialists and generalists, we could only test the effect of fragmentation level, spatial scale and the interaction between the two, thus leading to two candidate models only (slope ~ frag + scale vs. slope ~ frag × scale). To run our candidate models with the slope of the log-ratio models as the response variable, we used a linear mixedeffects modelling (LMM) approach with the three replicates per fragmentation level as well as the ten combinations of nested spatial resolutions as random intercept terms. To compare candidate models with nested fixed effects (but with the same random structure), we used maximum likelihood (ML) estimation instead of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) [START_REF] Zuur | Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R[END_REF]. As the best candidate model, we selected the model with the smallest Akaike information criteria (AIC) and rerun the selected best model using REML for final inference and reporting of the models' parameters [START_REF] Zuur | Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R[END_REF].

All statistical analyses were performed using the "lme4" [START_REF] Bates | Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4[END_REF], "nlme" (Pinheiro, 2002), "broom" (D. [START_REF] Robinson | broom: An R Package for Converting Statistical Analysis Objects Into Tidy Data Frames[END_REF], "MuMIn" [START_REF] Grueber | Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: challenges and solutions: Multimodel inference[END_REF], "glmm" [START_REF] Green | SIMR : an R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation[END_REF], "mvtnorm" [START_REF] Genz | Computation of multivariate normal and t probabilities[END_REF], "digest" [START_REF] Genz | Computation of multivariate normal and t probabilities[END_REF] and "Matrix" [START_REF] Fiske | Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance[END_REF] packages in the R software environment version 3.4.1 (R Core Team 2017).

Results

In general, we found a clear predominance of Type I (i.e. linear) curves in the  ~  relationship (AGR) of herbaceous forest plants (Table 1). Focusing on the 90 slope values (mean ± standard deviation: -0.11 ± 0.22) (Fig. 4a) of the log-transformed variable of -diversity extracted from the 90 log-ratio models based on all herbaceous species, combining forest specialists with generalists at both the  and  resolutions (FS+FG ~ FS+FG), the best model (slope ~ frag + scale) showed a significant effect of fragmentation but no effect of spatial scale on the shape of the AGR (Table 2, see Appendix 2-4 for the output of other candidate models). Accordingly, the AGR shifted from a linear (Type I) to a curvilinear (Type II) pattern as the level of fragmentation increased (Fig. 4a and Fig. 5a). For the 180 slope values (0.02 ± 0.68) extracted from the 180 log-ratio models relating  to  diversity of either forest specialists (FS ~ FS) (n = 90) (Fig. 4b) or generalists (FG ~ FG) (n = 90) (Fig. 4c), we found a significant interaction effect between fragmentation and species type but no effect of spatial scale (best model: slope 2, see Appendix 2-4 for the output of other candidate models). The AGR of forest specialists showed a predominance of Type I and Type II curves in non-fragmented and highly-fragmented systems, respectively, while the AGR of forest generalists showed the complete opposite pattern; shifting from Type II to Type I as the fragmentation level increased (Table 1 and Figs. 5b and5c).

~ frag × sp) (Table

Discussion

Even after accounting for forest patch characteristics, habitat quality and the proportion of forest habitat within the landscape, the shape of the  ~  relationship (AGR) summarized by the slope parameter of the log-ratio model (Fig. 3) still varies a lot (Fig. 4), albeit proportional sampling seems predominant (slope values from the log-ratio models close to 0 in Fig. 4). This variability underlies complex interplays between the level of forest fragmentation and the degree of herbaceous species specialization for forests (Fig. 5). Although the AGR only describes patterns, these patterns may underlie important ecological processes (e.g. community saturation suggests biotic interactions or dispersal limitations) [START_REF] He | THE LOCAL-REGIONAL RELATIONSHIP: IMMIGRATION, EXTINCTION[END_REF] that differ between forest specialists and generalists in response to forest fragmentation. Below, we discuss our main findings in light of the potential underlying ecological processes and their relevance for biodiversity conservation and landscape planning.

Proportional sampling predominates but it hides complex interactions

In general, we found a predominance of linear (i.e. proportional sampling or Type I) AGR (Table 1), irrespective of the spatial resolution considered (Table 2), thus supporting former conclusions on the importance of regional processes in shaping local species richness [START_REF] Cornell | Regional effects as important determinants of local diversity in both marine and terrestrial systems[END_REF][START_REF] Harrison | Toward a better understanding of the regional causes of local community richness[END_REF]). Yet, we also found that the prevalence of community saturation was the highest under some circumstances: for forest specialists within highly-fragmented systems and for generalist species within non-fragmented systems. This supports more recent findings on the relative importance of local processes under some environmental circumstances [START_REF] Michalet | Competition, facilitation and environmental severity shape the relationship between local and regional species richness in plant communities[END_REF]. The critical analyses of Gonçalves-Souza, Romero, and Cottenie (2013) and [START_REF] Szava-Kovats | Pattern without bias: local-regional richness relationship revisited[END_REF], who used the log-ratio method to reanalyze data from 113 and 100 published datasets, respectively, found no prevalence of either unsaturated or saturated communities. In fact, these two meta-analyses concluded that a large proportion of studies produced no discernible patterns (i.e. intermediate and indeterminate cases). Accordingly, our results also show that intermediate and indeterminate patterns between Type I and Type II can contribute a significant proportion in the observed AGR, being predominant in semi-fragmented systems (Table 1). Overall, this suggests a gradual shift from either proportional sampling to community saturation (i.e. for forest specialists) or the opposite (i.e. for generalists) as the fragmentation level increases, thus supporting our initial hypothesis of a complex interplay between forest fragmentation and species type (Fig. 1).

Forest fragmentation negatively impacts forest specialists

Supporting our initial hypothesis for forest specialists (Fig. 1), we found a shift from proportional sampling within non-fragmented systems towards community saturation within highly-fragmented systems (i.e. isolated forest patches within a highly-disturbed matrix of croplands) (Fig. 5b), irrespective of the spatial resolution at which  and  diversity are measured. Within non-fragmented forests, habitat quality is optimal and thus dispersal and recruitment limitations are low for forest specialists. Hence, a proportional increase in the number of forest specialist species co-occurring locally can be observed with the increasing number of forest specialists available from a relatively larger area.

Per contra, highly fragmented forests negatively affect the local establishment of forest specialists, thus decreasing the slope value of the log-ratio model towards community saturation. First, this may reflect a relative increase in competitive exclusion, especially asymmetric competition, when more successful herbaceous plant species gain a progressively greater share of the available resources [START_REF] Peet | Changes in species diversity during secondary forest succession on the North Carolina Piedmont[END_REF]. In such systems, smallstature forest herb specialists likely suffer from recruitment and persistence limitations in small and/or recent forest patches, due to increased light and mineral nutrient levels that primarily benefit a few generalist tall forbs, e.g. Rubus fruticosus agg. and Urtica dioica, or creeping woody species e.g. Hedera helix in our study. These species contribute to most of the aboveground biomass of the herb layer competing for light [START_REF] Ma | Plant and soil microbe responses to light, warming and nitrogen addition in a temperate forest[END_REF] and may thus competitively exclude smaller-statured forest specialists (Hermy, Honnay, Firbank, Grashof-Bokdam, & Lawesson, 1999a;[START_REF] Verheyen | The Relative Importance of Dispersal Limitation of Vascular Plants in Secondary Forest Succession in Muizen Forest , Belgium Author ( s )[END_REF] and ultimately decrease herbaceous plant species richness relative to non-fragmented forests [START_REF] Jacquemyn | Forest plant species richness in small, fragmented mixed deciduous forest patches: the role of area, time and dispersal limitation[END_REF][START_REF] Ma | Plant and soil microbe responses to light, warming and nitrogen addition in a temperate forest[END_REF]. This is especially the case along forest edges, which have been suggested efficient physical barriers against the arrival of forest specialists from neighboring patches [START_REF] Fischer | Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis[END_REF][START_REF] Pickett | U RBAN E COLOGICAL S YSTEMS : Linking Terrestrial Ecological , Physical , and Socioeconomic[END_REF].

Second, in highly-fragmented systems, forest patches are not sufficiently connected to allow most forest herbs to disperse among them, since forest herb species are well known for their low dispersal abilities [START_REF] Vellend | Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of speciesenvironment relationships via agricultural land use[END_REF]Verheyen & Hermy, 2001a). Consistently, we found a tendency towards more forest specialist species accumulating locally as patch age increases (see the effect of covariates from the FS ~ FS log-ratio models in Appendix 2-5), as predicted by the species-time relationship (Rosenzweig & Ziv, 1999) and previous observations in fragmented forests [START_REF] Jamoneau | Drivers of plant species assemblages in forest patches among contrasted dynamic agricultural landscapes[END_REF]. In other words, new forest patches are hardly colonized by forest specialists, and it takes even much more time before they spread over the entire forest patch area. Forest specialists within new forest patches thus form scattered founding populations in an otherwise generalist-dominated plant community, so that the number of generalists increases faster than the number of forest specialists when increasing the sample area. The observed switch from linear to curvilinear-plateau AGR for forest specialists may thus be explained also in the absence of competitive exclusion [START_REF] Lawton | Community Patterns and Competition in Folivorous Insects Author ( s )[END_REF][START_REF] Mouquet | Community Patterns in Source-Sink Metacommunities[END_REF], simply because only good colonizers from the surrounding area can quickly colonize a focal area. A similar pattern was reported for calcareous grasslands, where both the size of the species pool and community age influenced local species richness [START_REF] Pärtel | Small-scale dynamics and species richness in successional alvar plant communities[END_REF]. At the same time, populations of forest specialists in older patches may be hardly rescued by immigration and hence, be more exposed to stochastic extirpation [START_REF] Hérault | The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests: An emergent group approach[END_REF][START_REF] Jamoneau | Fragmentation alters beta-diversity patterns of habitat specialists within forest metacommunities[END_REF], a process potentially contributing to the reported decrease in the slope of the log-ratio model of forest specialists as fragmentation increases.

Forest fragmentation promotes generalist species

The fact that the number of generalist species co-occurring within forest plant communities tend to increase linearly with the number of generalist species available from a relatively larger area inside highly-fragmented systems is consistent with the idea that anthropogenic disturbances as well as edge effects (i.e. the part of a forest patch which is influenced by the surrounding landscape matrix) imposed by agricultural practices may create more favorable conditions for generalist species (Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2007b), at the expense of forest specialists. Generalist plant species, that are usually fast-colonizers, have been shown to decrease in abundance from the edge to the forest interior, whilst the reverse pattern applied to slow colonizers such as ancient forest plant species [START_REF] Hardiman | Maintaining high rates of carbon storage in old forests: A mechanism linking canopy structure to forest function[END_REF]. This niche partitioning along edge-core gradients in forests can be explained by the well-known trade-off between survival in deep shade and growth in full light [START_REF] Coomes | A greater range of shadetolerance niches in nutrient-rich forests: An explanation for positive richnessproductivity relationships[END_REF] Stephen [START_REF] Hubbell | Nordic Society Oikos Short-Term Dynamics of a Neotropical Forest : Why Ecological Research Matters to Tropical Conservation and Management Author ( s ): Stephen P . Hubbell and Robin B[END_REF], with the successful penetration of generalists into the forest interior usually limited by unfavorable light conditions [START_REF] Harper | Edge Influence on Forest Structure and Composition in Fragmented Landscapes\rInfluencia del Borde sobre la Composición y Estructura de Bosques en Paisajes Fragmentados[END_REF][START_REF] Hérault | The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests: An emergent group approach[END_REF]. Edge effects have been reported to extend 20 to 50m [START_REF] Hérault | The relative importance of local, regional and historical factors determining the distribution of plants in fragmented riverine forests: An emergent group approach[END_REF][START_REF] Murcia | Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation[END_REF] and even 100 to 200m [START_REF] Hardiman | Maintaining high rates of carbon storage in old forests: A mechanism linking canopy structure to forest function[END_REF][START_REF] Laurance | Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments[END_REF] 2009a). This spillover effect is likely more effective in highly-fragmented systems where forest patches are more exposed to lime and fertilizer leachates from adjacent croplands, compared to forest patches in the semi-fragmented systems. Moreover, the range of light conditions in nutrient-rich forests has been found to be greater than in nutrient-poor forests [START_REF] Coomes | A greater range of shadetolerance niches in nutrient-rich forests: An explanation for positive richnessproductivity relationships[END_REF], explaining why forests on fertile soils are more species-rich than their counterparts on nutrient-poor soils [START_REF] Coomes | A greater range of shadetolerance niches in nutrient-rich forests: An explanation for positive richnessproductivity relationships[END_REF][START_REF] Cornwell | Regional and local patterns in plant species richness with respect to resource availability[END_REF][START_REF] Laanisto | Why does the unimodal species richnessproductivity relationship not apply to woody species: A lack of clonality or a legacy of tropical evolutionary history?[END_REF].

In contrast with fragmented systems, continuous forest patches in the non-fragmented system represent true forest interior habitats without edge effects, which offer light and soil conditions that are less suitable for generalist species. The shift from proportional sampling of generalists within highly fragmented systems towards community saturation within nonfragmented systems (Fig. 5c) can thus be explained by the absence of biodiversity spillover effect due to the absence of edge effects. We thus conclude that the shape of the AGR for generalists relates to the spatial distribution of generalist species within the forest patch rather than to biotic interactions: regular over the entire patch, partitioned along the edge-core gradient and randomly clustered in highly-, semi-and non-fragmented systems, respectively.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that forest fragmentation affects the  ~  relationship by favoring generalist species over forest specialists [START_REF] Karlson | Species Richness of Coral Assemblages : Detecting Regional Influences at Local Spatial Scales SPECIES RICHNESS OF CORAL ASSEMBLAGES : DETECTING REGIONAL INFLUENCES AT LOCAL SPATIAL SCALES[END_REF][START_REF] Myers | Seed arrival, ecological filters, and plant species richness: A meta-analysis[END_REF]. The striking different responses to forest fragmentation between forest specialists and generalists suggests that community assembly rules operate differently for these two guilds. In large and ancient forests, high quality habitat combined with the lack of fragmentation allows forest specialists to dominate the herb layer. Conversely, small and/or new forest patches isolated within a matrix of intensively cultivated landscapes are not only hardly colonized by dispersal-limited forest specialists, but also exposed to intense edge effects that allow generalist species to preempt space and resources and subsequently prevent forest specialists from establishment/persistence.

These findings have strong implications for biodiversity conservation and landscape planning, and fuel the single large or several small (SLOSS) debate [START_REF] Diamond | The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves[END_REF][START_REF] Simberloff | Refuge Design and Island Biogeographic Theory: Effects of Fragmentation[END_REF] by suggesting contrasting impact of forest fragmentation on the community assembly of forest specialists and generalists. Computing the  ~  relationship across a given landscape and separately between forest specialists and generalists will help to quickly visualize and assess the functioning state, and thus the quality, of forest metacommunities within the focal landscape. This may serve as a diagnostic tool to guide landscape management actions for biodiversity conservation, depending on whether one aims at maximizing the total number of species or at maximizing the conservation of patrimonial species such as forest specialists. At a regional scale, the "several small" strategy would indeed increase total species richness per forest patch (Fahrig, 2013a;[START_REF] Yaacobi | Habitat fragmentation may not matter to species diversity[END_REF]), but at the expense of forest specialists by maximizing the proportion of generalist species, whilst the "single large" strategy would primarily benefit forest specialists, that are also the most threatened species in a context of global environmental changes and management intensification of landscapes. Preserving the biggest, most ancient forest patches and maintaining/restoring connectivity between these patches should thus be encouraged in agricultural landscapes to ensure the long-term conservation of forest plant biodiversity, and its associated ecosystem services [START_REF] Decocq | Ecosystem Services from Small Forest Patches in Agricultural Landscapes[END_REF]. Mots clés : pratiques agricoles, communauté de mauvaises herbes, travail du sol réduit, couverture végétale permanente, Camelina sativa.

Introduction

A considerable increase in food production has been achieved since WWII by using monocultures of high-yielding crop varieties, huge amount of fertilizers and pesticides, and increased consumption of fossil fuel, water and topsoil (David Tilman, 1999b). Agriculture intensification, however, led to unprecedented rates of environmental degradation, including soil, air and water pollution, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss [START_REF] Galloway | Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions[END_REF][START_REF] Robinson | Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain[END_REF][START_REF] Stoate | Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe[END_REF]. In particular, arable plant species (weeds) dramatically declined in many rural landscapes over the last few decades [START_REF] Firbank | Assessing the ecological impacts of bioenergy projects[END_REF][START_REF] Rich | Changes in the vascular plant floras of England and Scotland between 1930-1960 and 1987-1988: the BSBI monitoring scheme[END_REF][START_REF] Storkey | Using functional traits to quantify the value of plant communities to invertebrate ecosystem service providers in arable landscapes[END_REF][START_REF] Sutcliffe | Changes in the arable flora of central southern England since the 1960s[END_REF]. Weeds not only represent an important part of plant biodiversity in otherwise highly artificialized farmlands, but also have cultural and aesthetic values [START_REF] Swift | Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes-are we asking the right questions? Agriculture[END_REF]. They also deliver important ecosystem services, by serving as forage for pollinators, food for granivorous rodents, birds and insects, as well as shelter for auxiliary arthropods [START_REF] Isaacs | Maximizing arthropodmediated ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: the role of native plants[END_REF][START_REF] Marshall | The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields[END_REF].

Making agriculture more sustainable and reducing its negative impacts on ecosystem integrity and human health, while maintaining or increasing yields, is thus challenging for the 21st century [START_REF] Fedoroff | Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century[END_REF]. This is the rationale behind conservation agriculture, a system of agronomic practices that include tillage reduction, permanent soil cover, and crop rotations [START_REF] Hobbs | Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production?[END_REF][START_REF] Nichols | Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review[END_REF][START_REF] Palm | Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview[END_REF]. However, reduced tillage is hardly adopted by farmers since it is believed to increase weed infestation, which in turn can be responsible for decreased crop yields [START_REF] Belz | Allelopathy in crop/weed interactions-an update[END_REF][START_REF] Einhellig | Interactions involving allelopathy in cropping systems[END_REF]. Empirical evidence for this statement is inconstant and crop-specific [START_REF] Armengot | Long-term feasibility of reduced tillage in organic farming[END_REF][START_REF] Légère | Extreme grain-based cropping systems: When herbicide-free weed management meets conservation tillage in northern climates[END_REF] and it is likely that a threshold in weed abundance must be passed before effective yield declines [START_REF] Armengot | Long-term feasibility of reduced tillage in organic farming[END_REF][START_REF] Sans | Tillage effects on weed communities in an organic winter wheat-sunflower-spelt cropping sequence: Tillage effects on weeds in organic farming[END_REF]. Most weeds are annual species which are adapted to cyclic soil disturbances and cropping [START_REF] Gaba | Response and effect traits of arable weeds in agro-ecosystems: a review of current knowledge[END_REF], and hence are r-strategists (J. Philip Grime, 2006b) with a short life cycle, high fecundity and fertility, and dense soil seed banks [START_REF] Bakker | Seed banks and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology[END_REF][START_REF] Grime | Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects[END_REF]. The seed bank is the main source of weed occurrence in crops [START_REF] Cavers | Seed banks in arable land[END_REF]) and inversion tillage system is considered to reduce both seed bank density and recruitment from the seed bank [START_REF] Nichols | Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review[END_REF].

There is thus a balanced trade-off to be found between the preservation of weed diversity and maintenance of crop yields. The use of cover crops (CCs) has been suggested an efficient mean of suppressing weed emergence in reduced till systems [START_REF] Baraibar | Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures[END_REF][START_REF] Kunz | Allelopathic effects and weed suppressive ability of cover crops[END_REF][START_REF] Rueda-Ayala | Investigation of biochemical and competitive effects of cover crops on crops and weeds[END_REF][START_REF] Teasdale | Potential long-term benefits of notillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement[END_REF], through direct competition for space and resources or the release of allelochemicals [START_REF] Björkman | Mustard cover crops for biomass production and weed suppression in the Great Lakes region[END_REF][START_REF] Finney | Drivers of nitrogen dynamics in ecologically based agriculture revealed by long-term, high-frequency field measurements[END_REF]. The suppression of certain competitively dominant weed species might release other weed species from competitive exclusion, thereby increasing weed species diversity while increasing yields of the cash crop (D. R. [START_REF] Clements | Integrated weed management and weed species diversity[END_REF][START_REF] Radicetti | Impact of managing cover crop residues on the floristic composition and species diversity of the weed community of pepper crop (Capsicum annuum L.)[END_REF], but this hypothesis has not been tested so far.

The common practice is to use winter CC between two cash crops, with residues retained on the ground [START_REF] Mirsky | Timing of cover-crop management effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller-crimper[END_REF][START_REF] Teasdale | Tillage and planting date effects on weed dormancy, emergence, and early growth in organic corn[END_REF]. It has been suggested that a mixture of CC species (e.g. grasses and Leguminosae) is more weed suppressive than a monoculture [START_REF] Baraibar | Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures[END_REF][START_REF] Lawson | Influence of seeding ratio, planting date, and termination date on rye-hairy vetch cover crop mixture performance under organic management[END_REF] due to functional complementarity [START_REF] Hooper | Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge[END_REF]Loreau et al., 2001b) and thus greater CC biomass [START_REF] Baraibar | Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures[END_REF][START_REF] Lawson | Influence of seeding ratio, planting date, and termination date on rye-hairy vetch cover crop mixture performance under organic management[END_REF]. However, empirical support is still limited and CC impacts on weed communities likely depend upon CC types, sowing and mulching dates, and cash crop type (Alonso-Ayuso, Escudero, Guignard, & Weintraub, 2018; [START_REF] Buchanan | Can winter cover crops influence weed density and diversity in a reduced tillage vegetable system?[END_REF][START_REF] Campiglia | Weed control strategies and yield response in a pepper crop (Capsicum annuum L.) mulched with hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) residues[END_REF]).

An overlooked alternative is the insertion of a spring or summer short-cycle cash crop between two main crops, allowing the harvest of three cash crops over two years. Several candidate species can be found in the Brassicaceae family, which can be cultivated as oil seed plants and are also well documented for their allelopathic effects on weed germination [START_REF] Haramoto | Brassica cover cropping: I. Effects on weed and crop establishment[END_REF][START_REF] Petersen | Weed suppression by release of isothiocyanates from turnip-rape mulch[END_REF]. However, their efficacy in controlling weeds has been poorly documented so far. Here we aim at contributing to fill this gap of knowledge.

Assessing the impact of cropping systems on weed community diversity is not a trivial task. Available studies usually used an experimental design where cash and CCs were controlled in a randomized complete block design (Alonso-Ayuso et al., 2018; [START_REF] Baraibar | Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures[END_REF] but without controlling for local and proximal weed species pools. Such study designs assume that the distribution of weed species is more or less homogeneous both aboveground (i.e. standing individuals and seed rain) and belowground (i.e. soil seed bank). This is obviously an unrealistic assumption, especially in reduced tillage systems. Seeds exhibit highly clustered spatial patterns, both as seed rain and belowground [START_REF] Dessaint | Spatial pattern analysis of weed seeds in the cultivated soil seed bank[END_REF][START_REF] Plue | Consistent seed bank spatial structure across semi-natural habitats determines plot sampling[END_REF], due to the already patchy distribution of mother plants, itself associated with the spatial heterogeneity of the environment [START_REF] Plue | Consistent seed bank spatial structure across semi-natural habitats determines plot sampling[END_REF]. Consequently, the fundamental assumption of the independence of observations underlying most statistical analyses is likely violated. Spatial autocorrelation at the plot scale must thus be compensated for [START_REF] Fortin | Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology[END_REF] or, alternatively, should be overcome by using an adequate study design. Here, we retained the latter option, by controlling for the seed input (i.e.

species composition and number of seeds per species).

The objective of this study is to evaluate the respective and combined effect of soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling) and CCs (two different CC vs. no CC) on weed species recruitment and yields in following sunflower cultures. For this purpose, we implemented a controlled field experiment using a randomized block design, with barley-sunflower-wheat as principal cash crop rotation and either a functionally diverse mixtureincluding Leguminosae and Brassicaceaeor a Camelina sativa harvested cash crop as winter CC inserted between barley and sunflower. Here, we assume that direct seedling of winter CC, either throughout the diversity-complementarity hypothesis or via the allopathic effect of C.

sativa, is likely to suppress the most dominant and competitive weed species while increasing weed species richness and sunflower yields.

Materials and Methods

Study site and experimental design

We conducted our experiment in an arable field located in North France (Sorrus; latitude: 50.463208°; longitude: 1.748206°; altitude 40m) (Fig. 1A). The climate is oceanic, characterized by a mean annual precipitation of 872mm and a mean annual temperature of 10.8°C. Monthly precipitation are regularly distributed throughout the year and mean temperature ranges from 4.7°C (January) to 17.6°C (August). The experiment was installed on plateau position with Luvisol developed on loess, a silt dominated material with a high proportion of sand. The regional landscape is dominated by croplands, intensively cultivated for cereals, rapeseed and sugar beet. Prior to the experiment, the field was cultivated with direct seedling farming practices since 15 years.

We used a randomized complete block design (Figs. 1B and1C) with three blocks (3 repetitions), and two factor variables with two and four levels of treatments, respectively, hence making 8 different combinations of treatments repeated 3 times (N = 24 plots of 12m × 8 m):

(i) Soil preparation treatments (2 levels): "reduced tillage" with a non-inversion method (using a Chisel plough) vs. "no tillage", also refereed as "direct seedling";

(ii) Soil cover rotation treatments (4 levels): the first scenario was Camelina (Camelina sativa) in intercropping followed by sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to test the potential allelopathic effect of Camelina on weed recruitment. The second scenario was an intercropping with a functionally diverse and complementary mixture of CCs (Raphanus sativus, Fagopyrum esculentum, Trifolium michelianum, T. pratense and T. hybridum) followed by sunflower to test the diversity-complementarity hypothesis on weed recruitment. The third scenario was nothing during winter followed by sunflower, which is the conventional rotation; and the fourth scenario was nothing all the time, i.e. the control treatment.

Site preparation

Chisel plowing was applied on 21 st July 2016, just after the previous barley crop was harvested, across 12 out of the 24 experimental plots. On the same day, the winter CC was sown (i.e. CCmix and Camelina) in half of the studied plots (see Fig. 1C for details on plot location across the experimental site). Nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate NH4NO3) was applied at a rate of 80 kg.ha -1 to all the plots through the fertilizer hopper on 8 August 2016. In the first two weeks of April 2017, deep ripping and power harrowing were performed for the plots with reduced tillage treatment. On the same day, glyphosate (Round-up®) and anti-slug treatments were applied over the 24 plots. On 28 April 2017, sunflower (cash-crop) was sown in its corresponding plots and, on the next day, herbicide (Prowl400®) was applied over the 24 plots.

On 14 June 2017, another round of nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate NH4NO3) was applied at a rate of 70-80 kg.ha -1 to all the plots. All details concerning the planning of events to ensure site preparation are presented in the timeline in Appendix 3-1.

Seed preparation

We had chosen 40 weed species (Appendix 3-2) to cover a large spectrum of life forms (grass vs. forbs) and plant traits such as life span (annuals vs. perennials), canopy height and dispersal strategy (e.g. gravity-, wind-, bird-, ant-dispersed). Seeds were collected from wild plants growing in regional cultivated lands to ensure a local provenance, except for three species (Cyanus segetum, Coriandrum sativum, and Reseda lutea) for which we used commercial seeds. The total number of seeds available for each of the 40 species was divided into 27 equal portions (24 portions for the experimental site and 3 portions for greenhouse germination tests)

(see Appendix 3-2 for more details on propagule pressure). Then, we pooled each portion of the 40 species into a single mixture to get one mixture for each of the 27 experimental units.

By doing so, we ensured a similar composition and propagule pressure across the experimental sites and for the germination test. On 18 May 2017, the seed mixture was sown in each of 24 subplots (1m × 4m) that were disposed inside each 12m × 8 m experimental plots to avoid edge effects (Fig. 1B), and every subplot was protected with a porous net during one month to avoid seed predation by birds and small rodents. The next day, we settled the greenhouse experiment in triplicate (3 mixtures of seeds) using the same seed mixture. Seeds were spread over steamsterilized compost-filled containers and allowed to germinate under a natural light regime and a temperature regime ranging from 25/20 °C day/night. The containers were kept moist by regular watering. Three control containers containing only steam-sterilized compost were distributed among the other containers to detect eventual contamination. No contamination was detected. We monitored seedling emergence to determine seed viability. All seedlings were identified, counted and removed at weekly intervals from May 2017 until June 2018.

Vegetation survey and data collection

On 4 July 2017, we performed a baseline vegetation survey across all 24 plots to record the percentage cover of each vascular plant species occurring at the beginning of the experiment.

This allowed us to estimate the local weed species pool available before seed germination started. Then, we re-surveyed each subplot at 3 dates throughout the vegetation season (17 July, 29 August, 26 September): we counted the total number of individuals per species. For highly abundant species (i.e. Echinochloa crus-galli, Poa annua, Senecio vulgaris and Viola arvensis),

we randomly put a 14.5cm × 23cm wooden frame on the ground and counted the total number of individuals occurring within that frame before multiplying it by the total number of frames we could arrange to estimate the area covered by the species across the subplot.

On 26 September 2017, following the last vegetation resurvey, we randomly collected 10 sunflower individuals from an area of 1m 2 within each of the 24 studied subplots (240 individuals in total). Each of the 240 harvested individuals was measured for plant canopy height prior to harvest. Back from the field, sunflower seeds were separated from their corresponding stem before being weighted and counted separately for each of the 240 individuals.

Data analysis

Based on our full factorial experimental design, we tested the respective pure effects of soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling) and soil cover rotation (Camelina / sunflower, CC-mix / sunflower, nothing / sunflower, nothing / nothing) as well as the two-way interaction effect between both variables on: (1) weed species richness; (2) weed abundance (total abundance and relative abundance per species); and (3) sunflower yield. In addition to testing the effects of soil preparation and soil cover rotation on the absolute value of weed abundance (i.e. both the overall abundance across all weed species and the species-specific abundance),

we also analyzed changes in the relative abundance of weed species over time to test which weed species is going up or down in the ranking of abundance values across the different conditions.

Species richness

Here, the response variable is species richness per subplot (count data: one richness value per subplot). Hence, we used the "glm" function from the "stats" package to fit generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Poisson distribution. We built a list of candidate models including, as predictor variables, soil preparation or soil cover rotation or both simultaneously (see Appendix 3-3 for the full list). In addition to these two variables of main interest for the study, some of the candidate models included "block" (B1, B2, B3) and "date" (17th July, 29th August, 26th

September) as covariates to account for potential confounding effects. All possible two-way interaction terms involving soil preparation or soil cover rotation were tested. For each candidate model, we computed the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and ranked all models according to their AIC values, with the best model being the one with the lowest AIC value [START_REF] Burnham | Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd[END_REF]. Once the best candidate model was selected, we extracted the coefficient estimates, standard errors and associated p-values for each of the predictor variables listed in the best model. Finally, we ran an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the best model, using Type-II or Type-III ANOVA depending on whether there was a non-significant or a significant interaction term, respectively. We used the "ANOVA" function from the "car" package in R.

Species abundance

Here, the response variable is multivariate with the individual species abundance by subplot matrix being the matrix of response variables (zero-inflated distribution: several species abundance values, including many zeros, per subplot). Hence, we used a modelling approach very similar to the GLM approach with a negative binomial distribution but adapted to highdimensional data, such as multivariate abundance data in ecology (cf. the species × subplot matrix of abundance values) (Y. [START_REF] Wang | mvabund-an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data[END_REF]. Similar to our analyses on species richness, we tested the same list of candidate models (Appendix 3-3) using the same model selection procedure as above but running the "manyglm" function from the "mvabund" package in R (Y. [START_REF] Wang | mvabund-an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data[END_REF]. Once the best candidate model was selected, we extracted the global statistics across all species as well as species-specific statistics such as the coefficient estimates of all the species individually to study their corresponding behavior according to the predictor variables listed in the best model. We used the "anova.manyglm" function from the "mvabund" package to generate an analysis of deviance table for the best candidate model.

Changes in species' relative abundance

For each vegetation survey (late July, August, September), including the baseline survey (early July), we ranked weed species according to their abundance values. In case of absence of one or several of the species in any of the subplots and at any dates, we ranked these species after the least abundant species. Then, we computed for each species separately, the differences in their rank value between a given vegetation survey and the baseline survey, leading to three rank difference values per species and per subplot. Using each of these values as the response variable, we ran linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) with a Poisson distribution (similar to count data). We used soil preparation, soil cover rotation and block as the three fixed effect variables in the model and set species as a random variable interacting with both soil preparation and soil cover rotation (random slope terms) in the model. Because the three rank differences per species and per subplot are not independent from each other (same baseline conditions each time), we ran our single candidate model three times. Finally, we extracted, for each species, the estimated mean and 95% confidence interval of the rank difference.

Crop yield

Crop yield was quantified by measuring both sunflower height and the average weight of seeds per stem. Both sunflower height and weight of seeds per stem were treated as response variables in GLMs with a Gaussian distribution. We tested the same list of candidate models (Appendix 3-3) and used the same approach for model selection as we did for analyzing species richness and species absolute abundance.

Results

A total of 40 weed species were monitored in both field and greenhouse over the study period.

Twenty-eight species germinated in the greenhouse while 35 species germinated in the field (see Appendix 3-4 for details on species germination success) regardless of both the soil preparation and soil cover rotation. The majority of these species were characterized by autumn germination and early spring flowering. Poa annua & Echinochloa crus-galli were the most abundant species across all treatments studied (see Appendix 3-5 for detailed information about species richness and species total abundance). These species (Poa annua & Echinochloa crusgalli) were highly abundant in the field, likely due to their presence and persistence in the soil seed bank.

Species richness

The best candidate model to explain weed species richness includes soil cover rotation, date, and the interaction between block and soil preparation (see M24 in Appendix 3-3 for the complete model formula). We found a significant interaction effect between block and soil preparation on weed species richness (Table 1 andTable 2), such that reduced tillage had a negative impact on weed species richness in block 3 but a positive impact in blocks 1 and 2 (Table 1). We found no effect of soil cover rotation on weed species richness. Similarly to the analyses on species richness, the best candidate model to explain the overall abundance (number of individuals) of weed within the subplots includes soil cover rotation, date, and the interaction between block and soil preparation (see candidate model M24 in Appendix 3-3 for the complete model formula). Yet, the interaction term between block and soil preparation was not significant this time. We found that the overall abundance of weed, irrespectively of the species considered, was higher (Table 3): during July than during August;

Species abundance

when there was no soil cover rotation (nothing / nothing) than when Camelina was used in intercropping followed by sunflower; under reduced tillage than under direct seedling; and in block 3 than in block 1 (see Appendix 3-6.A and F.B for the effect of both block and date respectively on the most abundant weed species). In addition, further analyses at the species level (Table 4) showed that the abundance of some weed species are clearly affected by both soil cover rotation and soil preparation (see Appendix 3-7 for more details about all the studied species). For instance, the abundance of both Viola arvensis and Fumaria officinalis increased under reduced tillage (Fig. 2A and Table 4 respectively) while the abundance of the most dominant weed species, i.e. Echinochloa crus-galli, decreased when using a CC-mix in intercropping followed by sunflower (Table 4).

Changes in species' relative abundance (species rank difference)

Irrespective of soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling), using Camelina as a winter CC before sunflower had important effects on the ranking of weed species abundance over time relative to the control and conventional treatments which had no effect (Fig. 3). For instance, some perennial species in particular (Artemisia vulgaris, Plantago lanceolata) were clearly positively impacted by Camelina at all dates, as well as several annual species (e.g. Coriandrum sativum are patrimonial species while Cirsium arvense is a noxious weed. Using CC-mix as winter cover before sunflower only had a marginal effect on the ranking of weed species abundance during July favouring the relative abundance of some species like Artemisia vulgaris, Coriandrum sativum, and Centaurea cyanus under direct seedling treatment but decreasing the relative abundance of the same species under reduced tillage treatment (see Fig.

3

). The opposite was true for Perisicaria maculosa (see Appendix 3-8 for relative abundance of the studied weed species). are presented along the vertical axis.

Crop yield

The best candidate model to explain sunflower height (Appendix 3-9.A) and the average weight of seeds per stem (Appendix 3-9.B) includes block, soil cover rotation, and soil preparation as predictor variables (see candidate model M13 in Appendix 3-3 for the complete model formula). None of the variables were significant in explaining sunflower height but the average weight of seeds per stem was significantly higher in block 3 than in block 1 and when CC-mix were used in intercropping (Table 5).

Discussion

In this study, we test the relative importance of soil preparation and winter CCs in explaining weed community dynamics over a single season (i.e. richness, abundance, and change in relative abundance). We evidence that winter CC suppresses the most dominant weed species (e.g. Echinochloa crus-galli), especially when using a Leguminosae-Brassicaceae mixture as CC. Winter CC does not impact weed species richness, while soil preparation (i.e. reduced tillage vs. direct seedling) has complex effects. Interestingly, the use of winter CC-mix was associated with increased cash-crop yield, in contrast with Camelina. Below, we discuss these main results in details.

Impact of soil preparation

Soil preparation, not CCs, impacts weed species richness with reduced tillage interacting with experimental block to increase species richness in two of the three blocks, as compared to direct seedling treatment, while the reverse was found in the third block. The effect of soil preparation on weed species richness is still debated. Reduced tillage has been shown to increase the number of weed species (M. I. Santín-Montanyá, Martín-Lammerding, Zambrana, & Tenorio, 2016), but this effect likely depends upon crop rotation [START_REF] Legere | Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems[END_REF][START_REF] Stevenson | Manure, tillage, and crop rotation: effects on residual weed interference in spring barley cropping systems[END_REF]. Compared to conventional tillage (i.e. inversion tillage; [START_REF] Clements | Integrated weed management and weed species diversity[END_REF] and direct seedling [START_REF] Kraska | Effect of tillage system and catch crop on weed infestation of spring wheat stands (Triticum aestivum L.)[END_REF][START_REF] Plaza | Intensity of soil disturbance shapes response trait diversity of weed communities: the long-term effects of different tillage systems[END_REF], reduced tillage appeared less detrimental to weed species diversity, by providing safe sites for weed establishment. However, in contrast with our findings, other studies have found no increase in weed species richness in reduced tillage systems when compared to other soil preparation treatments (i.e. direct seedling and conventional tillage; [START_REF] Barroso | Impacts of cropping system and management practices on the assembly of weed communities[END_REF][START_REF] Bilalis | Effect of Three Tillage Systems on Weed Flora in a 3-Year Rotation with Four Crops[END_REF]. The 3-years study of [START_REF] Barroso | Impacts of cropping system and management practices on the assembly of weed communities[END_REF] assessed the effect of two different cropping systems (Medicago sativa & Triticum aestivum) under three different soil preparations (herbicide, tillage and reduced tillage) and showed no significant impact of soil preparation on both weed species diversity and abundance. [START_REF] Mas | Tillage system effects on weed communities in a 4-year crop rotation under Mediterranean dryland conditions[END_REF] showed that during a 4years study of three different crops (Pisum sativum, Triticum aestivum & Hordeum vulgare);

direct seedling system recorded the highest weed diversity as compared with other tillage systems (i.e. conventional tillage). Noteworthy, the previously mentioned studies [START_REF] Barroso | Impacts of cropping system and management practices on the assembly of weed communities[END_REF][START_REF] Mas | Tillage system effects on weed communities in a 4-year crop rotation under Mediterranean dryland conditions[END_REF][START_REF] Mas | Tillage system effects on weed communities in a 4-year crop rotation under Mediterranean dryland conditions[END_REF] are considered long-term studies unlike our study which was a short-term assessment (single season), inferring the importance of the study duration in explaining the significant effect of soil preparation on weed community assembly. It has been argued however, that there is no clear increase or decrease of weed diversity with the change of tillage practices alone [START_REF] Barroso | Impacts of cropping system and management practices on the assembly of weed communities[END_REF]. This suggests that the interaction between tillage treatment and crop rotation from one side [START_REF] Legere | Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems[END_REF][START_REF] Swanton | Weed Succession under Conservation Tillage: A Hierarchical Framework for Research and Management[END_REF], and between tillage treatment with herbicide use from the other side [START_REF] Locke | Herbicide-soil interactions in reduced tillage and plant residue management systems[END_REF][START_REF] Mohler | A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings[END_REF], might be crucial to weed community structure. In our study, the block effect cannot be attributed to differences in interspecific competition among blocks (J. P. [START_REF] Grime | Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects[END_REF][START_REF] Huston | A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity[END_REF] since the dominant grass species (Echinochloa crus-galli) as well as the overall abundance of all weed species is the lowest in the block where species richness is lower, irrespective of the soil treatment. Instead, the block effect may be attributed to small-scale differences in unmeasured local environmental conditions, such as soil fertility [START_REF] Stevenson | Weed species diversity in spring barley varies with crop rotation and tillage, but not with nutrient source[END_REF] or other abiotic factors, which can have an overriding effect on soil preparation in explaining weed species richness [START_REF] Pal | Can management intensity be more important than environmental factors? A case study along an extreme elevation gradient from central Italian cereal fields[END_REF].

While reduced tillage increases the relative abundance of some annual species (e.g.

Fumaria officinalis and Viola arvensis), direct seedling rather promotes perennial species (e.g.

Artemisia vulgaris

). This is highly consistent with former findings (María Inés Santín-Montanyá, Zambrana-Quesada, & Tenorio-Pasamón, 2018; A. G. [START_REF] Thomas | Influence of Tillage Systems on Weed Abundance in Southwestern Ontario[END_REF][START_REF] Travlos | Weed-Species Abundance and Diversity Indices in Relation to Tillage Systems and Fertilization[END_REF]. For instance, Thomas et al. (2004) found that perennial species (e.g. Cirsium arvense and Sonchus arvensis) tend to dominate in direct seedling systems while annual species (e.g. Setaria viridis) are associated with a range of tillage systems: from intensive conventional tillage to direct seedling systems. Similarly, [START_REF] Bilalis | Effect of Three Tillage Systems on Weed Flora in a 3-Year Rotation with Four Crops[END_REF] showed that the abundance of annual species (e.g. Stellaria media) is high in conventional and reduced tillage systems, while perennials (e.g. Malva sp.) increase their abundance under direct seedling system. It has been suggested that the proportion of perennial weeds increases as tillage is gradually reduced from conventional tillage to direct seedling, since most annuals are adapted to cyclic soil disturbances [START_REF] Gaba | Response and effect traits of arable weeds in agro-ecosystems: a review of current knowledge[END_REF], and mostly recruit from soil seed banks [START_REF] Auskalniene | Changes in weed seed bank and flora as affected by soil tillage systems[END_REF][START_REF] Shaukat | Spatial pattern analysis of seeds of an arable soil seed bank and its relationship with above-ground vegetation in an arid region[END_REF]). Another explanation would be that herbicides are more effective against annuals than against perennials (Derr, 1994a), and the use of reduced tillage systems (or even conventional tillage) may help in managing herbicide resistant weeds that may characterize direct seedling systems (i.e. perennials); this is considered one of the emerging challenges especially in cereal cropping systems (G. A. [START_REF] Thomas | No-tillage and conservation farming practices in grain growing areas of Queensland-a review of 40 years of development[END_REF].

However, our results support the hypothesis of a species-specific response to soil preparation, as previously suggested by several studies [START_REF] Blackshaw | Application method of nitrogen fertilizer affects weed growth and competition with winter wheat[END_REF][START_REF] Derksen | Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems[END_REF][START_REF] Tuesca | A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems[END_REF]. The weak difference between reduced tillage and direct seedling in our study can also be explained by the fact that even the direct seedling system experiences cyclic soil disturbances at the time of harvesting, so that the soil disturbance regime may not strongly differ between the two systems (CHARLES L. [START_REF] Mohler | Weed life history: identifying vulnerabilities[END_REF].

Impact of cover crops

It is noteworthy that the use of Camelina as winter CC increases the relative abundance of several patrimonial species (e.g. Coriandrum sativum) at the expense of certain noxious species (e.g. Cirsium arvense), irrespectively to the type of soil preparation. As an intercrop, Camelina impacts the relative abundance of weed species in a way which is independent from the biological type. Some perennials (e.g. Artemisia vulgaris) as well as some annuals (e.g.

Matricaria recutita) are favored by Camelina, while some other perennials (e.g. Cirsium arvense) and annuals (e.g. Atriplex patula) are suppressed (see Fig. 3). In comparison, the winter CC-mix (Leguminosae-Brassicaceae) has a weak effect on the relative abundance of weed species, which further depends upon soil preparation. For example, Coriandrum sativum is favored in direct seedling plots only, while Persicaria maculosa is favored in reduced tillage plots only. This is consistent with several studies, where CCs were associated with lower weed abundances (i.e. higher soil fertility) [START_REF] Drinkwater | Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses[END_REF][START_REF] Plaza | Intensity of soil disturbance shapes response trait diversity of weed communities: the long-term effects of different tillage systems[END_REF][START_REF] Teasdale | Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems[END_REF], though this suppressive effect is likely species-specific [START_REF] Creamer | Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems[END_REF] and soil preparation-dependent [START_REF] Shrestha | Effect of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil[END_REF]. Winter CCs are thought to exert a physical barrier against upward seedling growth since they have a head start over weeds that allows them to pre-empt space and resources before weeds and thus to outcompete them [START_REF] Lawley | The Mechanism for Weed Suppression by a Forage Radish Cover Crop[END_REF][START_REF] Weber | Weed Control Using Conventional Tillage, Reduced Tillage, No-Tillage, and Cover Crops in Organic Soybean[END_REF]. Camelina is believed to further impact weed germination via allelopathic effects, especially towards annual species [START_REF] Leather | Weed control using allelopathic crop plants[END_REF][START_REF] Massantini | Evidence for allelopathic control of weeds in lines of soybean[END_REF].

In contrast with Camelina as a winter CC, the Leguminosae-Brassicaceae CC increases both weed diversity and yields of the cash crop (as measured via mean seed mass per stem of sunflower). These positive effects may be attributed to Leguminosae species which are welldocumented for supplying nitrogen via their N2-fixing symbiotic bacteria [START_REF] Mazzoncini | Long-term effect of tillage, nitrogen fertilization and cover crops on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen content[END_REF][START_REF] Rangel | Leguminosae native nodulating bacteria from a gold mine As-contaminated soil: Multi-resistance to trace elements, and possible role in plant growth and mineral nutrition[END_REF], increasing soil organic matter [START_REF] Raphael | Soil organic matter in crop rotations under no-till[END_REF], reducing soil compaction and erosion [START_REF] Baumhardt | North American Soil Degradation: Processes, Practices, and Mitigating Strategies[END_REF], improving the C:N ratio associated with microbial community [START_REF] Frasier | High quality residues from cover crops favor changes in microbial community and enhance C and N sequestration[END_REF], and breaking up pest and disease cycles [START_REF] Flint | Pests of the garden and small farm: a grower's guide to using less pesticide[END_REF].

Consistently, several studies indicated a CC-induced increase of crop yield when Leguminosae are included [START_REF] Snapp | Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches[END_REF][START_REF] Tonitto | Replacing bare fallows with cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: A meta-analysis of crop yield and N dynamics[END_REF], while Camelina intercrops have been associated with lower crop yields [START_REF] Gesch | Double-cropping with winter camelina in the northern Corn Belt to produce fuel and food[END_REF][START_REF] Johnson | Yield tradeoffs and nitrogen between pennycress, camelina, and soybean in relay-and double-crop systems[END_REF].

Concluding remarks

Our study clearly shows that winter Leguminosous-Brassicaceae CC intercrop combined with direct seedling ensures higher weed diversity and sunflower yields than with reduced tillage or other soil cover types. On the other hand, Camelina as a monospecific intercrop ensures selective weed control towards less noxious weeds but more patrimonial, non-problematic weeds. As a CC, Camelina has the potential to allow reducing herbicide application (J. G. [START_REF] Crowley | Factors affecting the composition and use of camelina[END_REF][START_REF] Crowley | Evaluation of Camelina sativa as an alternative oilseed crop[END_REF]. Its weak detrimental effect on sunflower yield is likely compensated by the fact that, as an oil seed plant, Camelina represents a second cash crop whose seeds have a high economic added value [START_REF] Keske | Is it economically feasible for farmers to grow their own fuel? A study of Camelina sativa produced in the western United States as an on-farm biofuel[END_REF].

Both types of rotation thus meet the criteria of a sustainable agriculture. However, further work is needed to make sure that these results hold true on the long-term and to assess whether they can be retrieved for other cash crops or in other soil and climate contexts.

NSN corresponds to soil left in winter and cultivated with sunflower as summer crop without tillage (i.e. direct seedling), and NST corresponds to soil left in winter and cultivated with sunflower as summer crop with reduced tillage.

Chapter 4: Hedgerows as corridors for forest plant species: A test for seed germination and plant establishment

Introduction

Forest fragmentation due to anthropogenic disturbances is a widespread phenomenon in agricultural lowlands of northwestern Europe, resulting in habitat loss and degradation [START_REF] Mortelliti | Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on the distribution of two arboreal rodents[END_REF]. The meta-community dynamic of forest plant species within small and isolated forest fragments is therefore potentially disrupted [START_REF] Decocq | Ecosystem Services from Small Forest Patches in Agricultural Landscapes[END_REF]. Indeed, forest plant species will not only suffer from habitat degradation but also from the absence of corridors connecting forest patches. Consequently, herbaceous forest plant species may face higher extinction risks with potential cascading effects on the higher trophic levels [START_REF] Valiente-Banuet | Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world[END_REF]. Restoring the connectivity among forest habitats within anthropogenic landscapes of northwestern Europe is a priority to ensure sustainability in ecosystem functioning and thus the delivery of ecosystem services.

Hedgerows are called the 'green veins' of agricultural landscapes by European researchers and are defined as linear elements of shrubs and trees being 20-m long, at least, and less than 5-m wide (Bickmore 2002). During the last decades, several ecologists suggested the idea that hedgerows are potential habitats for forest species and a mean of connectivity between forest fragments. Several studies have shown that hedgerows may be a suitable habitat for forest herbaceous plants and have other benefits for nearby landscapes [START_REF] Fahrig | Conservation of Fragmented Populations[END_REF][START_REF] Henein | The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable[END_REF]. A study from Italy has shown that hedgerows within agricultural landscapes may act as effective corridors for forest plant species [START_REF] Sitzia | Hedgerows as corridors for woodland plants: a test on the Po Plain, northern Italy[END_REF]. Interestingly, [START_REF] Corbit | Hedgerows as Habitat Corridors for Forest Herbs in Central New York, USA[END_REF] stated that about 40% of forest herbs are encountered in hedgerows in Central New York (USA) and that richness of forest herbs as well as similarity of composition to neighboring forest declines with distance along the hedgerow from forest. This idea that hedgerows are efficient habitat corridors for forest herbs is supported by the study of [START_REF] Petit | Effects of area and isolation of woodland patches on herbaceous plant species richness across Great Britain[END_REF], who showed that the number of forest plant species is greater in hedgerows connected to woodlands. [START_REF] Freemark | Importance of Farmland Habitats for Conservation of Plant Species[END_REF] have also demonstrated that hedgerow networks within agricultural landscapes may act as protected areas for the conservation of endangered species.

However, other studies stated that hedgerows are frequently disturbed by human activities with negative impacts on the quality of the habitat therein, such that forest plant species are unlikely to use disturbed hedgerows as corridors for migration throughout the landscape (Honnay, Hermy, & Coppin, 1999;[START_REF] Klaus | Hedgerows Have a Barrier Effect and Channel Pollinator Movement in the Agricultural Landscape[END_REF]. Several comparative studies have recorded a decline and higher mortality rates of forest plant species in hedgerows [START_REF] Cunningham | Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on the Reproductive Ecology of Four Plant Species in Mallee Woodland[END_REF][START_REF] Schmucki | Population structures and individual performances of Trillium grandiflorum in hedgerow and forest habitats[END_REF] than in forests. Furthermore, a study that was performed in Canada and which involved the transplanting of forest plant species in hedgerows revealed unsuccessful establishment and showed that hedgerows are unsuitable habitats for forest plant species [START_REF] Fritz | The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation[END_REF]. Other ecologists have an intermediate theory for which hedgerows are considered as potential corridors for specific forest plant species depending on spatiotemporal connectivity (Françoise [START_REF] Burel | Structural dynamic of a hedgerow network landscape in Brittany France[END_REF][START_REF] Forman | Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology[END_REF]. Thus, whether hedgerows are efficient corridors for forest plant species remains an open question.

Forest specialist species are often absent from the most recent hedgerows, but are present in ancient hedgerows. This can be explained by time lags due to the poor dispersal abilities of forest plant species (sown seeds will germinate and potentially establish) (H1) and/or by the inadequate quality of the habitat within recent hedgerows which may limit recruitment (sown seeds will not germinate) due to unsuitable abiotic (H2; e.g. unfavorable microclimate soil conditions due to pollution from adjacent land uses) or biotic (H3; competition for light with the resident vegetation community dominated by generalist species) conditions, or even limit establishment of transplants if germination is not a limitation (H4; persistence limitation).

Using a controlled experiment, we examined which forest species available within the regional species pool of forests plant species are able to germinate and establish in recent hedgerows (about 20-yr old).

To test these four hypotheses, we performed three parallel experiments at three different locations:

1) Hedgerow treatment: a total of 17 and 13 forest plant species were sown and transplanted, respectively, along several transects located within five recent hedgerows surrounded by agricultural fields.

2) Forest control: the same "control" experiment was performed in a neighboring forest where the same set of forest plant species were sown and transplanted along transects.

3) Greenhouse germination test: the 17 studied forest plant species were sown in a controlled greenhouse experiment to test the germination success of each species.

Materials and Methods

Study area and site characteristics

We conducted our experiment in very recent hedgerows (age between 20 and 22 years) located in northern France (Marcelcave; latitude: 49.85° North; longitude: 2.574° East; altitude: 75m a.s.l.). The control forest site was located in a neighboring forest south of Amiens (latitude: 49.88° North; longitude: 2.293° East; altitude: 35m a.s.l.) (Fig. 4-1). The climate is oceanic with monthly precipitation (659mm, on average) regularly distributed throughout the year and monthly mean temperatures ranging between 2.6°C (January) and 17.6°C (July). The soil is primarily of luvisol type.

Study design

We selected a set of five recent hedgerows that can be considered as 5 replicates. For each of the five hedgerows, we set up 2 transects: one for testing seed germination (17 species) and one for testing transplant survival (13 species) (Fig. 4-1a & Table 4-1). For each species within each transect, 2 sets of seeds and transplants were used to test the potential effect of competition with the resident vegetation community: one set was directly sown/transplanted without disturbing the resident vegetation to test the effect of competition (i.e. non-disturbed) and the other set was sown/transplanted after removing the resident vegetation to avoid competition (i.e. disturbed) . Note that all selected hedgerows are more or less parallel and perpendicular to the nearby road with a linear orientation towards the north. The hedgerows were composed of shrubs and full-grown trees, with a width of 2 to 4 meters.

Inside the control forest site, four separated transects were installed (Fig. 1b), where two transects were used for seed sowing (17 species) and the two other transects for the transplant experimentation (13 species). The same set of species was used in the forest transects and the hedgerows and the disturbance treatment was also tested within the control forest site (i.e. disturbed vs. non-disturbed). × 10cm unit. Note that, for some species, we had less than 10 individuals transplanted within a given sub-quadrat (see Table 4-1b).

Seed collection and preparation

In 2017, we collected seeds for 17 forest plant species (Table 4-1a) by regularly visiting forest stands around Amiens. Seeds were extracted on mature plants, dried and further divided into 17 different seed sets (5 hedgerows × 2 disturbance treatments + 2 forest transects × 2 disturbance treatments + 3 sets for the greenhouse germination test) per species, each Eppendorf tube containing about 30 to 50 seeds. Seeds were counted using SCM-C automatic seed counting machine (BR Biochem Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd). For very small seeds, we used a stereoscope to identify individual seeds and get a precise count.

Transplant collection

On April 12th and 22nd 2018 for the hedgerows and the forest control site, respectively, we visited forest stands around Amiens and collected fresh transplants for 13 different forest species (Table 4-1b). When possible, a total of 140 transplants per species were collected: 10 transplants × (5 hedgerow's transects + 2 forest's transects) × 2 (one for the disturbed level and one for the non-disturbed level). The time interval between collecting the transplants in the field and moving them to both the hedgerows and the control forest site was less than 2 hours.

Transplants' roots during this interval were kept humid so that they are planted fresh in their corresponding destination.

Timeline of the experiment

On April 12th 2018, we sowed the seeds and installed the transplants along each of the five hedgerow's transects at Marcelcave (Fig. 4-1). For each transect, a total of 29 quadrats of 50cm × 50cm each (17 quadrats for the seed experiment and 13 quadrats for the transplant experiment) were installed on that day. For the two transects located in the forest control site near Amiens (Fig. 4-1), seeds and transplants were sown and transplanted on April 22nd 2018 following the same protocol as for the hedgerow's transects (17 quadrats of 50cm × 50cm each for the seed experiment and 13 quadrats of 50cm × 50cm each for the transplant experiment).

Figure 4-1: Map of the study area (Hauts-de-France) covering two different regions: (A)

Marcelcave for hedgerows; and (B) the forest experimental site near Amiens as a control. Five isolated and recent hedgerows (H1-H2-H3-H4-H5) were used to install the five transects containing both the seed and transplant quadrats (17 and 13 quadrats per hedgerow, respectively). Four separated transects were used in the experimental forest near Amiens: two transects were installed for the seed quadrats (S1 and S2) and two others were installed for the transplant quadrats (T1 and T2). For each of the nine transects (hedgerow and forest transects), every single quadrat of 50cm × 50cm is divided into two sub-quadrats of 20cm × 50cm each, where the right sub-quadrat is the disturbed or vegetation removal treatment and the left subquadrat is the non-disturbed treatment or competition treatment separated by a 10cm × 50cm buffer zone (C).

In late April 2018, three replicates of the 17 species that were sown in hedgerows and the forest control site were also sown in the greenhouse and monitored for 3 months using a direct germination method. The seed mixtures were spread over steam-sterilized compost-filled containers and allowed to germinate in the greenhouse under a natural light regime and a temperature regime ranging from 25°C during the day and 20°C during the night. The containers were kept moist by regular watering. Three control containers containing only steamsterilized compost without seeds were distributed among the other containers to detect eventual contamination from either airborne propagules or propagules present in the potting soil. No contamination was detected. The emergence method was preferred because we were interested in viable propagules. All identified seedlings were counted and removed, while unidentified seedlings were transplanted and identified upon flowering. Seedling emergence was checked from May 2017 until July 2018, at weekly intervals.

Hedgerows and the forest control site were surveyed on June 18th and 29th 2018, respectively, and the abundance (number of individuals) of each forest plant species was recorded within each sub-quadrat of 20cm × 50cm.

Data analysis

Based on our experimental design, we built a list of candidate models (Table 4-2) to test the separate effects of habitat abiotic conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (disturbed vs. un-disturbed) on the proportion of individuals which successfully germinated or established within a given 20cm × 50cm sub-quadrat (i.e. the response variable). The two-way interaction between habitat conditions and competition level was also tested. Given that the response variable is a proportion data with many zeroes, we used generalized linear mixed-effects models with a zero-inflated distribution and a binomial family. Transect ID (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, F1, F2) was used as random intercept term and species name was set as a random variable interacting with the fixed effect variables depending on the studied model (random slope terms, see Table 4-2). For each candidate model, we computed the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) with the best model being the one with the lowest AIC value [START_REF] Burnham | Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach 2nd[END_REF].

Once the best candidate model was selected, we extracted the coefficient estimates, standard errors and associated p-values for each of the predictor variables listed in the best model. Finally, we extracted, for each species, the estimated mean and 95% confidence interval of the estimated relative proportion of seeds/transplants that germinated/established.

Table 4-2: List of candidate models used to test the separate effect of competition (with vs.

without resident vegetation) and habitat type (forest vs. hedgerows) on both the germination (MG) and establishment (ME) success. The response variable in all models is the proportion of individuals that germinated or successfully established. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with zero inflated distribution (glmmTMB) were used.

All statistical analysis were performed using the "nlme", "ggplot2", "Matrix", "reshape2", "mvtnorm", " lme4", "gridExtra" and "glmmTMB" packages in the R software environment version 3.4.1 (R Core Team 2017).

Symbol

Results

Most forest herbs, except for Veronica hederifolia and Stellaria holostea, did not germinate in the hedgerows (Fig. 4-2A). For the forest control site, only four species (Aegopodium podagraria, Stachys sylvatica, Fragaria vesca, Lamium galeobdolon) germinated (Fig. 4-2A).

In the greenhouse experimentation for the same set of species (17 species with the same number of inserted seeds per species, see without the interaction term (MG3 in Table 4-2). Neither habitat type not competition level had a significant effect on the germination success of the tested species, albeit we found a tendency (p=0.17) towards lower germination rates in hedgerows as opposed to forest conditions (Table 4-3).

The best candidate model explaining transplants' establishment success (recruitment limitation) included the interaction term between habitat conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (disturbed vs. undisturbed) (ME4 in Table 4-2). We found a clear significance (p<0.05) in the studied model (Table 4-4) for the interaction term between habitat conditions and competition with better establishment rates in the hedgerows with vegetation removal (no competition) as opposed to forest conditions without vegetation removal. When studying the behavior of every species separately in both cases (seed and transplant experiment), Veronica hederifolia and Stellaria holostea appear to be favored in both the disturbed (without vegetation) and the non-disturbed zone (with vegetation) of hedgerows, while all other remaining species recorded no difference between forest and hedgerows. For transplants, it appears that most (nearly nine out of the thirteen) species succeeded to establish in hedgerows with even greater success rates than in forest, especially so after removal of the resident vegetation (i.e. no competition) (see Fig. 4-2 & Fig. 4-3). seeds, presence of dispersal vectors with short-distance behaviors (dispersal by ants), short seed dormancy period, low recruitment rate and long pre-reproductive rate [START_REF] Verheyen | Response BlackwellScience,Ltd of forest plant species to land-use change: a life-history trait-based approach[END_REF][START_REF] Whigham | Ecology of Woodland Herbs in Temperate Deciduous Forests[END_REF]. In case of hedgerows, continuous hedgerows attached to forests are considered suitable for forest plant migration and thus are considered as efficient corridors [START_REF] Brunet | Migration of vascular plants to secondary woodlands in southern Sweden[END_REF][START_REF] Tang | Effects of corridor networks on plant species composition and diversity in an intensive agriculture landscape[END_REF]. However, with increased distance from the forest, isolated hedgerows will record lower forest species richness and abundance [START_REF] Brunet | Migration of vascular plants to secondary woodlands in southern Sweden[END_REF]. [START_REF] Eriksson | Regional Dynamics of Plants: A Review of Evidence for Remnant, Source-Sink and Metapopulations[END_REF] explained the relationship between dispersal ability and persistence over time where it was summarized that species presence in a certain habitat depends on seed source availability, space and time of dispersal process, and life history characteristics of individual species.

Forest plant species colonizing new sites (e.g. hedgerows) also depends on the biotic conditions of the hedgerow itself, and more precisely its quality regarding microclimatic and soil nutrient conditions. Nutrient status of the soil and especially lower phosphate levels will make hedgerows unsuitable for some forest plant species to establish. Consequently, competitive and generalist plants occurring in both open and forest habitats will affect ancient forest species occurring in hedgerows throughout nutrient competition [START_REF] Hermy | An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation[END_REF]. [START_REF] Corbit | Hedgerows as Habitat Corridors for Forest Herbs in Central New York, USA[END_REF] stated that although there is a similarity in forest herb species composition between hedgerows and woodlands, several forest plant species do not occurr in hedgerows.

Other studies had found that there are some forest herbs that are unique to woodlands and the associated edges without being present in hedgerows [START_REF] Boutin | Intensity of Agricultural Practices and Effects on Adjacent Habitats[END_REF][START_REF] Fritz | The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation[END_REF][START_REF] Jobin | Effects of agricultural practices on the flora of hedgerows and woodland edges in southern Quebec[END_REF]. Several other variables may affect the presence of forest herbs in hedgerows such as the hedgerow width [START_REF] Corbit | Hedgerows as Habitat Corridors for Forest Herbs in Central New York, USA[END_REF][START_REF] Sitzia | Hedgerows as corridors for woodland plants: a test on the Po Plain, northern Italy[END_REF], the presence of ditches in hedgerows, the age of the studied hedgerows and the associated microclimate. For instance, ancient hedgerows are known to harbor a higher richness of forest plant species (Closset-Kopp et al., 2017) compared with more recent hedgerows like the one we studied here. This calls for more research to investigate whether germination and establishment successes would be enhanced in ancient hedgerows, where microclimatic conditions are closer to forest habitats, compared with recent hedgerows. In addition, the forest habitat we used in our experiment is considered a recent forest which may cause differences in terms of germination and establishment of forest plant species when compared to ancient mature forest habitat.

Conclusion:

The results of our study imply that most of the forest herb species we studied here (e.g. Fragaria vesca, Melica uniflora) are limited by the hedgerows' habitat (mostly abiotic) conditions (H2 verified) rather than being limited by their dispersal abilities (H1 rejected) while others (e.g.

Veronica hederifolia) seem to be rather limited by their dispersal abilities (H1 verified).

Concerning transplants, it appears that most of the species used in this study do succeed in establishing (H4 rejected) within hedgerows, especially so after the resident vegetation has been removed (no competition) (H3 verified).

The main limitation for forest plant species to occur within hedgerows is not only due to dispersal limitations but maybe also due to seed germination failure. Indeed, transplants were showing quite a good establishment success within hedgerows, which may be confirmed with further series of surveys. Very few seeds managed to germinate suggesting two interpretations:

(1) either the seeds were not good enough and not viable where only six species (out of 17) succeeded to germinate in the greenhouse leaving behind a certainty about the quality of seeds.

(2) or the microclimatic conditions (soil moisture and temperature) within both hedgerows and forest are unsuitable to break dormancy and allow the seeds to germinate starting from the fact that both habitats (forest and hedgerows) are considered recent, and eventually will record microclimatic conditions and soil properties that are different from the conditions and properties recorded in ancient forests (optimal habitat for germination and establishment of herbs). We should keep in mind that this is an ongoing long-term study (3 years) and our current results are representing the first survey of the study (3 months after sowing the seeds and transplanting the transplants). With further series of surveys and more advanced analysis, it will be more promising to have a clear idea about the change in the behavior of forest species between both forest and hedgerows and discuss the idea of hedgerows being potential corridors for forest plant species.

Chapter 5: General discussion, conclusions & perspectives

Background

The neutral theory is often invoked to explain famous macroecological patterns [START_REF] Mcgill | Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework[END_REF] for plants such as the species abundance distributions (SADs), describing the rarity and commonness of species in a certain community [START_REF] Baldridge | An extensive comparison of species-abundance distribution models[END_REF], and the species-area relationships (SARs) describing the non-linear increase in species richness as sampling area increases [START_REF] Cencini | What ecological factors shape species-area curves in neutral models?[END_REF]. However, the idea of assuming that all plant individuals show equal fitness was criticized by many studies stating that neutrality is a "fragile" theory in the context of ecological equivalence [START_REF] He | Coexistence of nearly neutral species[END_REF][START_REF] Zhou | Neutral theory in community ecology[END_REF]. These studies suggested that species are different in their competitive ability, with competition being inevitable, giving rise to macroecological patterns that are quite different from the patterns predicted by the neutral theory. Therefore, earlier and recent studies explained species abundance and coexistence as a mean of studying the difference between "neutral" and "niche" theories based on both dispersal and recruitment processes (Hubbell, 2001).

Community structure, function and composition are controlled by multiple mechanisms, which include dispersal and recruitment. Both are considered key processes for plant community assembly (Fig. 5-4) and for maintaining the biodiversity in plant communities.

Despite our experiments aiming to overcome dispersal limitations (Chapters 3 and 4), the germination success of some species is still not guaranteed [START_REF] Clark | Interpreting recruitment limitation in forests[END_REF], suggesting that dispersal limitations are not the only limitations explaining the absence of some plant species within the community. In addition, when overcoming both dispersal and germination limitations (Chapter 4), the success of plants to persist may not be achieved (Benítez-Malvido & Martínez-Ramos, 2013). Thus, studying both processes in different types of landscapes (e.g.

forests, hedgerows and agricultural fields) can provide insights about the challenges for maintaining diversity in plant communities and associated ecosystem services.

This thesis addresses a fundamental research question in ecology, especially in the current context of habitat alterations by anthropogenic activities: how are the spatio-temporal dynamics of plant species influenced by an interplay between plant species dispersal from one side, and environmental conditions along with species competitive abilities from the other side.

The presence of a target plant species in a given community depends upon its niche requirements and dispersal capacities after accounting for the resilience of the ecosystem when both stochastic and deterministic anthropogenic disturbances occur (e.g. habitat fragmentation).

Indeed, the resilience of ecosystems (i.e. their ability to maintain optimal functioning despite disturbances) is based upon the occupation of ecological niches, and upon the ability of species to modify their niche or adapt (i.e. recruitment) and move in space (i.e. dispersal) to track their shifting habitat envelopes. Therefore, community assembly rules control the presence of plant species and reflect the patterns of plant community structure. The different parts of this thesis allowed us to evaluate the extent by which community assembly processes may predict local plant species abundance (Chapters 3 and 4), influence the community structure from regional (gamma-scale) to local (alpha-scale) plant species pools (Chapter 2), and eventually predict the fate of plant community components. The results of this thesis demonstrate several important ecological advances:

1) Community assembly processes may show contrasting impacts on forest plant species richness patterns when forest habitats are fragmented, which depends on species affinity to forest habitats (i.e. specialists vs. generalists) (Chapter 2).

2) Forest specialists would rather have better fitness in a single large forest, while generalists are favored to maintain their fitness in several small forest patches (SLOSS debate in Chapter 2), with an important impact of connectivity between forest patches on the assembly processes of plant communities.

3) Biotic interactions and abiotic conditions both interfere with the germination of plant species (e.g. competition) and the coexistence with other species (Chapters 3 and 4), with recorded different abundances and crop yields in agro-ecological systems (Chapter 3).

4) The absence of forest herb species within recent hedgerows seems to be mainly due to seed germination failure rather than dispersal limitation or unsuitable environmental conditions for the species to persist once they germinated.

SLOSS: the debate of habitat conservation strategies

Overall, it is rare to find a perfect nestedness across plant communities throughout the whole world [START_REF] Berglund | Nested plant and fungal communities; the importance of area and habitat quality in maximizing species capture in boreal oldgrowth forests[END_REF][START_REF] Fischer | Nestedness in fragmented landscapes: a case study on birds, arboreal marsupials and lizards[END_REF]. In a perfectly nested system, species will occur in a pattern so that small assemblages are considered a perfect subset of the larger assemblage into which it is embedded. Nestedness can result from differential dispersal abilities [START_REF] Mcabendroth | Unravelling nestedness and spatial pattern in pond assemblages[END_REF] and from differential habitat quality [START_REF] Hausdorf | Nestedness of north-west European land snail ranges as a consequence of differential immigration from Pleistocene glacial refuges[END_REF][START_REF] Hylander | Differences in habitat quality explain nestedness in a land snail meta-community[END_REF]. A study by [START_REF] Gonzalez | The disentangled bank: how loss of habitat fragments and disassembles ecological networks[END_REF] and another study from [START_REF] Lindo | Nested patterns of community assembly in the colonisation of artificial canopy habitats by oribatid mites[END_REF] on community nestedness stated that both species tolerance to environmental conditions in combination with species dispersal capacities account for the non-random compositional patterns of the studied communities. In studying the patterns of dissimilarity among communities, nestedness together with species turnover are the two main components driving beta-diversity or the dissimilarity among communities [START_REF] Harrison | Beta diversity on geographic gradients in Britain[END_REF][START_REF] Lennon | The geographical structure of British bird distributions: diversity, spatial turnover and scale[END_REF][START_REF] Williams | Mapping variations in the strength and breadth of biogeographic transition zones using species turnover[END_REF]. Regarding the gain and loss of species richness, both nestedness and species turnover are believed to be important components in discussing the SLOSS (single large or several small) debate in conservation ecology [START_REF] Diamond | Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations[END_REF]Honnay, Hermy, Coppin, & P, 1999;[START_REF] Simberloff | Island biogeography theory and conservation practice[END_REF][START_REF] Wright | On the meaning and measurement of nestedness of species assemblages[END_REF]. In Chapter 2, we demonstrated that single large forests are more suitable for forest specialist species that are threatened by intensive practices and the instability of the environmental (without threatening generalist species but with less total species richness). In contrast, in small forest fragments, plant species richness may increase because there are more generalist species, but at the same time the extinction risk of forest specialist species increases.

Our findings thus support conclusions from [START_REF] Quinn | Effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation on species richness: evidence from biogeographic patterns[END_REF]' that small, isolated forest patches show higher species than both small less-isolated and larger forest patches. Other studies (e.g. [START_REF] Rybicki | Habitat fragmentation and species diversity in competitive species communities[END_REF] have tested the "habitat amount hypothesis" proposed by [START_REF] Fahrig | Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis[END_REF], which states that fragmentation reduces alpha diversity but slightly increases gamma diversity in case of low habitat amount. Although our results are consistent with the "habitat amount hypothesis", this hypothesis received both support [START_REF] Arnillas | From patches to richness: Assessing the potential impact of landscape transformation on biodiversity[END_REF][START_REF] De Camargo | At the landscape level, birds respond strongly to habitat amount but weakly to fragmentation[END_REF] and opposition (Nick M. [START_REF] Haddad | Experimental evidence does not support the Habitat Amount Hypothesis[END_REF]. [START_REF] Diamond | Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations[END_REF] had stated in his study about the "rules" for designing protected areas based on the theory of "Island biogeography" of [START_REF] Wilson | The theory of island biogeography[END_REF] that the best system in the SLOSS debate is the single large reserve, while [START_REF] Simberloff | The status of competition theory in ecology[END_REF] went in his encouragement towards the several small reserves.

In fact, the SLOSS debate cannot be resolved easily since the two approaches depend on different circumstances and the focal species. Single large reserve may be useful for specialist species [START_REF] Burkey | Extinction in fragmented habitats predicted from stochastic birth-death processes with density dependence[END_REF], whereas several small reserves will enhance gamma diversity at the regional level but at the expense of the most patrimonial or specialised species [START_REF] Hufbauer | Three types of rescue can avert extinction in a changing environment[END_REF] (Fig. 5-1).

Importance of habitat connectivity

In metapopulation ecology, site isolation will affect both colonization rates (Moilanen & Hanski, 1998a;[START_REF] Wilson | The theory of island biogeography[END_REF], and the probability of a "rescue effect" (Brown & Kodric-Brown, 1977b). With increased anthropogenic inputs, landscapes are subjected to a wide range of conversions and increased in habitat loss and fragmentation [START_REF] Nicol | Should metapopulation restoration strategies increase patch area or number of patches?[END_REF]. To overcome the subsequent biodiversity loss due to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation, ecologists have highlighted the importance of connectivity between isolated habitat patches as a strategy for biodiversity conservation [START_REF] Donald | Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes[END_REF][START_REF] Lees | Conservation value of remnant riparian forest corridors of varying quality for Amazonian birds and mammals[END_REF][START_REF] Williams | Planning for climate change: identifying minimum-dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae[END_REF]. Connectivity may be achieved by restoring natural or inserting man-made linear habitat networks or corridors (e.g. hedgerows) between isolated patches (Françoise [START_REF] Burel | Hedgerows and their role in agricultural landscapes[END_REF]. Habitat corridors such as hedgerows aim to protect species that are expected to go extinct following habitat loss and fragmentation [START_REF] Kuussaari | Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation[END_REF].

In Chapter 4, we studied whether hedgerows can act as potential corridors for forest plant species. Our hypothesis was formulated starting from the idea that most forest specialists are dispersal limited and their absence from recent hedgerows might be explained by the lack of dispersal. In addition, we suggested that recent hedgerows might provide forest plant species with sub-optimal environmental conditions (e.g. high phosphorous content) that might impede germination success more than establishment success. This chapter represents an ongoing experiment. Once the full monitoring will be achieved, we will be able to answer the question whether the usual absence of forest specialists in recent hedgerows can be explained by dispersal and/or recruitment (germination or establishment) limitations. Furthermore, we will be able to conclude on the potential role of hedgerows in ensuring connectivity between isolated forest patches. Another feature of habitat corridors appears in Chapter 2, where one of the studied landscapes was forest patches connected by hedgerows within a matrix of grasslands (semi-fragmented forest patches or SF). Both forest generalists and specialists co-occured in this type of landscape although a less pronounced "community saturation" pattern of species richness might appear. Thus, the presence of hedgerows provides a form of connectivity between the forest patches and allows the coexistence of both generalists and forest specialists across the landscape. and structural connectivity in (3)). Thick arrows in (B) represent higher dispersal rates while thin arrows represent lower dispersal rates. Extracted From [START_REF] Uroy | Effect of landscape connectivity on plant communities: a review of response patterns[END_REF].

The value of connectivity among habitat patches depends on whether species germination and persistence rates are controlled by species dispersal abilities relative to the configuration of the habitat patches within the landscape (Fig. 5-2) [START_REF] Moilanen | Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure[END_REF].

Species may show different response to connectivity, where highly mobile and vagile species may not benefit from a connectivity increase [START_REF] Bennett | Habitat fragmentation[END_REF], while sessile organisms such as plant species are likely to benefit from connectivity as long as it falls within the dispersal range of a given species [START_REF] Doerr | Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al[END_REF][START_REF] Johst | Biodiversity conservation in dynamic landscapes: trade-offs between number, connectivity and turnover of habitat patches[END_REF]. With increased habitat fragmentation, the increased distance between habitat patches may exceed the dispersal capacity of species regardless of whether species are sessile or mobile [START_REF] Dennis | Corridors and barriers in biodiversity conservation: a novel resource-based habitat perspective for butterflies[END_REF]. In addition, when considering the interaction between dispersal capacity and increased connectivity, we should also consider differences in dispersal mechanisms among species [START_REF] Hodgson | Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation[END_REF]. For example, plants dispersed by animals may benefit from increasing connectivity by the introduction of corridors that allow animals to move in or along the corridors, whereas wind-borne propagules might be blocked by corridors such as hedgerows (Brudvig, Damschen, Tewksbury, Haddad, & Levey, 2009).

Importance of species identity within plant community assembly

The role of dispersal and recruitment (germination and subsequent establishment) limitation has received growing attention with several studies recognizing their impact on community structure and composition (Stephen P. Hubbell, 2001;Verheyen & Hermy, 2001b). Though they are believed to play in a sequential manner with other processes, it is not a trivial approach to assess the respective effect of each of these processes [START_REF] Ehrlén | Dispersal limitation and patch occupancy in forest herbs[END_REF][START_REF] Yu | Experimental demonstration of species coexistence enabled by dispersal limitation[END_REF]. Other processes may comply with these limitations and exert a profound impact on community dynamics. For example, the variability among species migration rates may be dependent on species capability to disperse, and the configuration of the ways by which this species will arrive to the new habitats. At the global scale, it is believed that not all species migrate at the same rate and other parameters such as species lifespan can affect their migration.

Indeed, it has been noted that short-lived herbaceous plants are able to shift their elevational range faster than species with longer lifespans as climate warms [START_REF] Lenoir | A significant upward shift in plant species optimum elevation during the 20th century[END_REF], altering potential species interactions and consequently exerting a change in plant community composition [START_REF] Lenoir | Going against the flow: potential mechanisms for unexpected downslope range shifts in a warming climate[END_REF].

Results from Chapter 2 showed that species identity interferes in the sorting of species and their distribution when the focal habitat is fragmented. When studying the alpha-gamma relationship at different spatial scales and with three different fragmentation intensities, forest specialists exhibited a different behavior from generalists. In non-fragmented forests, habitat quality is considered adequate and dispersal is thought optimal, allowing forest specialists to persist and dominate. In the same non-fragmented habitat, generalists are believed to tolerate wider range of environmental conditions than specialists do, and to be associated with the forest gaps where conditions are sub-optimal for specialists. In highly fragmented forest habitats, dispersal limitation likely reduces the chance that specialists disperse and colonize forest patches. Moreover, edge effects in highly fragmented forests may further cause recruitment limitation for specialists (i.e. harsh habitat conditions and strong competition with generalists).

Thus we must take into account the majority of abiotic conditions that affect species richness at the different levels of fragmentation. Our findings support several studies which showed that the variability among habitats appears to affect specialists more than generalists [START_REF] Kolb | Effects of environment, habitat configuration and forest continuity on the distribution of forest plant species[END_REF][START_REF] Pandit | Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework[END_REF]. [START_REF] Vázquez | Ecological specialization and susceptibility to disturbance: conjectures and refutations[END_REF] stated that the effect is higher on specialist species abundance when the focal habitat undergoes environmental alterations since generalists are able to utilize extensive range of habitat conditions. Thus, specialists are more prone to go extinct than generalists in case of any change in their habitat, and the increased levels of fragmentation and habitat loss should increase the concerns about the future dynamics of the respective share in generalist and specialist species [START_REF] Tilman | Habitat destruction and the extinction debt[END_REF][START_REF] Travis | Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail[END_REF].

Another example of the importance of species identity appears when studying the weed community assembly in agricultural landscapes (Chapter 3). In this study, there were differences in the abundance of weed species (annuals vs. perennials) according to the technical itineraries adopted. In the first place, both annual and perennial weed species appeared to be highly dispersal limited since the majority of the sown seeds succeeded in germinating. Annual weed species dominated in reduced tillage systems while perennials were more abundant in notillage systems and especially when incorporating a cover crop mix (leguminosae-Brassicaceae). Secondly, annual weed species were more affected by the field abiotic conditions: soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. no-tillage), while the majority of perennials were affected by biotic interactions: soil cover rotation (intercropping with CC-mix). These findings are consistent with former findings concerning both annual species abundance increase with reduced tillage while perennials are favored by no-tillage treatment associated with CCmix [START_REF] Bilalis | Effect of Three Tillage Systems on Weed Flora in a 3-Year Rotation with Four Crops[END_REF][START_REF] Derr | Weed control in container-grown herbaceous perennials[END_REF]Froud-Williams, Chancellor, & Drennan, 1984; M. W. [START_REF] Myers | The effect of weed density and application timing on weed control and corn grain yield[END_REF]A. G. Thomas, Derksen, Blackshaw, et al., 2004). In the same study, the allelopathic effect of Camelina intercrop appeared to be species-specific.

Importance of dispersal

Understanding the species-habitat relationships requires having knowledge about species vital rates (i.e. death, birth and dispersal), and the impact of environmental variables on their abundance [START_REF] Zhang | Species-habitat associations in a northern temperate forest in China[END_REF]. In the absence of experimentation, it is difficult to say with certainty whether species abundance is driven by either dispersal, biotic interactions or abiotic conditions. Therefore, overcoming dispersal by direct seeding of the studied species allowed us to test whether a certain species is either dispersal limited (i.e.

germination success), or recruitment limited (no germination although seeds are present in the studied site). Dispersal is the most important ecological process that affect community assembly, colonization and biodiversity maintenance [START_REF] Chase | Community assembly: when should history matter?[END_REF][START_REF] Levine | The community-level consequences of seed dispersal patterns[END_REF][START_REF] Wang | Closing the seed dispersal loop[END_REF]. The most advanced way to study dispersal limitation in local communities is to perform a seed addition experiment [START_REF] Clark | Are plant populations seed limited? A critique and meta-analysis of seed addition experiments[END_REF][START_REF] Myers | Seed arrival, ecological filters, and plant species richness: A meta-analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Zobel | Is small-scale species richness limited by seed availability or microsite availability[END_REF]. These studies have showed an increase in biodiversity after propagule addition, which eventually reflects unsaturated communities. In order to understand which ecological processes (dispersal, competition and/or stochastic processes) alter local diversity, we may consider comparing the functional traits of the observed species with every studied process (e.g. overcome dispersal and study recruitment, or overcome both dispersal and abiotic limitations and study the effect of biotic interactions on germination and persistence). An example is the application of 'response-effect trait framework' [START_REF] Zirbel | Plant functional traits and environmental conditions shape community assembly and ecosystem functioning during restoration[END_REF] aiming to study the impact of environmental conditions in altering the plant functional traits; and the resulted changes in community assembly patterns and ecosystem functioning. The extent to which dispersal limitation at macroecological scale may interfere in the plant species presence/absence is still poorly studied. Therefore, our study may increase the knowledge about the importance of dispersal in community assembly of plant populations. In Chapter 2, different dispersal patterns appear at the three studied fragmentation levels and for the two presented species types at different spatial scales (named scale factor in Chapter 2). The richness of generalists differs with spatial scale; this is explained by the wide range of dispersal capacities of these species allowing them to be abundant through the entire patch unlike forest specialists, for which establishment success in the forest core is chiefly controlled by habitat quality and biotic interactions. Forest specialist species usually have lower dispersal capacities [START_REF] Kolb | Determinants of local abundance and range size in forest vascular plants[END_REF] allowing them to be more abundant at smaller spatial scales measures. When landscapes shift from non-fragmented to highly fragmented forests, forest plant specialists are more negatively affected due to their low dispersal abilities, while generalist herbs are more negatively affected by biotic and abiotic conditions. In Chapters 3 and 4, sowing the seeds directly in the field allows overcoming dispersal limitation, and therefore if species are retrieved after several monitoring, then we can conclude that dispersal limitation applies for this species. In Chapter 3 (Chapter 4 is still ongoing without valid results), several species appeared to be dispersal-limited such as:

Artemisia vulgaris, Plantago lanceolata, Coriandrum sativum, Centaurea cyanus and Echinochloa crus-galli. Summing up our findings in the three previous chapters allows us to note that dispersal limitation is one of the main reasons that explain the presence or absence of certain plant species at a local site (Fig. 5-2 & 5-4). In addition, dispersal limitation appears to be less evident at smaller scales, which are more controlled by competitive interactions and abiotic conditions. These findings are consistent and in accordance with other previous experimental studies [START_REF] Germain | Experimental dispersal reveals characteristic scales of biodiversity in a natural landscape[END_REF][START_REF] Münzbergová | Effect of spatial scale on factors limiting species distributions in dry grassland fragments[END_REF][START_REF] Pinto | Dispersal limitation and environmental structure interact to restrict the occupation of optimal habitat[END_REF]. Therefore, plant communities are controlled by dispersal limitation and habitat availability at larger scales (Fig. 5-3), while environmental conditions and productivity may predict plant community patterns at smaller scales [START_REF] Aavik | Restoration of plant species and genetic diversity depends on landscape-scale dispersal[END_REF].

Impact of competition

Species are unable to occupy the full range of conditions within their physiological space as long as competitors and other interacting species are present [START_REF] Diekmann | Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a transect from northern Central to North Europe[END_REF].

As long as it affects plant fitness, the impact of competition significantly matters relative to the impact of other environmental conditions. Several studies have shown that the decreased in physical constraints (wide range of favourable environmental conditions) may result in increased plant biomass [START_REF] Brooker | The importance of importance[END_REF][START_REF] Brooker | Importance: an overlooked concept in plant interaction research[END_REF][START_REF] Gaucherand | Importance and intensity of competition along a fertility gradient and across species[END_REF][START_REF] Pennings | Salt marsh plant zonation: the relative importance of competition and physical factors[END_REF]. In comparing both the realized and the potential niches, the former being more restricted than the latter by the environmental variables, productivity and survival rates (G. [START_REF] Hutchinson | A Treatise on[END_REF][START_REF] Wasof | Ecological niche shifts of understorey plants along a latitudinal gradient of temperate forests in north-western Europe: Species' realized-niche shifts across latitude[END_REF].

This difference allows species to be more or less ecologically restricted by the presence of other competing species (G. [START_REF] Hutchinson | A Treatise on[END_REF]. Despite that the difference between the potential and realized niche might be a result of biotic interactions is well adopted in ecology, the effect of biotic interactions on the niche difference between regions remains controversial with studies that are in accordance with this point of view [START_REF] Diekmann | Shifts in ecological behaviour of herbaceous forest species along a transect from northern Central to North Europe[END_REF] and others rejecting it [START_REF] Manthey | Is gene flow promoting the reversal of Pleistocene divergence in the Mountain Chickadee (Poecile gambeli)?[END_REF]. This refers to the hypothesis raised by [START_REF] Mcarthur | Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species[END_REF] suggesting that niche width depends upon the size of the regional species pool: the more species in the regional pool, the stronger the competition with ecologically similar species, and thus the smaller the realized niche. Contrary to the hypothesis from [START_REF] Mcarthur | Geographical ecology: patterns in the distribution of species[END_REF], results in Chapter 2 show that in non-fragmented forests (continuous and contiguous forests) species might be more affected by abiotic conditions than by competition.

Both generalists and specialists might co-occur together with less competitive events and with generalists being distributed throughout the whole forest while specialists are mainly presented in the forest core. However, in highly fragmented landscapes, competition between generalists and specialists may also be the main key player allowing generalists to dominate with decreased niche width and diversity for forest specialists.

Results from Chapter 3 highlight the importance of competition in agro-ecological systems. We adopted the no-tillage system to assess the effect of biotic interactions (especially competition) between two different intercrops and weed community. Results from this study show that winter cover crop mix (leguminosae-Brassicaceae) suppresses the most dominant weed species (Echinochloa crus-galli), consistently with the diversity-complementarity hypothesis, since the latter species likely competes with other weed species for space, light and resources. In addition, future results from the study presented in Chapter 4 may highlight the importance of competition in the assembly of forest specialists in hedgerows. In the studied transects (forest and hedgerows), each transect is divided into two different linear sides with different disturbance regimes. One of the sides is kept without disturbance (with vegetation) allowing to monitor the germination/persistence of the studies species (as seeds and/or transplants) and revealing the effect of biotic interactions (competition) on the presence of forest herbs in hedgerows.

Based on the outcome of the three previous chapters, biotic interactions seem to be less important than species local adaptation and local environmental variables. A general question of how the differences among species may influence the outcome of competition may arise and assist in explaining one of the central ecological debates that is the niche-neutral debate [START_REF] Adler | A niche for neutrality[END_REF][START_REF] Wiens | The niche, biogeography and species interactions[END_REF]. Indeed, answering this question requires the separated study of both niche and competitive ability differences, and several studies have attempted to explain these differences [START_REF] Adler | A niche for neutrality[END_REF]Chesson, 2000b;[START_REF] Leibold | Coexistence of the niche and neutral perspectives in community ecology[END_REF][START_REF] Levine | The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity[END_REF]. By quantifying the competitive trait values in various ecological systems [START_REF] Navas | Plant traits related to competition: how do they shape the functional diversity of communities?[END_REF], we will be able to identify the differences between niche effect and competitive ability relative to these traits, and eventually have a clearer idea about the importance and role of competition in plant community assembly.

Environmental filtering vs. competitive exclusion

Theoretically, it is clear that in order to demonstrate environmental filtering we need to show that a species is able to arrive to the site but unable to tolerate the abiotic conditions of that site.

In practice, however, the required data are difficult to obtain due to the challenge of disentangling species tolerance to the site conditions from biotic interactions. Studying the relative importance of these two processes contributes to the discussion of the difference between the potential and realized niche [START_REF] Malanson | Realized versus fundamental niche functions in a model of chaparral response to climatic change[END_REF][START_REF] Mcgill | Empirical evaluation of neutral theory[END_REF]. [START_REF] Mayfield | Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities[END_REF] stated that both competitive differences and abiotic tolerance differences might result in phenotypic similarity among species within plant communities and especially that the phenotypic traits that are associated with these differences are unknown. Consistently, our results in Chapter 2 did not provide clear evidence on whether habitat suitability or biotic interactions are responsible for the observed patterns in species diversity (coexistence of both forest specialists and generalists with forest specialists being favoured) within non-fragmented forests. Similarly, in highly fragmented forests, it is still uncertain whether harsh environmental conditions (generalists are more tolerant to environmental conditions than forest specialists) or stronger competition (generalists are stronger competitors than forest specialists) is the main driver of community assembly.

However, other studies highlighted that it is possible to differentiate between phenotypic traits that are associated with competition from other traits that are associated with abiotic tolerance [START_REF] Gaudet | A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits[END_REF][START_REF] Godoy | Phenology effects on invasion success: insights from coupling field experiments to coexistence theory[END_REF][START_REF] Goldberg | Competitive effect and response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition[END_REF]. Our findings in Chapter 3 are consistent with results from these studies and may be further supported by the future findings of Chapter 4 (which should allow us to distinguish between environmental filtering and competitive exclusion). Indeed, the experimental design of Chapter 3 allowed us to differentiate the effect of competition from the effect of abiotic condition on weed community assembly. For example, findings of this study highlight the effect of biotic interaction (the diversity-complementarity hypothesis) since the source of abiotic disturbance is absent (no-tillage) in some plots. However, keeping the soil without vegetation cover in both winter and summer allows studying the effect of abiotic disturbance of weed community, since the only key player in these plots was the soil disturbance (i.e. reduced tillage). [START_REF] Kraft | Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor[END_REF] demonstrated this trait based distinction via two-step quantification, where the first step is assessing the survival of plant species in absence of neighbours; and thereby studying species environmental tolerance solely. The second step is quantifying persistence of plant species having biotic interactions with their surrounding species. It may be also important to quantify the correlations (positive and negative) resulting from species interactions. These correlations may exert some complications during the observation of phenotypic patterns, for example:

species having traits associated with abiotic tolerance may result in trade-offs altering the cooccurring species growth and reproduction and eventually result in reduced competitive ability (Grime et al., 1997;[START_REF] Grime | Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory[END_REF]Grime, 1997). On the other side, positive interactions with other species may increase the co-occurring species performance allowing them to persist in environmental conditions that they were not able to tolerate [START_REF] Kraft | Community assembly, coexistence and the environmental filtering metaphor[END_REF].

Conclusions, implications and future perspectives

A large body of literature addressing the effects of dispersal and recruitment limitations tried to explain plant community patterns. Community assembly rules aim to account for the mechanisms structuring plant communities (Fig. 5-4). In addition, community assembly processes may answer one of the long-standing questions in ecology, that is of whether plant species, after successfully reaching a focal site, form communities due to the effect of interacting species, and thus show non-random patterns of assemblages [START_REF] Clements | Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation[END_REF] or whether species are randomly distributed in the limit of their ability to tolerate similar environmental conditions [START_REF] Gleason | The individualistic concept of the plant association[END_REF].

In this thesis, we investigated the role of dispersal and recruitment limitations in patterning vascular plant species assemblages in different types of landscapes. How can our findings contribute to further our understanding of metacommunity dynamics? Each of the chapters of this thesis demonstrated some general conclusions concerning plant community assembly and the importance of both dispersal and recruitment limitations. In Chapter 2, we highlighted the impact of forest fragmentation on herbaceous forest plant species distribution.

Results from this chapter revealed the role of species identity (generalists vs. forest specialists) in explaining plant community patterns. Fragmentation altered the dispersal and recruitment abilities of plant species (both generalists and specialists) from one side, and caused a change in habitat quality (environmental conditions) from the other side. This change in the assembly of forest plant communities may explain the observed shifts in the alpha-gamma diversity relationship (AGR) from "proportional sampling" towards "community saturation". In

Chapter 3, we examined the biotic and abiotic effects on the assembly of weed communities in agricultural crops. In the first place, nearly most species succeeded to germinate in the field thereby showing that they are dispersal limited. Recruitment of weed species was driven by both biotic and abiotic factors, with the presence of cover-crop mix exerting a form of biotic constraint (diversity complementarity), thereby suppressing the germination and persistence of weed species (in addition to the allelopathic effect of Camelina). Therefore, the presence of cover crop mix with no-tillage treatment was considered a win-win strategy by suppressing weed species from one side, and enhancing crop yield with less environmental damage from the other side. In Chapter 4, our preliminary results show that germination was the main limitation for forest plant species to occur in recent hedgerows rather than being limited by dispersal. In addition, seed viability may be another reason behind the lack of germination in hedgerows since most of the studied species failed to germinate in the greenhouse experimentation. The age of both hedgerows and experimental forest may be considered to affect species germination where hedgerows are too recent and not mature enough in terms of the soil characteristics (e.g. soil moisture, phosphorous content) being far from a mature forest soil. The rather low germination rate found in the experimental forest could also be due to the fact that this forest is maybe rather too recent (since 1989) and thus the soil does not resemble a mature forest soil, which could partly explain the low germination rate. Future results from further surveys may provide a clear idea about the assembly of forest specialists in hedgerows being driven by either dispersal, recruitment, or persistence.

Figure 5-4: Community assembly is believed to be affected by different processes operating

with a wide range of spatio-temporal scales. Species inside the regional species pool are the result of different historical processes (e.g. speciation and evolution). Potential species that are ready for colonization will be affected by dispersal events before passing through biotic and abiotic filters in order to achieve the local or actual communities. All the mentioned postdispersal processes, in addition to the local species interactions, are considered the main aspects for studying species abundance and coexistence. Extracted from [START_REF] Hillerislambers | Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory[END_REF].

Therefore, there is a potential for more investigation in Chapters 2, 3 & 4. In Chapter 2, we may assess the dark diversity (i.e. species that should be present in the studied habitats but are currently absent) in the different patches and study the effect of the change in fragmentation level on the dark diversity of the herbaceous species. During the survey of Chapter 3, we collected the LAI (leaf area index) of the different 24 plots. The LAI may be used to assess the amount of light intercepted by the plant canopy and it may be a significant parameter for studying the crop growth. In addition, the study of Chapter 3 paves the way for studying the germination and crop yield of the second cash crop (i.e. Camelina). In Chapter 4, there is a potential for replicating a similar design along a gradient of hedgerow and forest age, from very recent hedgerows and forests (current study) to very ancient hedgerows and forests.

This would help to better understand whether recruitment limitations found in our results are mainly affected by the age of both hedgerows and forests or not. Addressing these mentioned potential studies may allow us to have a clearer understanding of the multitude of ways to explain the patterns of variation in plant community assembly (Fig. 5-4) and draw out robust implication for biodiversity conservation. an expert-based, species-specific index that varies between 1 and 5 (low to high shade casting ability of the canopy tree species).

ANNEXES

Finally, the proportion of forest within a 500-m radius around each quadrat or sub-quadrat was used as a measure of habitat availability, with higher values indicating a higher amount of source habitat available within the surrounding "region".

  Figure 1-1: Community assembly processes affecting species' occurrence and abundance across an environmental gradient. (A): The species is absent from the focal site because of dispersal limitations. (B): The species is absent from the focal site due to recruitment limitations because it can disperse there. (C): Establishment success is achieved once dispersal and recruitment limitations are overcome. (D): Plant-plant positive interactions (e.g. facilitation) may foster species co-existence once dispersal limitations are overcome. E: Plant-plant negative interactions (e.g. competition) may limit species co-existence even after dispersal limitations are overcome. Figure inspired from Zobel (1997) and Lortie et al (2004). ............................... 9 Figure 1-2: Species richness and species abundance are two metrics used for evaluating communities. (A): Fictive plant community with the highest species diversity and species abundance. (B): Another fictive plant community showing lower diversity while abundance is the same as A. (C): A plant community represented by high diversity (same as in A) but with lower species abundance than in A and B. (D): A plant community represented by one siingle species (monoculture) although it is a highly abundant species. Community A is considered more diverse than other communities in the sense of community structure and ecological properties. Community D is characterized by the dominance of one species (monoculture) and a very low resilience of ecological properties. Communities B and C fall in the continuum between communities A and D in terms of community structure and ecological properties. .. 11 Figure 1-3: Three different illustrations revealing the importance of niche difference in affecting species abundance and coexistence. (A): Illustration of Harpole and Tilman (2007) experiment. (B) : This represents the "snowballs in the barn" model of niche differentiation and coexistence. The circles in (B) represent the range of conditions of every species. (C): This represents an analytical curve explaining the relationship between species richness and community biomass. Inspired from Tilman (2000). ................................................................ 13 Figure 1-4: Death, birth and immigration cycle in the neutral theory. Red circles represent the dead species locations. Green circles represent the new species occupying the space left by the dead species. Green dots represent the origin from which new species came. Figure modified from Rosindell, Hubbell, and Etienne (2011). ......................................................................... 15 Figure 1-5: Schematic diagram describing a prediction about the effect of sampling scale on the relative importance of environmental (niche) factors and stochastic (neutral) factors.The community in this diagram is represented by two species (black and white). Black species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the black zone (lower left half). White species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the white zone (upper right half). Habitat association appears to be very strong at largest scale, where several individuals of each species may be found in their less favoured habitats (black and white squares on the sides opposite to their favoured habitat). At intermediate scales (middle panel), habitat association is still having an impact on the studied community. However, at the smallest scales, one habitat type appears to be eliminated (species favoured by black habitat) with few remaining individuals are distributed by the effect of stochastic processes. Figure from Chase (2014). ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 1-6: Processes behind community assembly rules and their corresponding scales.The regional species pool is a subset of the global species pool obtained after the first set of filters has been applied (i.e. extinction, speciation and migration) (referred to as phylogeographic assembly). The local species pool is a subset of the regional species pool obtained after accounting for dispersal filters (referred to as dispersal assembly). Actual studied

  Figure 1-1: Community assembly processes affecting species' occurrence and abundance across an environmental gradient. (A): The species is absent from the focal site because of dispersal limitations. (B): The species is absent from the focal site due to recruitment limitations because it can disperse there. (C): Establishment success is achieved once dispersal and recruitment limitations are overcome. (D): Plant-plant positive interactions (e.g. facilitation) may foster species co-existence once dispersal limitations are overcome. E: Plant-plant negative interactions (e.g. competition) may limit species co-existence even after dispersal limitations are overcome. Figure inspired from Zobel (1997) and Lortie et al (2004). ............................... 9 Figure 1-2: Species richness and species abundance are two metrics used for evaluating communities. (A): Fictive plant community with the highest species diversity and species abundance. (B): Another fictive plant community showing lower diversity while abundance is the same as A. (C): A plant community represented by high diversity (same as in A) but with lower species abundance than in A and B. (D): A plant community represented by one siingle species (monoculture) although it is a highly abundant species. Community A is considered more diverse than other communities in the sense of community structure and ecological properties. Community D is characterized by the dominance of one species (monoculture) and a very low resilience of ecological properties. Communities B and C fall in the continuum between communities A and D in terms of community structure and ecological properties. .. 11 Figure 1-3: Three different illustrations revealing the importance of niche difference in affecting species abundance and coexistence. (A): Illustration of Harpole and Tilman (2007) experiment. (B) : This represents the "snowballs in the barn" model of niche differentiation and coexistence. The circles in (B) represent the range of conditions of every species. (C): This represents an analytical curve explaining the relationship between species richness and community biomass. Inspired from Tilman (2000). ................................................................ 13 Figure 1-4: Death, birth and immigration cycle in the neutral theory. Red circles represent the dead species locations. Green circles represent the new species occupying the space left by the dead species. Green dots represent the origin from which new species came. Figure modified from Rosindell, Hubbell, and Etienne (2011). ......................................................................... 15 Figure 1-5: Schematic diagram describing a prediction about the effect of sampling scale on the relative importance of environmental (niche) factors and stochastic (neutral) factors.The community in this diagram is represented by two species (black and white). Black species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the black zone (lower left half). White species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the white zone (upper right half). Habitat association appears to be very strong at largest scale, where several individuals of each species may be found in their less favoured habitats (black and white squares on the sides opposite to their favoured habitat). At intermediate scales (middle panel), habitat association is still having an impact on the studied community. However, at the smallest scales, one habitat type appears to be eliminated (species favoured by black habitat) with few remaining individuals are distributed by the effect of stochastic processes. Figure from Chase (2014). ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 1-6: Processes behind community assembly rules and their corresponding scales.The regional species pool is a subset of the global species pool obtained after the first set of filters has been applied (i.e. extinction, speciation and migration) (referred to as phylogeographic assembly). The local species pool is a subset of the regional species pool obtained after accounting for dispersal filters (referred to as dispersal assembly). Actual studied

  . .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 1-7: Different dispersal mechanisms depending on the time scale considered. (A): dispersal by animals over short time periods. (B): Dispersal by wind or water over short time perios. It depends on both dispersal distance and dispersal mechanism for dispersal to occur.

  . ................................................................................. 20 Figure 1-8: Two different plant communities showing different environmental conditions. (A): In communities with non-harsh conditions, species diversity is high leading to higher productivity and competition and eventually lower facilitation. (B): Communities in harsh conditions (B) induce lower diversity leading to lower productivity and lower competition, and consequently facilitation will be more important. .................................................................... 23 Figure 1-9:

  (E) allowing the beginning of a new life cycle. ................................................ 26 Figure 1-10: Biotic interactions occurring at the local scale. (A) represents positive plant interactions (e.g. facilitation). (B) represents negative plant interactions (e.g.

  . .............................................................................................................. 27 Figure 1-11: Nested filtering effects from large scale to the fine scale (extent community).

  . .......................................................... 29 Figure 1-12: Different patterns of environmental heterogeneity. (A) & (B) represent communities with no heterogeneity across their local patches. (C) represents communities showing heterogeneity within their local patches. (D) represents communities showing heterogeneity between their local patches. Extracted from (Fukami, 2010). ........................... 30 Figure 2-1: Schematic Schematic figure of the expected effect of forest fragmentation (none, intermediate and high) on the shape of the  ~  relationship (AGR) for forest specialists (FS) and generalists

  .................................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 2-2: Map of the study area (North France) covering three different regions (C: Ponthieu and Oise normande, B: Pays de Bray and Beauvaisis, T: Thiérache and Vermandois) with three different types of habitats

  ................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 2-3: Schematic diagram of the different types of  ~  relationship (AGR)

  ........................................................... 57 Figure 2-5: Changes in the  ~  relationship (AGR) as a function of fragmentation level.

Figure 3 - 2 :

 32 Figure 3-2: Abundance of weed species according to (A): the difference in soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling treatments) and (B): the different soil cover rotation (4 levels). Only the most abundant species are presented. ........................................................... 88 Figure 3-3: Estimated mean and 95% confidence interval of the rank difference values from the model used (see section 2.5.3 in materials and methods) at 3 different dates (July -August -September) studying the relative abundance change of weed species as function of soil cover rotations (4 levels) and soil preparation (reduced tillage vs direct seedling). CS corresponds to Camelina and sunflower rotation. COS corresponds to CC-mix with sunflower rotation. NN corresponds to the soil left without both winter and summer covers. NS corresponds to soil left in winter and cultivated with sunflower as summer crop. Species are oriented along the vertical axis according to decreasing order of the mean rank difference between treatments. Note that only the species that succeeded to germinate in either the subplots or the plots (baseline study) are presented along the vertical axis. .......................................... 92 Figure 4-1: Map of the study area (Hauts-de-France) covering two different regions: (A)Marcelcave for hedgerows; and (B) the forest experimental site near Amiens as a control. Five isolated and recent hedgerows (H1-H2-H3-H4-H5) were used to install the five transects containing both the seed and transplant quadrats (17 and 13 quadrats per hedgerow, respectively). Four separated transects were used in the experimental forest near Amiens: two transects were installed for the seed quadrats (S1 and S2) and two others were installed for the transplant quadrats (T1 and T2). For each of the nine transects (hedgerow and forest transects), every single quadrat of 50cm × 50cm is divided into two sub-quadrats of 20cm × 50cm each, where the right sub-quadrat is the disturbed or vegetation removal treatment and the left subquadrat is the non-disturbed treatment or competition treatment separated by a 10cm × 50cm buffer zone (C). ...................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 4-2: Seed germination success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 17 sown species (A) and establishment success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 13 transplanted species (B). ..................................................... 120 Figure 4-3: Estimated mean (effect size) and 95% confidence interval for each species separately. Coefficients were extracted from the two best candidate models to test the effect of habitat conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (with vs. without resident vegetation) on the germination (seeds) and establishment (transplants) success of several forest plant spcies (see models MG3 for A & B, and ME4 for C and D in Table 4-2). The habitat condition differences at the species level are given for both seed germination success (A, B) and transplant establishment success (C, D). results are displayed separately for the two tested comeptition levels: with (A, C) and without (B, D) resident vegetation. .................................................. 121 Figure 5-1: Hypothetical plot showing the probability of local extinction with respect to a wide range of patch areas. The Letters from (A) to (D) represent patches of different sizes suggesting different local extinction risks. Extracted from Ovaskainen, (2002). .................. 131 Figure 5-2: The influence of landscape connectivity on plant dispersal. (A) Diagram depicting different potential dispersal regimes with different connectivity patterns. (B) This panel represents dispersal regimes with no observed connectivity between patches (5) but what is called "actual functional connectivity" due to high dispersal abilities. White squares having diagonal lines represent focal habitat patches. Squares, circles and triangles represent different plant species. (1) to (4**) represent different connectivity patterns (e.g. corridors in (1) and (2) and structural connectivity in (3)). Thick arrows in (B) represent higher dispersal rates while thin arrows represent lower dispersal rates. Extracted From Uroy, Ernoult, & Mony, (2019). ................................................................................................................................................ 134

  Figure 3-2: Abundance of weed species according to (A): the difference in soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling treatments) and (B): the different soil cover rotation (4 levels). Only the most abundant species are presented. ........................................................... 88 Figure 3-3: Estimated mean and 95% confidence interval of the rank difference values from the model used (see section 2.5.3 in materials and methods) at 3 different dates (July -August -September) studying the relative abundance change of weed species as function of soil cover rotations (4 levels) and soil preparation (reduced tillage vs direct seedling). CS corresponds to Camelina and sunflower rotation. COS corresponds to CC-mix with sunflower rotation. NN corresponds to the soil left without both winter and summer covers. NS corresponds to soil left in winter and cultivated with sunflower as summer crop. Species are oriented along the vertical axis according to decreasing order of the mean rank difference between treatments. Note that only the species that succeeded to germinate in either the subplots or the plots (baseline study) are presented along the vertical axis. .......................................... 92 Figure 4-1: Map of the study area (Hauts-de-France) covering two different regions: (A)Marcelcave for hedgerows; and (B) the forest experimental site near Amiens as a control. Five isolated and recent hedgerows (H1-H2-H3-H4-H5) were used to install the five transects containing both the seed and transplant quadrats (17 and 13 quadrats per hedgerow, respectively). Four separated transects were used in the experimental forest near Amiens: two transects were installed for the seed quadrats (S1 and S2) and two others were installed for the transplant quadrats (T1 and T2). For each of the nine transects (hedgerow and forest transects), every single quadrat of 50cm × 50cm is divided into two sub-quadrats of 20cm × 50cm each, where the right sub-quadrat is the disturbed or vegetation removal treatment and the left subquadrat is the non-disturbed treatment or competition treatment separated by a 10cm × 50cm buffer zone (C). ...................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 4-2: Seed germination success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 17 sown species (A) and establishment success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 13 transplanted species (B). ..................................................... 120 Figure 4-3: Estimated mean (effect size) and 95% confidence interval for each species separately. Coefficients were extracted from the two best candidate models to test the effect of habitat conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (with vs. without resident vegetation) on the germination (seeds) and establishment (transplants) success of several forest plant spcies (see models MG3 for A & B, and ME4 for C and D in Table 4-2). The habitat condition differences at the species level are given for both seed germination success (A, B) and transplant establishment success (C, D). results are displayed separately for the two tested comeptition levels: with (A, C) and without (B, D) resident vegetation. .................................................. 121 Figure 5-1: Hypothetical plot showing the probability of local extinction with respect to a wide range of patch areas. The Letters from (A) to (D) represent patches of different sizes suggesting different local extinction risks. Extracted from Ovaskainen, (2002). .................. 131 Figure 5-2: The influence of landscape connectivity on plant dispersal. (A) Diagram depicting different potential dispersal regimes with different connectivity patterns. (B) This panel represents dispersal regimes with no observed connectivity between patches (5) but what is called "actual functional connectivity" due to high dispersal abilities. White squares having diagonal lines represent focal habitat patches. Squares, circles and triangles represent different plant species. (1) to (4**) represent different connectivity patterns (e.g. corridors in (1) and (2) and structural connectivity in (3)). Thick arrows in (B) represent higher dispersal rates while thin arrows represent lower dispersal rates. Extracted From Uroy, Ernoult, & Mony, (2019). ................................................................................................................................................ 134

Figure 5 - 3 :

 53 Figure 3-2: Abundance of weed species according to (A): the difference in soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling treatments) and (B): the different soil cover rotation (4 levels). Only the most abundant species are presented. ........................................................... 88 Figure 3-3: Estimated mean and 95% confidence interval of the rank difference values from the model used (see section 2.5.3 in materials and methods) at 3 different dates (July -August -September) studying the relative abundance change of weed species as function of soil cover rotations (4 levels) and soil preparation (reduced tillage vs direct seedling). CS corresponds to Camelina and sunflower rotation. COS corresponds to CC-mix with sunflower rotation. NN corresponds to the soil left without both winter and summer covers. NS corresponds to soil left in winter and cultivated with sunflower as summer crop. Species are oriented along the vertical axis according to decreasing order of the mean rank difference between treatments. Note that only the species that succeeded to germinate in either the subplots or the plots (baseline study) are presented along the vertical axis. .......................................... 92 Figure 4-1: Map of the study area (Hauts-de-France) covering two different regions: (A)Marcelcave for hedgerows; and (B) the forest experimental site near Amiens as a control. Five isolated and recent hedgerows (H1-H2-H3-H4-H5) were used to install the five transects containing both the seed and transplant quadrats (17 and 13 quadrats per hedgerow, respectively). Four separated transects were used in the experimental forest near Amiens: two transects were installed for the seed quadrats (S1 and S2) and two others were installed for the transplant quadrats (T1 and T2). For each of the nine transects (hedgerow and forest transects), every single quadrat of 50cm × 50cm is divided into two sub-quadrats of 20cm × 50cm each, where the right sub-quadrat is the disturbed or vegetation removal treatment and the left subquadrat is the non-disturbed treatment or competition treatment separated by a 10cm × 50cm buffer zone (C). ...................................................................................................................... 115 Figure 4-2: Seed germination success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 17 sown species (A) and establishment success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 13 transplanted species (B). ..................................................... 120 Figure 4-3: Estimated mean (effect size) and 95% confidence interval for each species separately. Coefficients were extracted from the two best candidate models to test the effect of habitat conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (with vs. without resident vegetation) on the germination (seeds) and establishment (transplants) success of several forest plant spcies (see models MG3 for A & B, and ME4 for C and D in Table 4-2). The habitat condition differences at the species level are given for both seed germination success (A, B) and transplant establishment success (C, D). results are displayed separately for the two tested comeptition levels: with (A, C) and without (B, D) resident vegetation. .................................................. 121 Figure 5-1: Hypothetical plot showing the probability of local extinction with respect to a wide range of patch areas. The Letters from (A) to (D) represent patches of different sizes suggesting different local extinction risks. Extracted from Ovaskainen, (2002). .................. 131 Figure 5-2: The influence of landscape connectivity on plant dispersal. (A) Diagram depicting different potential dispersal regimes with different connectivity patterns. (B) This panel represents dispersal regimes with no observed connectivity between patches (5) but what is called "actual functional connectivity" due to high dispersal abilities. White squares having diagonal lines represent focal habitat patches. Squares, circles and triangles represent different plant species. (1) to (4**) represent different connectivity patterns (e.g. corridors in (1) and (2) and structural connectivity in (3)). Thick arrows in (B) represent higher dispersal rates while thin arrows represent lower dispersal rates. Extracted From Uroy, Ernoult, & Mony, (2019). ................................................................................................................................................ 134

  Figure 5-3: Species richness within different target patches and surrounding non-target habitat showing different types of dispersal mechanisms. From (Lars A. Brudvig, Damschen, Tewksbury, Haddad, & Levey, 2009) .................................................................................... 138Figure5-4: Community assembly is believed to be affected by different processes operating with a wide range of spatio-temporal scales. Species inside the regional species pool are the result of different historical processes (e.g. speciation and evolution). Potential species that are ready for colonization will be affected by dispersal events before passing through biotic and abiotic filters in order to achieve the local or actual communities. All the mentioned post-dispersal processes, in addition to the local species interactions, are considered the main aspects for studying species abundance and coexistence. Extracted from (HilleRisLambers,[START_REF] Hillerislambers | Rethinking Community Assembly through the Lens of Coexistence Theory[END_REF]. ........................................... 145

Figure 1 - 1 :

 11 Figure 1-1: Community assembly processes affecting species' occurrence and abundance across an environmental gradient. (A): The species is absent from the focal site because of dispersal limitations. (B): The species is absent from the focal site due to recruitment limitations because it can disperse there. (C): Establishment success is achieved once dispersal and recruitment limitations are overcome. (D): Plant-plant positive interactions (e.g. facilitation) may foster species co-existence once dispersal limitations are overcome. E: Plantplant negative interactions (e.g. competition) may limit species co-existence even after dispersal limitations are overcome.Figure inspired from[START_REF] Zobel | The relative of species pools in determining plant species richness: an alternative explanation of species coexistence?[END_REF] and[START_REF] Lortie | Rethinking plant community theory[END_REF].

Figure 1 - 2 :

 12 Figure 1-2: Species richness and species abundance are two metrics used for evaluating communities. (A): Fictive plant community with the highest species diversity and species abundance. (B): Another fictive plant community showing lower diversity while abundance is the same as A. (C): A plant community represented by high diversity (same as in A) but with lower species abundance than in A and B. (D): A plant community represented by one siingle species (monoculture) although it is a highly abundant species. Community A is considered more diverse than other communities in the sense of community structure and ecological properties. Community D is characterized by the dominance of one species (monoculture) and a very low resilience of ecological properties. Communities B and C fall in the continuum between communities A and D in terms of community structure and ecological properties.

Figure 1 - 3 :

 13 Figure 1-3: Three different illustrations revealing the importance of niche difference in affecting species abundance and coexistence. (A): Illustration of Harpole and Tilman (2007) experiment. (B) : This represents the "snowballs in the barn" model of niche differentiation and coexistence. The circles in (B) represent the range of conditions of every species. (C): This represents an analytical curve explaining the relationship between species richness and community biomass. Inspired from[START_REF] Tilman | Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity[END_REF].

Figure 1 -

 1 Figure 1-4: Death, birth and immigration cycle in the neutral theory. Red circles represent the dead species locations. Green circles represent the new species occupying the space left by the dead species. Green dots represent the origin from which new species came. Figure modified from[START_REF] Rosindell | The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography at age ten[END_REF].

Figure 1 -

 1 Figure 1-5: Schematic diagram describing a prediction about the effect of sampling scale on the relative importance of environmental (niche) factors and stochastic (neutral) factors. The community in this diagram is represented by two species (black and white). Black species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the black zone (lower left half). White species are favoured by the environmental conditions restricted to the white zone (upper right half). Habitat association appears to be very strong at largest scale, where several individuals of each species may be found in their less favoured habitats (black and white squares on the sides opposite to their favoured habitat). At intermediate scales (middle panel), habitat association is still having an impact on the studied community. However, at the smallest scales, one habitat type appears to be eliminated (species favoured by black habitat) with few remaining individuals are distributed by the effect of stochastic processes. Figure from Chase (2014).

Figure 1 - 7 :

 17 Figure 1-7: Different dispersal mechanisms depending on the time scale considered. (A): dispersal by animals over short time periods. (B): Dispersal by wind or water over short time perios. It depends on both dispersal distance and dispersal mechanism for dispersal to occur. For short or moderate distance dispersal it may take tens of years. (C): For long distance dispersal, it may need hundreds or thousands of years for a species to disperse to another site.

Figure 1 - 8 :

 18 Figure 1-8: Two different plant communities showing different environmental conditions. (A): In communities with non-harsh conditions, species diversity is high leading to higher productivity and competition and eventually lower facilitation. (B): Communities in harsh conditions (B) induce lower diversity leading to lower productivity and lower competition, and consequently facilitation will be more important.

Figure 1 - 9 :

 19 Figure 1-9: The plant life cycle begins with a diaspore (seed, fruit, spore or vegetative propagule) which successfully reach a focal site by dispersal (A). The diaspore will germinate and produce a tiny, immature plant (called seedling when coming from a seed) (B). The seedling will establish and grow as long as environmental conditions are favorable (C). A mature plant will form with higher survival rates and ability for vegetative propagation (D).

  Il est reconnue que la fragmentation forestière a un impact globalement négatif sur la richesse en espèces forestières à la fois aux échelles les plus locales (diversité α) comme aux échelles supérieures (diversité γ). Néanmoins, l'effet de la fragmentation forestière sur le couplage entre diversité α et γ n'a pas été étudié. Une des hypothèses sous-jacente est que la fragmentation de l'habitat favoriserait le découplage avec saturation de la diversité α (atteinte d'un plateau) à mesure que la diversité γ augmente ? Lieu : Picardie.Méthodes : Nous avons évalué la biodiversité en espèces végétales au sein de 116 fragments forestiers suivant un gradient à trois niveaux de fragmentation de l'habitat: aucune fragmentation (forêt continue) ; fragmentation intermédiaire (fragments forestiers reliées par un réseau de haies) ; et fragmentation élevé (fragments forestiers isolés au sein d'une matrice de champs cultivés). La richesse en espèces spécialistes de l'habitat forestier et en espèces plus généralistes a été étudiée à cinq résolutions spatiales emboîtées au sein de chaque fragment forestier: 1 m 2 ; 10m 2 ; 100m 2 ; 1000m 2 ; et superficie totale du fragment focal. Tout d'abord, nous avons utilisé le modèle proposé par Szava-Kovats, Ronk, & Pärtel (2013) permettant d'extraire le coefficient de pente qui résume de manière quantitative la forme de la relation α ~ γ. Nous l'avons fait séparément pour toutes les combinaisons possibles de niveau de fragmentation (aucun vs. intermédiaire vs élevé) × échelle spatiale (par exemple α-1m2 vs γ-10m2) × type d'espèce (par exemple α-spécialistes vs γ-spécialistes). Nous avons ensuite utilisé des modèles linéaires à effets mixtes pour analyser l'effet du niveau de fragmentation, de l'échelle spatiale, du type d'espèce et de tous les termes d'interaction d'ordre deux sur le coefficient de pente extrait des modèles précédents (cf. modèle de Szava-Kovats, Ronk, & Pärtel (2013). Résultats : L'analyse de la variation des coefficients de pente issus du modèle de Szava-Kovats, Ronk, & Pärtel (2013) nous a permis de mettre en évidence une interaction entre le niveau de fragmentation et le type d'espèce (spécialistes vs. généralistes), de telle sorte que pour les spécialistes forestières, la relation α ~ γ change à mesure que la fragmentation augmente, en passant d'une relation linéaire pour les situations non fragmenté à une relation de saturation avec atteinte d'un plateau lorsque le niveau de fragmentation est élevé. On observe une tendance opposée pour les espèces généralistes. Conclusions : La fragmentation forestière affecte la relation α ~ γ en favorisant les espèces généralistes au détriement des espèces forestières spécialistes, avec des mécanismes contrastés pour ces deux guildes. À mesure que la fragmentation augmente, (i) les spécialistes forestiers passent d'un échantillonnage proportionnel avec couplage entre diversité α et diversité γ à une saturation des communautés, conséquence probable de limitations à la dispersion, tandis que (ii) pour les espèces généralistes, la fragmentation favorise le couplage entre diversité α et diversité γ, conséquence probable des effets de lisières en contexte très fragmenté.

Figure 2

 2 Figure 2-2: Map of the study area (North France) covering three different regions (C: Ponthieu and Oise normande, B: Pays de Bray and Beauvaisis, T: Thiérache and Vermandois)

Figure 2

 2 Figure 2-3: Schematic diagram of the different types of  ~  relationship (AGR) that can be derived from the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable that we extracted from the log-ratio model (see Equation 1 in the main text). Slope values may be either close to and not significantly different from zero (black bold line) or significantly lower than zero (grey dotted line) in the log scale (A) showing either linear (Type I) or curvilinear (Type II) pattern in the natural scale (see Equation 2 in the main text to switch from the log scale to the natural scale) (B), respectively. Based on the 95% confidence interval of each slope value, four

Figure 2 - 4 :

 24 Figure 2-4: Variation in the distribution of the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable that we extracted from the log-ratio model (see Equation 1 in the main text) and that we used to quantitatively assess the shape of the  ~  relationship (AGR). Panel (A) represents the distribution of the slope parameter for the combined pool comprising both forest specialists and generalists (FS+FG ~ FS+FG). Panels (B) and (C) represent the distribution of the slope parameter, separately, for forest specialists (FS ~ FS) and generalists (FG ~ FG),respectively. The FS, FG, NF, SF and HF acronyms refer to forest specialists, forest generalists, non-fragmented systems, semi-fragmented systems and highly-fragmented systems, respectively. Green, blue and red colors represent non-fragmented systems, semi-fragmented systems and highly fragmented systems, respectively.

Figure 2 - 5 :

 25 Figure 2-5: Changes in the  ~  relationship (AGR) as a function of fragmentation level. Panel (A) represents the AGR of the combined pool comprising both forest specialists and generalists (FS+FG ~ FS+FG) showing linear (slope = 0.04) and curvilinear-plateau (slope = -0.44) AGR in non-and highly-fragmented systems, respectively. Panels (B) and (C) represent the AGR for forest specialists (FS ~ FS) and generalists (FG ~ FG), separately, with opposite patterns between the two guilds when shifting from non-to highly-fragmented systems. The FS, FG, NF and HF acronyms refer to forest specialists, forest generalists, non-fragmented systems and highly fragmented systems, respectively. Colors and drawings in Figure 5 (i.e. main results) mirror those used in Figure 4.

Chapter 3 :

 3 Winter cover crops decrease the abundance of weeds while increasing cash-crop yieldsRésumé Dans cette étude, nous visons à évaluer l'effet respectif et combiné de la réduction du travail du sol et des cultures de couverture d'hiver (i.e. semi direct sous couvert : SDSC) sur le recrutement d'espèces adventices des cultures et sur les rendements en tournesol (Helianthus annuus). En contrôlant la composition des espèces et la pression de propagules des espèces adventices, nous avons testé quatre traitements de rotation du couvert végétal : (i) Camelina sativa suivi d'une culture de tournesol, (ii) un mélange de Fabacées et de Brassicacées suivi par une culture de tournesol ; (iii) absence de couvert végétal hivernal suivi d'une culture de tournesol ; et enfin (iv) une modalité contrôle sur sol nue. Chacune des 4 modalités de rotation de couvert végétal a été testé en combinaison avec deux modalités de préparation du sol (travail du sol réduit vs. semis direct). L'ensemble des 6 modalités croisés a été répété en 3 blocs randomisés, soit 24 parcelles expérimentales (12 m × 8 m) au sein desquelles nous avons délimité 24 sous-parcelles (4m × 1m) afin d'éviter d'éventuels effets de bord. Dans chaque sous-parcelle, les graines de 40 espèces d'adventices des cultures ont été semées en mai 2017 et leur émergence a ensuite été surveillée à la mi-juillet, août et septembre 2017. La composition en espèces végétales spontanées (hors espèces présentes dans les semis) a également été inventoriée au début juillet 2017 et avant l'émergence des espèces adventices semées pour établir une situation initiale de référence. Nous avons utilisé des modèles linéaires généralisés pour analyser l'effet de la rotation du couvert végétal et de la préparation du sol sur la richesse en espèces adventices semées, l'abondance (nombre d'individus) de chaque espèce adventice semée et le rendement en tournesol. Nous avons également utilisé des modèles linéaires à effets mixtes pour analyser les changements d'abondance relative des espèces par rapport à la situation de référence avant émergence des espèces adventices semées. Nos résultats montrent que le travail réduit du sol peut augmenter la richesse en espèces adventices dans certaines circonstances, ainsi que l'abondance de deux espèces annuelles (Viola arvensis et Fumaria officinalis). Le mélange Fabacées-Brassicacées d'hiver réduit l'abondance des espèces adventices les plus dominantes (e.g. Echinochloa crus-galli) tout en augmentant le poids moyen des graines de tournesol par tige. Indépendamment du traitement du sol, nous avons constaté que Camelina sativa favorise la présence d'espèces adventices patrimoniales aux dépens des espèces nuisibles. Nous concluons que les semis directs associés au mélange Fabacées-Brassicaceés d'hiver permettent de contrôler l'abondance des espèces adventices tout en augmentant le rendement des cultures commerciales, et répondent donc aux critères d'une agriculture durable.

Figure 3 - 1 :

 31 Figure 3-1: Experimental site (A), where the field was organized in a randomized block design (B) with 3 repetitions for every treatment (C) in studying the effect of two different soil preparations (reduced tillage vs direct seedling) and four different soil cover rotations on weed community.

Figure 3 - 2 :

 32 Figure 3-2: Abundance of weed species according to (A): the difference in soil preparation (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling treatments) and (B): the different soil cover rotation (4 levels). Only the most abundant species are presented.

Figure 3 - 3 :

 33 Figure 3-3: Estimated mean and 95% confidence interval of the rank difference values from the model used (see section 2.5.3 in materials and methods) at 3 different dates (July -August -September) studying the relative abundance change of weed species as function of soil cover rotations (4 levels) and soil preparation (reduced tillage vs direct seedling). CS corresponds to Camelina and sunflower rotation. COS corresponds to CC-mix with sunflower rotation. NN

  sown and/or transplanted within quadrats of 50cm × 50cm each, further divided into two equal parts (sub-quadrats) of 20cm × 50cm each (Fig.4-1c): one for the non-disturbed (competition) treatment and one for the disturbed (vegetation removal without competition) treatment. Both sub-quadrats were separated by a buffer area of 10cm × 50cm (see Fig.4-1c). Each sub-quadrat of 20cm × 50cm was further divided into 10 equal units of 10cm × 10cm each. About 3-5 seeds were sown per 10cm × 10cm unit while only one single individual was transplanted per 10cm

Figure 4 - 2 :

 42 Figure 4-2: Seed germination success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 17 sown species (A) and establishment success in both forest (orange bars) and hedgerows (blue bars) of the 13 transplanted species (B).

Figure 4 - 3 :

 43 Figure 4-3: Estimated mean (effect size) and 95% confidence interval for each species separately. Coefficients were extracted from the two best candidate models to test the effect of habitat conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (with vs. without resident vegetation) on the germination (seeds) and establishment (transplants) success of several forest plant spcies (see models MG3 for A & B, and ME4 for C and D in Table 4-2). The habitat condition differences at the species level are given for both seed germination success (A, B) and transplant establishment success (C, D). results are displayed separately for the two tested comeptition levels: with (A, C) and without (B, D) resident vegetation.

Figure 5 - 1 :

 51 Figure 5-1: Hypothetical plot showing the probability of local extinction with respect to a wide range of patch areas. The Letters from (A) to (D) represent patches of different sizes suggesting different local extinction risks. Extracted from Ovaskainen, (2002).

Figure 5 - 2 :

 52 Figure 5-2: The influence of landscape connectivity on plant dispersal. (A) Diagram depicting different potential dispersal regimes with different connectivity patterns. (B) This panel represents dispersal regimes with no observed connectivity between patches (5) but what is called "actual functional connectivity" due to high dispersal abilities. White squares having diagonal lines represent focal habitat patches. Squares, circles and triangles represent different plant species. (1) to (4**) represent different connectivity patterns (e.g. corridors in (1) and (2)

Figure 5 - 3 :

 53 Figure 5-3: Species richness within different target patches and surrounding non-target habitat showing different types of dispersal mechanisms. From (Lars A.Brudvig, Damschen, Tewksbury, Haddad, & Levey, 2009)

Appendix 2- 4 :

 4 Outputs from all candidate models (see main text for the list of candidate models) for each of the two compiled datasets used to analyze the observed variation in the magnitude of the coefficient estimates or slope parameter of the log() variable (i.e. the response variable) in the log-ratio model (see Equation1in the main text) of the  ~  relationship (AGR): (1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG (n = 90); (2) FSorFG ~ FSorFG (n = 180). Linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) were used to relate the response variable against fragmentation level (frag: NF, SF, HF), spatial scale (scale: 1, 2, 3, 4), species type (sp: FS vs. FG) and all possible two-way interactions between all three explanatory variables (see the materials and methods section in the main text). Bold values are representing significant (p < 0.05) effects.

( 1 )

 1 slope ~ frag +scale * sp FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) Coeff

Table 4 -2: List of candidate models used to

 4 test the separate effect of competition (with vs. without resident vegetation) and habitat type (forest vs. hedgerows) on both the germination (MG) and establishment (ME) success. The response variable in all models is the proportion of individuals that germinated or successfully established. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with zero inflated distribution (glmmTMB) were used. ............................................ 117

Table 4 -3: Outputs from the best candidate model of the germination (seeds) success of forest plant species under

 4 two different habitat types (forest vs. hedgerows) and two disturbance regimes (with resident vegetation vs. without resident vegetation). Generalized linear mixed-effects models with zero inflated (glmmTMB) and a binomial family were used to relate species abundance (proportion of individuals that successfully germinated or established) with the predictor variables. Bold values are representing significant (p<0.05) effects. .................................................................................................................................... 119

Table 4 -4: Outputs from the best candidate model of the establishment (transplants) success of forest plant species under

 4 two different habitat types (forest vs. hedgerows) and two disturbance regimes (with resident vegetation vs. without resident vegetation). Generalized linear mixed-effects model with zero inflated (glmmTMB) and a binomial family were used to relate species abundance (proportion of individuals that successfully germinated or established) with predictor variables. Bold values are representing significant (p<0.05) effects. ............. 119

  while in highly-fragmented (HF) systems, we expect FS to display a predominance of curvilinear-plateau patterns (Type II) (i.e. -diversity increases until reaching a plateau as -diversity increases). For FG, we expect the exact opposite situation as fragmentation increases. In the case of semi-fragmented (SF) systems, where both FS and FG species may

	locally co-occur, we expect intermediate or even indeterminate patterns to predominate for
	both FS and FG. For illustrative purpose, three forest patches (A, B and C), being connected
	or not by corridors (e.g. hedgerows), are depicted within three different types of matrices
	(forest, pastures with hedgerows, croplands). The less disturbed matrix is a forest matrix with
	continuous forest patches depicted by the white dotted lines while the most disturbed matrix is
	an agricultural landscape of croplands with forest patches being isolated from each other. The

intermediate matrix is a matrix of pastures with forest patches being connected by hedgerows.

The red squares inside the forest patches represent -diversity while the total patch area represents -diversity.

  ) non-fragmented forests (NF), into which we created virtual forest patches (see[START_REF] Jamoneau | Fragmentation alters beta-diversity patterns of habitat specialists within forest metacommunities[END_REF] for more details on how virtual forest patches were delineated in the landscape), that mimicked the number, size and shape of the true forest patches found in the two other windows of the same

	Between 2007 and 2008, all 116 forest patches were visited twice, in spring (April-May)

set;

(2) bocage or semi-fragmented forests (SF), consisting of small forest patches embedded in a grassland-dominated matrix and connected by hedgerows; and (3) openfield or highlyfragmented forests (HF), where the forest habitat consisted of small, isolated forest patches surrounded by intensively cultivated croplands. In each of the nine landscape windows, we randomly selected 15 forest patches with sizes and shapes allowing us to set up a 1000m 2 quadrat at the core of the forest patch so that the closest forest edge was located at a minimum distance of 10m. Whenever a window had less than 15 forest patches meeting these criteria, several non-overlapping quadrats (two to four) were arranged within the same large forest patch. A total of 135 quadrats (9 windows × 15 quadrats) were installed across 116 forest patches, including 39, 36 and 41 forest patches in NF, SF and HF systems, respectively (see raw data in Appendix 2-1).

  Then, we split the 270 slope coefficients into two different datasets: (1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG (n = 90) and (2) FSorFG ~ FSorFG (n = 180). For both datasets, we built several candidate models (i.e. step 2 in our analyses) to

explain the observed variation in the slope coefficient (i.e. the response variable) extracted from the log-ratio models (i.e. step 1 in our analyses). As explanatory variables, we tested the effect of fragmentation level (frag: NF, SF, HF), spatial scale (scale: 1, 2, 3, 4), species type (sp: FS vs. FG) as well as all possible two-way interactions between all three variables. More specifically, we tested eight candidate models: (

1

) slope ~ frag + sp; (2) slope ~ frag + scale; (3) slope ~ frag × sp; (4) slope ~ frag × scale; (5) slope ~ frag + scale + sp; (6) slope ~ frag × sp + scale; (7) slope ~ frag × scale + sp; and (8) slope ~ frag + scale × sp. Spatial scale was

Table 2 -1: Based on the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable

 2 (see Equation1in the main text) extracted from each of the 270 log-ratio models we ran (see main text for further explanations on the log-ratio models), the  ~  relationship (AGR) was classified into four types(I, II, INT, IND) for each of the three levels of fragmentation we tested

	(NF: non-fragmented; SF: semi-fragmented; HF: highly-fragmented) and for each of the three
	possible combinations of AGR we tested: (1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG (n = 90); (2) FS ~ FS (n = 90);
	and (3) FG ~ FG (n = 90). Acronyms I, II, INT and IND refer to Type I (proportional sampling),
	Type II (community saturation), intermediate and indeterminate curves, respectively (see main
	text for more information).
		(1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG
		I	II	INT	IND
	NF	17	2	6	5
	SF	11	4	10	5
	HF	14	12	2	2
	Total	42	18	18	12
			(2) FS ~ FS
		I	II	INT	IND
	NF	14	2	9	5
	SF	8	7	11	4
	HF	5	10	9	6
	Total	27	19	29	15
			(3) FG ~ FG
		I	II	INT	IND
	NF	4	15	6	5
	SF	9	4	8	9
	HF	13	4	8	5
	Total	26	23	22	19

Table 2 -2: Outputs from the best candidate model

 2 (see main text for the list of candidate models) for each of the two compiled datasets used to analyze the observed variation in the magnitude of the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable (i.e. the response variable) in the log-ratio model (see Equation1in the main text) of the  ~  relationship

	(AGR): (1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG (n = 90); (2) FSorFG ~ FSorFG (n = 180). Linear mixed-effects models
	(LMMs) were used to relate the response variable against fragmentation level (frag: NF, SF,
	HF), spatial scale (scale: 1, 2, 3, 4), species type (sp: FS vs. FG) and all possible two-way
	interactions between all three explanatory variables (see the materials and methods section in
	the main text). Bold values are representing significant (p < 0.05) effects. Grey cells show
	marginal and conditional R-squared values for each of the three best candidate models.
		(1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG (n = 90)
		Coeff.	t	p
	Intercept_NF	0.042	0.303	0.761
	frag_HF	-0.447	-0.343	<0.001
	frag_SF	-0.102	-0.781	0.434
	scale	0.029	0.56	0.575
	R 2 m/R 2 c			0.129/0.129
	180)
		Coeff.	t	P
	Intercept_NF&FS	-0.172	-1.001	0.306
	frag_HF	-0.517	-2.176	0.029
	frag_SF	-0.689	-2.897	0.003
	sp_FG	-0.191	-0.802	0.422
	frag_HF:sp_FG	0.748	2.225	0.026
	frag_SF:sp_FG	0.583	2.923	0.003
	R 2 m/R 2 c			0.173/0.173

(2) FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n =

  towards the forest interior. In our studied fragmented systems, this means that, to a certain extent, almost all forest patches are edge habitats rather than true forest interior habitats. Generalist species originating from the surrounding landscape are able to colonize edges of forest patches and subsequently migrate towards the patch interior, according to the so-called "biodiversity spillover effect"

(Araujo Calçada et al., 2013b;[START_REF] Brudvig | Landscape connectivity promotes plant biodiversity spillover into non-target habitats[END_REF]

Table 3 -1: Coefficient estimates from the best candidate model

 3

	(see M24 in Appendix 3-3)

Table 3 -2: Output of Type III ANOVA representing the best candidate model

 3

		Sum Sq	Df	F value	p value
	(Intercept)	471	1	122,5	<0,001
	rotation	21	3	1,79	0,1595
	reduced tillage	55	1	14,33	<0,001
	block	20	2	2,61	0,0814
	date	19	2	2,50	0,0909
	reduced tillage:block

(M24 in Appendix 3-3) studying species richness with the change of soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block. Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects.

Table 3 -3: Overall statistics of the best candidate model selected

 3

	Effect	wald value	Pr(>wald)
	(Intercept)	20.56	<0.001
	block2	3.405	0.212
	block3	5.745	0.005
	reduced tillage	5.824	0.008
	CC-mix /sunflower	5.976	0.02
	nothing/nothing	7.052	<0.001
	nothing/sunflower	4.522	0.103
	July	8.934	<0.001
	September	5.024	0.047
	block2:reduced tillage	2.538	0.551
	block3:tillage	2.792	0.501

(see M24 in Appendix 3-3 for the model formula) to study the impacts of soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block on weed species abundance (outcomes of the "manyglm" function from the "mvabund" package). Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects across all 40 studied weed species.

Coefficient estimates are available at the species level (see Table

4 and Appendix 3-7

).

Table 3 -4: Detailed statistics of the best candidate model selected

 3

	(see M24 in Appendix 3-3

Table 3 -5: Coefficient estimates from the best candidate model

 3

	(see candidate model M13 in

Weight of seeds per stem Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept)

		34.7	9.69	3.58	<0.001
	block2	9.89	9.69	1.02	0.327
	block3	42.1	9.69	4.34	<0.001
	CC-mix /sunflower	21.9	9.69	2.26	0.042
	nothing/sunflower	5.08	9.69	0.52	0.609
	reduced tillage	9.46	7.91	1.19	0.254

Résumé

  Les haies constituent un habitat potentiel pour les espèces végétales spécialistes des habitats forestiers. Néanmoins, la plupart des espèces forestières sont absentes des haies les plus récentes. Cette absence est potentiellement liée à la faible capacité de dispersion des espèces herbacées forestières ou bien à un faible succès de germination ou d'installation résultat de conditions biotiques et abiotiques dégradées par le fort effet « lisière » des haies récentes dont la canopée est peu développée et souvent immature, entrainant une forte compétition pour la avec les espèces héliophiles et nitrophiles des bords de haies. En tant que modalité de contrôle, les mêmes 17 et 13 espèces ont été semées et/ou transplantés, respectivement, le 22 Avril 2018 au sein d'un fragment forestier proche et suivant le même dispositif que celui utilisé dans les haies. Des observations de succès de germination des graines et/ou de survie des transplants ont été réalisés les 19 et 20 Juin 2018 pour les transects situés dans les haies et le 29 juin 2018 pour les transects situés en forêt. Nous avons utilisé des modèles linéaires généralisés avec effets mixtes pour analyser le succès de germination des graines et de survie des transplants au sein du dispositif expérimental. Les résultats montrent des réponses spécifiques suivant l'espèce considérée. Certaines espèces sont clairement limitées par leurs faibles capacités de dispersion (p.ex. Veronica hederifolia, Stellaria holostea) tandis que d'autres ne germent pas (p.ex. Fragaria vesca, Lamium galeobdolon) ou ne s'installe pas (p.ex. Nos résultats confirment non seulement que les capacités de dispersion limités des espèces forestières sont bien une barrière importante mais ils suggèrent également que les conditions biotiques et abiotiques au sein des haies récentes jouent un rôleclé sur le succès de germination des graines semées et/ou d'installation des individus limitation matters for forest plant species to occur in the most recent hedgerows but also the quality of the habitat matters. The sub-optimal microclimate conditions within recent hedgerows, probably due to the immature tree canopy, contribute to the germination and establishment of forest herbs. Therefore, recent hedgerows may be considered as selective filters for forest plant species. Not only dispersal limitations matter for forest plant species to colonize hedgerows but also environmental conditions therein matter for the effective migration of forest herb specialists. Further investigations involving a gradient of hedgerows' habitat quality ranging from poor (recent hedgerows) to good (ancient hedgerows) may provide important answers on the most optimal type of hedgerows that is required as effective corridors for forest herbs.

	Hyacinthoides non-scripta).

lumière avec les espèces végétales plus généralistes des ourlets pré-forestiers. A l'aide d'une approche expérimentale, nous avons examiné si l'absence d'herbacées forestières au sein des haies les plus récentes était liée à une limitation à la dispersion ou bien à une limitation au recrutement (germination et installation). Le 12 avril 2018, nous avons semés et transplantés 17 et 13 espèces herbacées forestières, respectivement, le long de cinq transects de haies situées dans le nord de la France. Au sein de chaque transect et pour chaque espèce semée et/ou transplantée, deux modalités de perturbation ont été testées : une modalité non perturbée pour laquelle les graines et/ou les transplants ont été soumis à un effet de compétition avec la végétation résidente et une modalité perturbée avec retrait de la végétation résidente pour limiter la compétition transplantés. Par conséquent, les conditions environnementales sub-optimales qui règnent au sein des haies récentes sont à prendre en compte en plus des barrières potentielles à la dispersion liées à la fragmentation de l'habitat forestier. Des recherches plus approfondies impliquant un gradient de conditions d'habitats allant de conditions dégradées (haies récentes) à des ambiances plus forestières (haies anciennes) seraient nécessaires pour évaluer le type de haies le plus optimal pour servir de corridors écologiques aux espèces végétales forestières. Mots clés: haies vives, espèces herbacées forestières, germination, installation, végétation résidente. dispersal Keywords: dispersal, establishment success, forest plant species, germination, persistence, hedgerows, resident vegetation.

Table 4 -1: List of species used for the germination

 4 (with the respective number of seeds per sub-quadrat indicated in parenthesis: the mean across all species and its associated standard

	deviation equals 44.76 ± 9.21) (A) and transplant (with the respective number of transplants
	per sub-quadrat indicated in parenthesis: the mean across all species and its associated
	standard deviation equals 8.82 ± 1.82) (B) experiments.number

  Table 4-1), six species succeeded to germinate (Veronica hederifolia, Lapsana communis, Milium effusum, Stellaria holostea, Poa nemoralis, Fragaria vesca, see Appendix 4-1 for the number of germinated individuals per species). The best candidate model explaining species germination success (dispersal limitation) included habitat conditions (hedgerows vs. forest) and competition (disturbed vs. un-disturbed) as predictors

Table 4 -3: Outputs from the best candidate model of the germination (seeds) success of forest

 4

	plant species under two different habitat types (forest vs. hedgerows) and two disturbance
	regimes (with resident vegetation vs. without resident vegetation). Generalized linear mixed-
	effects models with zero inflated (glmmTMB) and a binomial family were used to relate species
	abundance (proportion of individuals that successfully germinated or established) with the
	predictor variables. Bold values are representing significant (p<0.05) effects.
	Term	Estimate Std. Error z value	Pr(>|z|)
	Intercept (forest w/ vegetation)	-7,6493 2,0592	-3,7147	0,0002
	Disturbance (w/o vegetation)	-0,3655 0,4434	-0,8242	0,4098
	Habitat (hedgerow)	-8,1168 5,8853	-1,3792	0,1678

Table 4 -4: Outputs from the best candidate model of the establishment (transplants) success of forest plant species

 4

	Term

under two different habitat types (forest vs. hedgerows) and two disturbance regimes (with resident vegetation vs. without resident vegetation). Generalized linear mixed-effects model with zero inflated (glmmTMB) and a binomial family were used to relate species abundance (proportion of individuals that successfully germinated or established) with predictor variables. Bold values are representing significant (p<0.05) effects.

7950 0,0052 Distur.:Habitat (hedgerow w/o vegetation 0,9504 1,0675 -0,8903 0,03733

  Data table (raw data) used in the log-ratio model showing the species richness (forest specialists, generalists and total) as well as the value of several covariates at different spatial scales across the 116 studied forest patches.

	BT06 FT21 1 5 3 Prop_forest_1 pH_10 C:N_10 P_10 SCA_10 Prop_forest_10 pH_100 C:N_100 P_100 SCA_100 3 6 11 27 33 0 2 4 11 11 7 12 15 34 46 3 6 6 12 15 2 5 12 15 3778,748 274643,18 177,3 4,04 13,66 2,61 6 15 17 557,167 19046,229 252,0 3,48 14,40 10,7 8 13 25 511,553 13138,834 252,0 4,27 11,41 1,40 4 9 16 1848,231 141730,65 99,02 3,50 13,40 1,27 2,390 4,290 12,417 5,240 0 2,390 4,240 11,810 4,690 3,0 48,549 4,275 12,543 7,180 0 48,549 4,770 13,068 9,860 0,0 pH_1000 C:N_1000 P_1000 SCA_1000 Prop_forest_1000 Region Window FL 4,430 11,892 7,658 3,482 98,621 B FB NF 4,695 13,089 8,945 2,342 12,152 B OB HF Carex remota FG Glechoma hederacea FG Poa pratensis FG
	BT07 BT08 BT11 FT23 FT30 FT32 1 2 2 1 3 3 2,930 8,981 35,755 64,889 100,000 100,000 4,580 24,854 23,450 5,480 4,355 3,650 6,393 4,018 6,100 7,655 5,785 6,745 Carex riparia 5 5 4 5 2 4 0 0 5 4 5,710 4,115 3,775 6,390 4,305 5,975 7,645 7,625 6,765 13,229 4 1 1 5 4 4 13,414 11,210 7 21 10 19 12 21 9 15 6 8 7 10 5 2 2 10 12 8 12 11 15,026 9,335 18,311 17,225 14,292 15,705 13,621 11,445 15,194 20,570 18,056 14,870 19,250 14,665 15,289 20,820 10,513 14,329 8,658 18,221 13,298 14,255 10,398 14,328 15,443 4,782 15,533 18,382 14,413 19,272 9,493 14,725 18,165 Carex spicata agg. Carex strigosa Glyceria fluitans Helleborus viridis Heracleum sphondylium Poa trivialis Polygonatum multiflorum Potentilla reptans Appendix 2-1: plot_I D ALL_ 1 ALL_ 10 ALL_1 00 BB01 5 14 28 BB02 4 8 18 BB03a 4 5 5 BB03 b 7 11 25 BB03c 9 15 29 BB06 2 5 8 BB10 3 4 6 BB20 6 8 10 BB24a 2 6 8 BB24 b 10 14 22 BB33 3 3 6 BB33 b 3 4 5 BB35 3 3 9 BB36 2 5 16 BB41 4 10 17 BC01a 8 12 19 BC01 b 8 14 21 BC02 2 2 3 BC03 8 9 18 BC04a 6 10 19 BC04 b 5 7 12 BC04c 6 14 21 BC05 5 13 22 BC06 7 14 23 BC06 b 5 5 16 BC07 1 3 7 BC17 2 2 11 BC22 6 11 22 BC23 4 7 15 BC25 5 8 17 BT01 4 6 16 BT02 6 11 24 BT05 6 13 16 BT12 5 13 26 BT13 5 7 18 BT18 13 19 23 BT21 8 10 17 BT27 12 21 33 BT38 8 14 26 FB04 4 7 11 FB06 3 9 16 FB09 2 3 4 FB10 1 4 7 FB13 2 5 8 FB15 3 6 12 FB16 2 2 2 FB17 6 7 21 FB19 1 2 8 FC01 4 7 10 FC02 5 10 15 FC03 1 4 7 FC04 2 6 9 FC05 4 6 10 FC06 2 4 7 FC07 2 2 4 FC09 1 3 5 FC13 1 3 9 FC14 11 16 26 FC18 5 13 22 FC19 3 6 14 FC20 6 9 28 FC21 3 4 7 FC22 3 6 12 FT01 3 8 12 FT02 4 6 12 FT03 9 11 15 FT07 4 7 13 FT08 5 5 18 FT09 2 4 12 FT10 6 8 10 FT11 5 8 10 FT12 2 4 5 FT13 2 6 10 FT17 12 19 21 OB01 7 14 22 OB02 2 5 8 OB05 1 3 5 OB06 3 7 11 OB07 6 10 18 OB13 3 5 9 OB17 9 16 23 OB18 4 9 14 OB19 3 7 10 OB22 5 8 13 OB27 9 12 23 OC01 5 8 15 OC09 4 6 14 OC14 10 17 25 OC16 2 5 13 OC20 8 14 16 OC22 5 5 11 OC24 13 21 26 OC25 14 19 25 OC26 8 10 16 OC27 5 10 17 OC29 3 9 15 OC30 11 15 20 OT02 5 9 15 OT04 5 10 15 OT05 4 5 18 OT07 3 13 21 OT09 7 9 13 OT14 4 11 21 OT15 6 11 17 OT20 8 15 18 OT24 3 7 16 OT28 3 4 8 OT30 1 3 8 FG_ FG_ 10 FG_1 00 FG_10 00 FG_ 5 2 4 16 17 12 20 18 2,760 37 33 38 24 26 26 3778,748 274643,18 44 2 43 1 50 1 33 1 32 0 33 2 1 1 1660,166 96777,190 87,78 3 4 5 3 2 2 76 59,46 4 00 451,539 12587,590 252,0 00 3027,523 558370,24 252,0 00 460,764 10711,811 194,0 00 486,264 9569,052 252,0 3 3 938,547 23879,401 12,00 0 2514,068 217895,64 162,5 3 2,930 5,783 0 8,981 4,213 2 35,755 3,700 4 64,889 6,447 0 100,000 4,080 0 100,000 6,067 0 4,580 7,630 1 24,854 6,527 0 23,450 6,740 2,930 B 2,670 8,981 B 1,947 35,755 B 3,967 95,385 B 4,000 100 B 3,985 100 B 4,186 4,580 B 3,358 24,854 B 3,096 23,450 B FG FG FG FG FS FG FG FS FG ALL_10 00 ALL_ T FS_ 1 FS_1 0 FS_10 9 7 7 4 2 3 0 6,89 0 4,03 0 3,86 0 4,20 0 3,23 0 3,27 0 6,11 0 6,04 13,208 10,893 12 14 9 11 10 17 7 9 6 9 9 13 7 0 13,98 7 25,8 50 19,64 27,4 0 90 18,16 7 9,00 0 12,83 10,9 7 0 14,34 4 5,05 0 13,96 5,83 0 0 16,85 1 12,9 30 20,21 16,3 14,482 9,370 17,970 14,667 14,188 12,567 14,143 17,327 4,045 18,203 18,286 15,190 18,748 11,683 14,886 19,527 BB SF BB SF BB SF FB NF FB NF FB NF OB HF OB HF OB HF 0 FS_10 00 FS_ T 48 62 0 4 7 11 16 33 41 0 3 8 10 17 8 13 0 0 0 1 1 48 59 2 2 3 7 9 36 51 1 4 8 10 16 12 17 0 0 0 0 0 11 15 0 0 1 1 2 26 34 0 1 2 4 5 25 31 0 0 0 2 2 38 52 1 2 5 6 8 10 13 0 0 0 2 2 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 15 18 0 0 0 2 2 30 35 0 0 4 10 11 40 50 2 2 5 12 14 29 41 3 4 6 8 9 31 45 3 6 11 13 16 12 14 1 1 1 4 6 34 43 4 4 6 11 13 38 48 3 6 8 14 17 19 26 2 2 3 7 9 33 47 0 2 4 6 7 36 49 0 0 5 9 11 44 58 2 5 9 17 19 26 31 3 3 8 10 14 11 14 1 1 1 2 4 28 30 1 1 2 4 4 37 48 1 2 6 11 13 26 33 0 1 5 9 14 43 51 0 0 5 13 16 27 33 1 1 4 7 10 49 60 2 5 6 13 16 21 34 2 5 6 6 9 43 56 1 2 9 14 22 28 35 1 1 5 6 8 57 76 2 5 7 15 19 36 46 4 4 6 12 13 50 71 2 5 7 10 19 44 58 1 2 6 9 14 18 25 0 0 1 3 4 28 37 1 2 5 11 14 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 17 21 0 0 1 5 5 21 26 1 1 2 6 6 22 28 0 0 2 7 7 6 8 0 0 0 2 3 42 49 0 1 6 12 13 14 16 0 0 1 3 4 19 26 0 1 2 5 6 31 41 1 4 5 11 13 19 23 0 0 1 7 7 18 24 0 0 1 5 5 14 20 0 0 1 5 6 16 20 0 0 0 5 6 16 18 1 1 1 3 4 11 14 0 0 0 2 4 22 25 0 0 1 8 8 36 52 3 5 11 12 14 39 52 1 3 4 12 16 32 38 0 1 2 8 9 47 56 3 3 10 13 15 24 28 1 1 2 10 13 17 23 1 2 6 7 9 21 29 1 1 1 4 5 20 26 0 0 1 6 9 23 34 2 2 3 5 6 30 37 1 1 2 10 12 29 34 0 0 7 8 11 23 27 0 0 3 6 8 14 22 0 2 3 4 7 23 31 0 0 0 6 7 21 25 0 0 1 5 7 17 23 0 0 3 3 6 29 48 4 7 7 9 14 31 45 4 7 11 14 17 14 19 0 0 1 1 4 6 9 0 1 2 3 4 20 27 0 1 2 5 8 23 33 0 1 2 4 6 19 24 0 1 2 2 8 30 46 2 3 3 5 8 22 31 0 0 1 2 4 22 29 1 1 2 2 2 22 30 1 1 1 2 4 33 45 1 2 4 7 11 20 28 2 3 6 7 8 22 28 1 1 1 2 2 32 49 2 4 7 9 9 26 31 1 1 5 9 13 21 35 2 6 7 8 12 14 19 2 2 3 4 5 33 54 6 10 14 17 18 34 53 4 5 6 7 11 36 46 3 5 7 11 12 26 36 3 5 9 11 15 29 38 1 4 6 10 14 34 49 5 7 9 15 18 24 33 1 2 5 7 10 27 37 2 5 7 11 14 28 33 1 1 1 3 5 33 46 0 2 4 6 8 33 42 2 2 3 12 13 31 42 1 4 6 13 17 27 38 0 2 2 4 10 28 43 2 3 3 7 12 30 37 1 1 4 5 7 18 22 1 1 1 3 6 24 27 0 1 2 3 3 T Shape_len gth Area Age pH_ 1 C:N 1 0 3 60 5 00 0 3 70 00 0 8 0 9 41 0 6 50 52,889 5,640 11,464 4,335 3 52,889 5,740 11,241 13,010 100,000 5,095 13,119 16,720 0 100,000 5,030 13,104 15,513 52,718 4,010 16,785 5,870 0 52,718 3,850 17,815 5,827 5,813 11,750 18,298 2,833 52,889 B BB SF 5,208 12,824 15,628 3,561 100 B FB NF 3,853 17,354 6,820 3,679 5,254 C OC HF Carex sylvatica FS Holcus lanatus FG Potentilla sterilis FG P_1 1 3 15 17 567,870 17301,729 96,55 3,87 15,96 2,49 2 7 15 20 2681,349 378955,89 252,0 4,39 14,03 8,72 1 4 11 15 300,254 5513,042 252,0 4,00 13,35 12,2 0 1 7 8 674,371 27255,856 51,73 5,60 12,39 4,07 37,101 3,770 12,187 3,455 3 37,101 3,817 12,312 4,913 100,000 7,400 21,409 30,905 4 100,000 7,417 21,511 27,947 33,165 6,175 17,274 19,640 0 33,165 6,393 16,944 18,223 3,758 12,293 4,405 2,491 37,101 B BB SF 7,295 20,627 24,505 4,140 100 B FB NF 6,505 17,061 17,135 3,512 33,165 C OC HF Chaerophyllum temulum FG Holcus mollis FG Primula elatior FS _1 3 8 17 21 936,108 23005,467 45,00 6 5,42 0 12,39 4 13,3 90 2 5 11 15 1670,460 70517,761 66,54 5 4,30 0 16,94 4 11,0 8 0 7 0 4 8 11 17 573,831 11487,773 137,2 65 4,59 0 13,59 6 10,5 00 3 5 9 14 277,709 4801,068 59,02 4,70 11,60 64,5 2 00 0 6 0 1 4 8 11 3833,931 332834,10 8 252,0 00 3,98 0 15,47 1 8,22 0 1 4 7 11 1850,049 121093,45 252,0 5,06 15,22 4,87 00 0 7 40 1 4 9 13 405,256 4592,874 252,0 00 3,42 0 13,85 5 2,76 0 2 4 8 14 3458,579 415121,55 186,8 3,89 15,16 11,0 0 0 3 0 1 2 4 7 1634,487 64491,096 58,00 2 4,26 0 15,87 5 29,361 3,240 23,980 14,040 2 29,361 3,243 23,131 16,580 97,745 3,640 14,750 10,620 5 97,745 3,727 14,814 9,673 20,067 3,760 16,979 29,095 5 20,067 3,810 16,625 29,810 3,250 22,576 22,858 1,625 29,361 B BB SF 3,680 15,051 8,423 3,889 97,745 B FB NF 3,900 15,725 25,918 2,787 20,067 C OC HF Chrysosplenium alternifolium FG Hyacinthoides non-scripta FS Primula veris FG 4,53 23,458 3,290 19,567 21,005 5 23,458 3,297 19,725 17,950 91,869 3,840 18,135 9,380 3 91,869 3,837 18,061 7,980 12,010 3,575 13,509 14,585 0 12,010 3,503 13,699 10,127 3,320 19,429 18,810 3,375 23,458 B BB SF 3,895 17,711 8,415 3,422 91,869 B FB NF 3,643 13,256 8,280 4,244 12,010 C OC HF Chrysosplenium oppositifolium FG Hypericum hirsutum FG Prunella vulgaris FG 0 2 3 13 18 1463,382 45647,826 56,81 7,64 22,62 28,009 7,615 12,962 14,430 0 28,009 7,583 13,786 15,087 85,710 4,235 12,707 7,455 0 85,710 4,200 13,123 7,293 20,969 7,895 18,244 12,780 5 20,969 7,823 18,091 15,247 7,615 14,462 15,523 3,375 28,009 B BB SF 4,155 13,739 7,343 3,987 85,710 C FC NF 7,818 17,587 14,748 3,115 20,969 C OC HF Circaea lutetiana FG Hypericum perforatum FG Pteridium aquilinum FG 52,2 20 2 2 3 7 10402,811 622036,91 5 252,0 00 4,05 0 19,64 3 6 0 0 50 0 00 0 5 0 7 23 0 5 80 7 0 8 70 56,700 3,350 19,020 16,295 0 56,700 3,287 19,229 12,420 87,986 4,350 15,113 9,195 0 87,986 4,330 16,425 16,487 1,781 5,850 13,439 9,900 2 1,781 5,903 13,569 11,340 3,333 19,047 10,193 1,749 56,700 B BB SF 4,213 16,294 13,405 3,841 87,986 C FC NF 6,010 13,961 10,850 3,330 1,781 C OC HF Cirsium oleraceum FG Hypericum pulchrum FS Ranunculus auricomus FG 10,1 1 2 18 20 1248,046 35904,882 59,46 3,35 17,30 6,93 1 4 4 8 1855,421 94850,314 252,0 3,62 19,73 7,74 0 0 1 1 810,386 25418,578 110,0 3,82 16,43 2,25 1 5 10 16 1933,382 130973,60 124,2 7,78 17,44 9,69 41,828 5,395 9,131 45,590 0 41,828 5,300 9,077 33,773 98,621 4,135 13,948 10,270 0 98,621 4,060 14,630 11,777 13,983 6,645 30,551 14,895 2 13,983 6,703 25,845 18,427 5,258 9,340 29,283 2,974 41,828 B BB SF 4,010 14,949 12,083 4,206 98,621 C FC NF 6,765 24,821 18,388 2,653 13,983 C OC HF Cirsium palustre FG Inula conyzae FG Ranunculus ficaria FG 40 8 18 32 44 10402,811 622036,91 5 252,0 00 5,26 0 11,41 2 3,26 0 6 10 14 24 10402,811 622036,91 5 252,0 00 3,84 0 12,29 6 3,01 4 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 573,717 15224,728 45,63 4 7,26 0 13,01 4 15,8 10 1 10 21 23 2606,511 110600,66 41,34 4,10 12,85 5,64 00 0 5 0 1 4 6 9 1512,364 83368,508 252,0 00 3,85 0 15,72 6 12,8 60 0 2 9 10 1217,043 69125,921 252,0 4,92 15,43 18,4 93 0 5 0 0 1 1 1 1829,103 157564,24 4 190,5 22 3,64 0 14,44 0 2,60 0 0 1 5 5 674,825 28449,481 92,75 3,71 12,20 2,35 1 58 0 2 0 3 3 3 9 1624,114 51565,242 55,61 3 5,94 0 22,69 6 97,072 3,765 13,320 14,445 0 97,072 3,740 13,081 16,577 86,379 4,695 15,703 4,740 0 86,379 4,477 15,181 4,273 7,458 6,115 19,053 23,145 4 7,458 6,327 18,451 23,270 3,745 13,142 15,963 1,781 97,072 B BB SF 4,435 15,252 3,880 3,886 86,379 C FC NF 6,395 17,531 24,423 4,052 7,458 C OC HF Convallaria majalis FS Iris pseudacorus FG Ranunculus repens FG 8,77 83,535 3,450 14,641 6,425 0 83,535 3,443 14,068 9,200 100,000 3,745 18,212 6,360 0 100,000 3,880 18,262 7,350 3,990 5,930 14,940 14,980 3 3,990 6,040 15,660 16,340 3,408 13,974 11,378 2,269 83,535 B BB SF 3,845 18,628 8,108 3,679 100,000 C FC NF 6,143 16,577 15,930 3,145 3,990 C OC HF Cynosurus cristatus FG Juncus conglomeratus FG Rubus fructicosus agg. FG 0 4 6 9 19 1989,367 76424,603 153,8 7,73 21,18 16,033 2,960 17,942 5,425 2 16,033 2,990 17,658 13,767 88,842 3,700 16,071 12,305 0 88,842 3,767 15,875 10,967 4,204 6,330 16,052 17,600 0 4,204 6,450 18,737 15,710 2,993 17,805 13,063 2,470 16,033 B BB SF 3,733 16,086 11,100 3,741 88,842 C FC NF 6,538 18,293 15,658 3,124 4,204 C OC HF Dactylis glomerata FG Juncus effusus FG Rubus idaeus FG 19,3 0 3 5 5 9 1005,764 54833,902 119,8 08 3,20 0 21,61 3 1 2 0 4 0 00 0 2 90 1 0 0 0 95 0 6 40 28,742 3,165 11,294 3,735 0 28,742 3,353 11,030 4,607 94,634 4,580 14,780 13,690 0 94,634 4,617 14,654 13,070 1,746 5,640 13,188 9,425 2 1,746 5,470 13,416 11,177 3,518 11,536 4,958 2,004 28,742 B BB SF 4,530 14,337 11,905 3,769 94,634 C FC NF 5,340 13,394 10,853 3,450 1,746 C OC HF Dactylorhiza maculata FG Lamium galeobdolon FS Rumex acetosa FG 17,5 3 4 5 9 386,706 10200,180 32,59 5,14 13,73 19,4 1 1 4 6 1809,242 54680,377 252,0 3,57 13,77 8,30 1 2 3 6 2164,625 108283,82 57,58 4,11 13,69 1,67 0 0 7 8 1100,139 40231,507 133,6 3,62 12,11 10,3 86,371 4,575 12,022 3,695 3 86,371 4,677 12,069 6,897 100,000 3,580 13,782 9,665 0 100,000 3,580 13,914 10,103 26,165 3,490 13,357 2,025 2 26,165 3,420 13,786 4,027 4,830 12,152 7,528 2,602 86,371 B BB SF 3,575 15,221 9,598 4,333 100 C FC NF 3,385 13,786 3,278 2,000 26,165 C OC HF Deschampsia cespitosa FG Lapsana communis FG Rumex acetosella FG 50 1 1 3 5 1957,018 85353,350 41,82 9 3,40 0 19,66 7 18,6 90 3 4 14 20 9715,498 397754,30 8 32,25 0 7,58 0 12,64 6 14,6 0 0 6 30 1 1 6 8 3169,420 130438,82 2 100,0 90 4,78 0 13,28 6 6,58 0 0 6 16 16 689,143 22762,067 47,91 6,48 12,37 15,9 00 0 8 0 1 2 6 8 1015,430 44727,687 252,0 00 3,20 0 15,38 5 9,29 0 4 7 14 23 570,655 12950,390 194,0 4,24 19,80 3,52 9 4 0 7 0 0 1 2 3 455,251 12907,311 71,84 7 4,19 0 14,28 1 2,01 0 2 6 7 13 1307,200 38412,656 59,91 3,71 12,12 2,72 25 0 8 30 0 1 5 7 1293,276 33820,271 120,9 30 6,20 0 11,68 1 30,083 5,150 23,379 7,645 4 30,083 5,273 22,624 7,637 100,000 3,190 15,154 7,655 0 100,000 3,113 15,505 11,337 82,647 6,335 17,258 14,535 0 82,647 6,463 18,381 13,733 5,320 22,103 8,815 3,367 30,083 C BC SF 3,088 16,145 11,485 4,276 100 C FC NF 6,505 18,461 14,695 3,675 16,365 T OT HF Deschampsia flexuosa FG Listera ovata FG Rumex obtusifolius FG 19,7 27,835 3,395 19,231 13,335 0 27,835 3,460 19,384 9,673 100,000 4,300 18,233 4,430 0 100,000 4,237 16,939 4,147 5,289 6,175 20,887 24,205 0 5,289 6,253 21,098 20,000 3,655 19,162 7,860 3,434 27,835 C BC SF 4,215 16,723 4,305 4,118 100 C FC NF 6,365 21,363 18,488 3,013 5,289 T OT HF Digitalis purpurea FS Luzula forsteri FS Rumex sanguineus FG 90 0 0 5 7 770,894 25627,179 54,73 5,95 20,94 12,602 3,330 12,787 5,525 0 12,602 3,300 13,606 5,460 100,000 3,550 16,526 3,015 0 100,000 3,493 16,094 3,057 0,839 5,485 11,442 5,170 0 0,839 5,610 11,264 5,970 3,450 14,265 5,690 4,293 12,602 C BC SF 3,523 15,889 4,093 4,425 100 C FC NF 5,705 11,233 5,680 3,509 0,839 T OT HF Dryopteris affinis FS Luzula multiflora FG Sanicula europaea FS 23,1 90 4 5 10 15 3778,748 274643,18 1 252,0 00 3,43 0 20,08 4 2 0 5 00 00 0 0 0 9 0 5 0 4 0 2 20 16,844 4,500 18,644 4,790 0 16,844 4,373 18,886 5,203 100,000 3,690 14,642 7,650 5 100,000 3,533 14,988 8,750 62,793 4,305 15,524 5,385 3 62,793 4,383 14,476 5,557 4,345 18,699 5,185 3,160 16,844 C BC SF 3,505 15,324 7,873 3,596 100 C FC NF 4,358 14,324 6,053 3,837 6,235 T OT HF Dryopteris affinis FS Luzula pilosa FS Scrophularia auriculata FG 18,0 3 7 13 18 572,884 15957,608 50,22 5,26 12,61 9,27 2 15 21 30 345,776 6915,987 252,0 3,59 16,62 2,97 1 6 7 11 507,328 14634,105 81,17 4,16 12,94 6,55 41,593 4,180 8,984 6,765 5 41,593 4,147 8,934 6,053 100,000 3,500 15,708 6,260 0 100,000 3,483 16,376 10,010 12,122 7,645 21,913 36,780 0 12,122 7,653 21,620 30,777 4,180 9,198 6,198 2,888 41,593 C BC SF 3,475 16,013 10,285 3,743 100 C FC NF 7,688 21,374 28,868 3,528 12,122 T OT HF Dryopteris carthusiana FG Lysimachia nemorum FG Scrophularia nodosa FG 80 11 16 27 47 7222,085 592301,16 5 252,0 00 5,50 0 9,824 17,5 10 2 5 6 10 12623,214 1746113,7 14 160,9 57 3,86 0 12,37 5 21,0 6 0 5 0 4 9 15 21 581,820 22370,931 57,72 7 6,77 0 12,41 3 14,5 20 5 10 21 29 996,861 56159,120 111,9 5,36 13,11 7,28 00 0 5 0 2 6 15 19 285,423 5079,420 252,0 00 3,89 0 14,17 9 8,04 0 2 13 25 30 309,888 5218,403 252,0 3,48 17,14 5,88 5 0 1 0 1 3 8 12 829,365 26516,134 67,59 0 7,52 0 18,42 9 29,747 3,185 13,339 16,755 1 29,747 3,250 13,872 13,103 100,000 3,695 14,712 6,015 2 100,000 3,727 14,425 5,463 7,038 7,775 16,796 9,430 4 7,038 7,767 16,503 9,833 3,313 13,991 10,475 2,747 29,747 C BC SF 3,713 14,717 5,860 3,404 100 C FC NF 7,780 17,104 10,090 3,717 7,038 T OT HF Dryopteris dilatata FG Lysimachia vulgaris FG Senecio ovatus FS 16,6 40,508 6,780 22,336 11,010 0 40,508 6,840 19,976 12,157 100,000 3,730 16,441 6,290 0 100,000 3,717 16,864 6,903 12,925 6,120 22,830 9,780 4 12,925 6,250 23,219 9,127 6,855 20,155 13,033 3,622 40,508 C BC SF 3,763 16,701 7,890 5,000 100 C FC NF 6,308 22,184 15,210 4,215 12,925 T OT HF Dryopteris filix-mas FS Lythrum salicaria FG Silene dioica FG 40 0 2 5 6 790,905 20628,614 86,68 7,54 16,79 3,975 4,040 11,181 5,275 3 3,975 3,953 11,272 5,490 95,385 3,915 14,838 12,140 5 95,385 3,877 15,127 12,350 13,667 7,805 22,514 19,190 0 13,667 7,793 21,988 19,160 3,990 11,000 4,968 2,951 3,975 C BC SF 3,863 15,438 14,130 4,164 95,385 T FT NF 7,765 21,039 19,485 3,682 13,667 T OT HF Elymus caninus FS Melampyrum pratense FG Solanum dulcamara FG 14,9 90 3 3 4 9 12623,214 1746113,7 14 41,82 9 3,45 0 16,71 4 07 0 8 0 00 0 7 0 6 0 5 10 44,433 3,765 14,333 9,785 0 44,433 3,730 14,259 8,940 100,000 4,065 15,432 5,685 5 100,000 4,137 15,672 6,117 13,339 3,550 12,243 9,295 5 13,339 3,673 12,364 8,710 3,800 14,119 7,488 4,110 44,433 C BC SF 4,095 15,548 6,535 4,151 100 T FT NF 4,280 12,495 11,183 4,386 13,339 T OT HF Elymus sp FG Melica uniflora FS Solidago virgaurea FG 8,86 3 6 11 16 1270,297 46951,232 58,53 4,39 12,63 6,90 1 2 8 10 341,638 5927,069 252,0 3,82 13,93 7,76 3 9 15 22 480,242 13705,981 130,9 6,77 15,27 23,1 26,348 7,020 14,127 25,460 0 26,348 6,980 13,630 21,500 94,084 4,435 14,636 11,525 0 94,084 4,463 14,313 12,337 6,408 6,295 12,479 21,065 5 6,408 6,347 12,264 20,140 6,658 13,476 17,598 4,310 26,348 C BC SF 4,373 14,341 11,763 4,823 94,084 T FT NF 6,423 12,645 20,378 3,740 6,408 T OT HF Epilobium hirsutum FG Mercurialis perennis FS Sonchus asper FG 0 2 4 6 10 829,221 36655,646 144,5 95 2,92 0 18,41 2 6,81 0 1 6 10 12 1497,232 81176,142 54,89 2 3,12 0 11,24 2 2,64 4 0 2 0 7 9 29 41 548,077 18166,494 51,57 3 4,83 0 14,25 6 9,99 0 3 4 9 15 1596,532 41692,481 37,84 4,61 11,44 13,6 00 0 1 0 1 4 6 10 268,493 3807,435 252,0 00 3,70 0 16,09 7 4,86 0 2 6 10 18 300,254 20726,633 252,0 3,88 14,18 13,8 74 0 9 40 1 4 5 8 1780,830 204807,56 5 135,2 39 4,32 0 16,68 8 38,023 3,860 20,551 18,675 4 38,023 4,643 19,981 13,443 100,000 3,165 16,405 5,385 0 100,000 3,190 16,034 4,923 9,236 6,145 21,806 23,300 3 9,236 6,323 22,425 22,290 4,548 19,385 11,230 4,089 38,023 C BC SF 3,210 15,852 4,698 5,000 100 T FT NF 6,453 23,553 21,875 3,132 9,236 T OT HF Epilobium montanum FG Milium effusum FS Sonchus oleraceus FG 6,45 14,438 3,955 15,857 5,780 3 14,438 3,937 15,728 4,910 99,406 4,135 16,429 5,740 5 99,406 4,023 16,131 5,230 4,640 15,351 4,910 4,019 14,438 C BC SF 3,998 16,106 5,580 4,389 99,406 T FT NF Epilobium parviflorum FG Moehringia trinervia FS Stachys alpina FS 0 0 4 5 5 488,064 14646,971 12,00 5,97 17,37 7,179 5,010 13,129 10,640 0 7,179 5,287 12,957 10,373 100,000 4,085 14,429 3,290 0 100,000 4,103 14,405 3,983 5,260 12,914 10,288 2,866 7,179 C BC SF 4,108 14,883 3,930 3,181 100 T FT NF Epilobium sp FG Molinia caerulea FG Stachys sylvatica FS 27,2 0 2 4 17 21 4687,373 424813,87 5 137,1 05 4,53 0 12,09 1 4 0 0 00 00 0 8 70 0 0 7 20 6,386 4,660 11,718 70,255 2 6,386 4,693 11,573 74,607 100,000 4,025 14,383 8,955 0 100,000 4,080 14,318 10,020 4,943 11,245 84,635 2,990 6,386 C BC SF 4,058 14,683 10,143 3,846 100 T FT NF Epilobium tetragonum FG Myosotis scorpioides FG Stellaria alsine FG 2,83 12 19 26 45 438,312 12541,463 45,93 4,42 12,98 14,0 3 6 8 15 3230,628 223048,84 252,0 4,10 15,72 5,61 4 10 13 25 345,920 6588,603 42,72 3,69 17,16 32,9 7,556 3,335 17,127 3,770 5 7,556 3,453 16,341 3,330 97,074 3,805 13,344 4,100 0 97,074 3,710 13,827 4,543 3,548 15,841 4,635 3,329 7,556 C BC SF 3,678 14,577 5,178 4,450 97,074 T FT NF Epipactis helleborine FG Narcissus pseudonarcissus FG Stellaria holostea FS 0 4 5 8 15 3933,526 365017,00 7 41,82 9 5,27 0 21,16 7 8,67 0 4 5 11 17 3933,526 365017,00 7 45,00 6 3,62 0 19,41 9 15,4 8 0 2 40 6 12 23 32 403,045 9747,391 49,96 7 5,18 0 13,71 9 2,94 0 2 3 4 7 3819,003 457147,75 238,8 5,00 11,04 3,15 3 00 0 2 0 4 7 11 19 2037,743 193153,56 6 252,0 00 4,85 0 14,63 6 10,7 20 1 5 12 15 1006,706 38147,170 252,0 3,19 16,16 7,78 2 0 7 50 1 3 7 11 5428,056 601684,48 9 124,0 49 3,50 0 13,24 1 31,369 7,110 13,055 14,340 5 31,369 7,077 13,406 15,300 98,757 3,635 12,679 4,415 0 98,757 3,537 13,306 3,450 6,925 13,249 13,938 3,449 31,369 T BT SF 3,553 13,252 2,985 2,368 98,757 T FT NF Equisetum fluviatile FG Neottia nidus-avis FS Tamus communis FS 18,2 26,844 4,105 13,181 6,065 5 26,844 4,127 13,417 5,977 87,141 3,800 14,654 5,190 1 87,141 3,773 14,500 3,883 4,188 13,556 6,373 3,603 26,844 T BT SF 3,783 14,455 3,690 2,667 87,141 T FT NF Eupatorium cannabinum FG Ophrys insectifera FG Taraxacum officinale agg. FG 20 3 5 6 13 1686,846 74640,520 51,99 7,94 18,05 13,3 5,699 5,135 13,135 16,720 2 5,699 5,123 13,084 16,063 100,000 4,330 11,787 2,280 0 100,000 4,340 11,985 2,147 5,228 13,132 15,883 3,073 5,699 T BT SF 4,345 12,255 2,678 3,096 100 T FT NF Euphorbia amygdaloides FS Orchis purpurea FG Teucrium scorodonia FS 10 1 1 2 4 1313,908 76549,823 155,1 29 3,26 0 12,38 4 2 82 0 2 0 00 0 7 0 7 0 0 20 15,519 4,785 13,597 6,475 0 15,519 4,783 13,475 6,053 90,879 3,195 14,535 4,785 4 90,879 3,213 14,119 4,260 5,078 13,317 8,260 3,748 15,519 T BT SF 3,218 13,993 4,103 1,995 90,879 T FT NF Festuca gigantea FG Origanum vulgare FG Torilis japonica FG 5,60 5 6 10 16 977,612 46743,984 252,0 4,28 12,67 5,29 3 7 13 19 757,919 34598,046 226,0 4,12 15,85 6,06 1 3 2 4 971,612 35255,846 59,78 5,55 13,54 4,10 7,313 6,600 12,438 16,595 0 7,313 6,623 12,259 20,457 100,000 3,190 14,306 3,850 0 100,000 3,243 14,027 3,197 6,418 12,131 18,648 2,766 7,313 T BT SF 3,255 13,885 3,605 3,370 6,847 T FT NF Festuca lemanii FG Ornithogalum umbellatum FG Urtica dioica FG 0 1 3 10 12 2063,181 109677,37 2 84,47 0 4,47 0 19,70 4 3,79 0 1 3 6 7 3778,748 274643,18 1 47,91 2 3,92 0 9,670 5,66 00 0 7 0 2 3 3 6 1135,345 79681,908 202,6 09 6,21 0 14,89 3 19,3 30 2 2 5 8 1445,221 59124,950 237,2 4,67 14,00 13,5 54 0 0 0 0 5 12 13 726,300 26291,064 252,0 00 4,03 0 14,00 0 3,55 0 4 5 8 16 761,941 20726,633 252,0 4,10 15,73 8,54 7 0 5 0 5 6 8 19 1864,193 35255,846 37,14 4 6,51 0 32,59 1 8,204 5,500 12,304 11,115 5 8,204 5,317 11,989 9,420 100,000 3,800 14,179 14,910 4 100,000 3,633 13,880 11,343 5,475 11,932 15,035 4,186 8,204 T BT SF 3,588 13,792 9,353 3,294 4,204 T FT NF Filipendula ulmaria FG Osmunda regalis FG Vaccinium myrtillus FG 13,0 41,550 6,855 12,276 13,980 5 41,550 7,147 12,389 14,170 100,000 3,480 14,058 3,650 3 100,000 3,483 14,019 3,260 7,323 14,509 14,808 4,505 41,550 T BT SF 3,500 14,054 3,473 3,524 14,540 T FT NF Fragaria vesca FG Oxalis acetosella FS Valeriana repens FG 50 5 9 12 24 1163,305 43044,695 53,39 5,90 19,84 22,3 39,336 5,780 14,333 8,435 4 39,336 5,447 14,065 8,290 100,000 3,810 14,620 10,845 0 100,000 3,873 14,357 15,917 5,153 13,729 7,448 3,933 39,336 T BT SF 3,848 14,768 14,685 3,436 8,684 B OB HF Galanthus nivalis FG Paris quadrifolia FS Veronica chamaedrys FG 0 1 1 2 4 6001,851 331934,28 2 54,89 2 3,23 0 13,34 5 37 0 0 10 00 0 9 0 8 0 1 20 11,222 4,245 13,152 10,340 1 11,222 4,193 13,571 11,050 73,478 3,890 15,640 2,800 0 73,478 3,847 15,430 3,417 4,118 13,765 12,630 3,097 11,222 T BT SF 3,850 15,183 3,138 3,278 13,678 B OB HF Galeopsis tetrahit FG Persicaria hydropiper FG Veronica hederifolia FG 27,6 1 1 7 9 779,599 34210,352 243,4 5,78 14,42 16,9 2 5 10 16 697,165 20492,058 252,0 3,84 13,77 4,64 1 3 10 12 1264,017 32656,312 56,39 5,82 13,88 12,3 11,180 4,495 14,653 8,870 0 11,180 4,483 14,956 9,690 100,000 3,575 14,255 2,065 4 100,000 3,560 14,235 2,300 4,390 14,829 10,628 3,181 11,180 T BT SF 3,540 13,795 2,568 3,245 16,525 B OB HF Galium aparine FG Phragmites australis FG Veronica montana FG 60 2 4 9 12 6001,851 331934,28 2 45,63 4 6,74 0 22,92 9 11,0 60 3 5 13 17 696,651 16718,939 12,00 0 4,50 0 11,84 3 5,14 67 0 7 00 3 4 7 11 561,078 18780,887 225,1 15 5,02 0 13,23 3 16,2 30 1 1 2 4 674,647 24746,868 252,0 7,21 19,05 37,3 00 0 8 0 2 3 13 18 675,697 19674,039 252,0 00 3,81 0 12,32 0 4,91 0 0 3 7 9 573,607 19189,096 194,0 3,98 14,18 3,53 1 0 6 70 1 2 5 7 2528,279 131643,54 6 129,8 85 6,19 0 14,58 3 7,993 4,755 11,792 20,415 0 7,993 4,790 11,950 21,150 99,701 3,685 11,977 3,930 0 99,701 3,713 12,378 4,927 4,953 12,041 20,690 4,155 7,993 T BT SF 3,680 12,235 4,518 2,197 9,748 B OB HF Galium odoratum FS Phyteuma nigrum FG Veronica officinalis FG 18,7 2,885 4,345 12,920 27,040 5 2,885 4,230 13,104 28,543 100,000 4,050 13,548 2,045 2 100,000 4,050 13,967 2,237 4,360 12,899 23,975 3,295 2,885 T BT SF 3,983 14,367 2,170 3,361 1,746 B OB HF Galium palustre FG Platanthera bifolia FG Vicia sepium FG 40 0 2 6 7 887,119 41780,629 43,54 5,64 12,62 10,9 7,176 4,635 13,400 4,890 0 7,176 4,403 12,986 6,437 100,000 4,090 14,050 2,285 0 100,000 4,053 14,370 2,503 4,298 12,967 7,423 4,471 7,176 T BT SF 4,103 14,126 3,358 2,818 13,339 B OB HF Geranium robertianum FG Platanthera chlorantha FG Vinca minor FS 0 00 0 8 40 00 0 6 0 1 0 7 40 4,585 5,160 11,130 2,875 0 4,585 5,217 11,304 7,770 100,000 3,805 12,406 2,810 0 100,000 3,850 12,532 3,207 5,338 11,479 7,088 3,578 85,710 B FB NF 3,885 12,500 3,120 3,254 5,289 B OB HF Geum urbanum FG Poa nemoralis FS Vincetoxicum hirundinaria FS	3,6 2,0 2,0 3,8 3,8 3,9 4,5 3,3 3,8 2,8 5,0 3,8 2,4 4,0 1,6 2,0 5,0 3,2 3,1 3,6 3,8 5,0 4,7 4,2 2,2 4,4 3,5 3,0 4,7 2,4 1,7 3,6 3,1 2,5 4,0 3,3 3,0 3,8 2,6 2,4 4,3 3,6 2,7 5,0 2,0 3,8 5,0 3,2 3,3 5,0 3,2 2,0 4,7 3,1 3,4 5,0 3,6 3,8 3,9 0,0 2,8 2,7 4,0 3,6 5,0 3,9 3,6 5,0 3,7 3,8 5,0 5,0 3,0 4,8 4,5 4,5 5,0 3,2 4,4 3,4 3,0 3,0 2,8 3,9 4,2 5,0 3,4 1,7 5,0 2,7 3,8 3,1 4,8 3,8 2,7 4,0 4,4 4,1 5,0 3,3 5,0 4,0 2,7 3,5 4,0 4,2 4,7 2,0 4,7 3,6 4,0 3,2 3,0 2,8

n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) Coeff.

	frag_HF:scale frag_SF:sp_FG 8			-0,0855 0,5837 slope ~ frag * scale	-0,4974 2,9235	0,6189 0,0035 520,14
	frag_SF:scale R2m/R2C 9			-0,1470 slope ~ frag + scale	-0,8554 0,173/0,173	0,3923 513,27
	R2m/R2C				0,0568/0,0568
	(4) slope ~ frag * sp + scale FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) Coeff. t Intercept_NF&FS -0,3575 -1,6487 frag_HF -0,5178 -2,1802 frag_SF -0,6893 -2,9025 sp_FG -0,1910 -0,8044 scale 0,0927 1,3520 (7) slope ~ frag + sp (1) slope ~ frag * scale FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) Coeff. t FGFS ~ FGFS (n = 90) Intercept_NF&FS -0,4608 -3,2851 Coeff. t p frag_HF -0,1435 -0,8350 Intercept_NF&FS -0,1770 -0,8641 0,3875 frag_SF -0,1975 -1,1494 frag_HF -0,2483 -0,8571 0,3914 sp_FG 0,3864 2,7550 frag_SF 0,3582 1,2366 0,2162 R2m/R2C scale 0,1397 1,5254 0,1272 0,0478/0,0478 frag_HF:scale -0,0996 -0,7690 0,4419 frag_HF:sp_FG 0,7487 2,2291 frag_SF:scale -0,2301 -1,7760 0,0757 frag_SF:sp_FG 0,9837 2,9289 (8) slope ~ frag * scale R2m/R2C 0,157/0,157	p 0,0992 0,0292 0,0037 0,4212 p 0,0010 0,4037 0,2504 0,0059 0,1764 0,0258 0,0034
	R2m/R2C					0,103/0,103
					Coeff.	t	p
	Intercept_NF&FS (2) slope ~ frag + scale -0,6079	-2,1936	0,0283
	frag_HF FGFS ~ FGFS (n = 90)				0,0275	0,0701	0,9441
	Intercept_NF&FS frag_HF frag_SF sp_FG frag_SF scale frag_HF:scale Intercept_NF&FS frag_SF:scale frag_HF R2m/R2C frag_SF scale scale R2m/R2C			Coeff. 0,0428 -0,4475 -0,1020 0,0298	Coeff. -0,930 -0,366 -0,469 0,605 0,0965 0,1702 t -0,0855 0,3038 -0,1470 -3,4311 -0,7817 0,0204/0,0204 t -2,430 -0,703 -0,901 1,161 0,2461 1,3730 p -0,4876 0,7613 -0,8385 0,0006 0,4344 0,5603 0,5752 0,369 2,238 0,129/0,129	p 0,015 0,482 0,368 0,8056 0,1698 0,6259 0,4018 0,246 0,025
	frag_HF:sp_FG			0,788 (9) slope ~ frag + scale	1,069	0,285
	frag_SF:sp_FG				1,132	1,536	0,125
	frag_HF:scale frag_SF:scale sp_FG:scale Intercept_NF&FS frag_HF:sp_FG:scale frag_SF frag_HF	1 2	-0,076 -0,110 Candidate Models -0,398 -0,4530 slope ~ frag * scale -0,020 -0,1975 -0,1435	-0,325 -0,472 t -1,708 -2,4015 -0,059 -1,1308 -0,8215	0,745 p AIC 0,637 0,0163 158,9 0,088 0,2582 0,953 0,4114
	frag_SF:sp_FG:scale scale			-0,074 0,0927	-0,224 1,3002	0,822 0,1935
	R2m/R2C R2m/R2C				0,152/0,152 0,0167/0,0167
				(6) slope ~ frag * sp * Candidate Models	AIC
	FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) 1 slope ~ frag +scale * sp	504,349
	2		. Coeff. slope ~ frag + scale + sp	t t	p p	509,86
	Intercept_NF&FS Intercept_NF&FS 3		-0,8117 -0,1720 slope ~ frag * scale + sp	-2,7624 -1,0015	0,0043 0,3066 516,78
	frag_HF frag_HF 4		0,0275 -0,5178 slope ~ frag * sp +scale	0,0715 -2,1762	0,9430 0,0296 505,63
	frag_SF frag_SF 5		0,0965 -0,6893 slope ~ frag * scale * sp	0,2511 -2,8971	0,8017 0,0038 511,77
	sp_FG sp_FG 6	0,1779 -0,1910 slope ~ frag * sp (best model)	1,4067 -0,8029	0,1615 0,4220 501,93
	scale frag_HF:sp_FG 7			0,3864 0,7487 slope ~ frag + sp	2,7549 2,2250	0,0059 0,0261 506,13

(5) slope ~ frag * sp * scale FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (n = 90) & FG ~ FG (n = 90)] (n = 180) FS/FG ~ FS/FG [FS ~ FS (

slope ~ frag +scale (best model) 153,3 Appendix 3-3:

  List of candidate models together with their corresponding AIC values for the three response variables studied. Y corresponds to weed abundance or weed richness or sunflower yield (weight of seeds/stem or height). Weed species richness and total abundance with the difference in soil preparation, soil cover rotation, block and date in the studied 24 plots.

	Symbol M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 August August direct seedling camelina/sunflower E Candidate Model Y~ soil preparation Y~ soil cover rotation Y~ soil preparation + soil cover rotation Y~ soil preparation * soil cover rotation Y~ soil preparation + block Y~ soil cover rotation + block Y~ soil preparation * block Y~ soil cover rotation * block Y~ soil preparation + date Y~ soil cover rotation + date Y~ soil preparation * date Y~ soil cover rotation * date Y~ soil preparation * soil cover rotation + block Y~ soil preparation + soil cover rotation * block Y ~ soil cover rotation + soil preparation * block Y ~ soil preparation + soil cover rotation + date Y ~ soil preparation * soil cover rotation + date Y ~ soil preparation + soil cover rotation * date preparation * date Plantago major direct seedling camelina/sunflower Y ~ soil cover rotation + soil Fallopia convolvulus Fumaria officinalis Galinsoga quadriradiata Galium aparine Kickxia elatine Linaria vulgaris Lolium perenne Matricaria chamomilla Papaver rhoeas Plantago lanceolata August reduced tillage nothing/nothing August reduced tillage nothing/nothing D August direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower September reduced tillage nothing/sunflower August direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower C September reduced tillage nothing/sunflower X August reduced tillage camelina/sunflower September direct seedling nothing/nothing August reduced tillage camelina/sunflower B September direct seedling nothing/nothing W 3 AICabundance AICrichness 113,914 318,209 172,228 153,895 AICweight SF AICheight SF 117,046 328,705 172,137 156,351 106,626 320,127 173,366 154,768 111,133 322,085 195,239 152,646 107,853 318,424 162,256 152,499 108,111 328,919 166,356 158,397 109,224 321,382 161,867 154,088 117,589 113,561 318,572 nd 116,806 329,068 nd 117,011 321,429 nd 116,319 337,116 nd 111,839 116,568 331,256 165,448 157,285 110,224 315,321 162,753 157,923 106,197 320,491 nd nd 110,331 322,448 nd nd 115,49 328,539 nd nd 109,572 323,347 nd nd 1,5 E 3 7 3 0 0,7 0,6 0,3 48,3 21,9 n.d n.d 17,8 9,4 n.d 18,5 D 2 5 2 0 24,5 C 2 5 X 3 4 2 0 3 0 0,2 B 1 6 W 3 11 1 0 0 101,5 August direct seedling nothing/nothing A 1 3 September reduced tillage camelina/sunflower V 2 8 August direct seedling nothing/nothing A 1 September reduced tillage camelina/sunflower V 2 0 0 6,8 July reduced tillage nothing/sunflower X 3 5 September direct seedling nothing/sunflower U 2 September direct seedling nothing/sunflower U 2 0 1 n.d July direct seedling nothing/nothing W 3 September reduced tillage nothing/nothing T 1 4 September reduced tillage nothing/nothing T 1 0 5 1,0 July reduced tillage camelina/sunflower V 2 September direct seedling camelina/sunflower S 1 4 September direct seedling camelina/sunflower S 1 0 8 90,7 July direct seedling nothing/sunflower U 2 September reduced tillage nothing/nothing R 3 7 September reduced tillage nothing/nothing R 3 0 3 19,7 July reduced tillage nothing/nothing T 1 September direct seedling nothing/sunflower Q 3 5 September direct seedling nothing/sunflower Q 3 0 8 44,2 July direct seedling camelina/sunflower S 1 September reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower P 2 3 September reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower P 2 0 5 11,1 July reduced tillage nothing/nothing R 3 4 September direct seedling nothing/nothing O 2 4 September direct seedling nothing/nothing O 2 0 322,299 161,814 153,154 Epilobium tetragonum 4,8 18,2 July direct seedling nothing/sunflower Q 3 September reduced tillage nothing/sunflower N 1 4 September reduced tillage nothing/sunflower N 1 0 5 rotation + block 107,357 320,342 159,327 156,354 Echinochloa crus-galli 10,2 10957,5 July reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower P 2 September direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower M 1 3 September direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower M 1 0 6 Y~ soil preparation + soil cover Coriandrum sativum 39,3 113, July direct seedling nothing/nothing O 2 September reduced tillage camelina/sunflower L 3 4 September reduced tillage camelina/sunflower L 3 0 4 nd Cirsium arvense n.d 10,0 July reduced tillage nothing/sunflower N 1 September direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower K 3 3 September direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower K 3 0 11 nd Lipandra polysperma 8,0 7,6 July direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower M 1 September reduced tillage nothing/sunflower J 2 6 September reduced tillage nothing/sunflower J 2 0 3 nd Chenopodium album 53,5 313,5 July reduced tillage camelina/sunflower L 3 September direct seedling camelina/sunflower I 2 2 September direct seedling camelina/sunflower I 2 0 10 nd Cyanus segetum 14,3 163,0 July direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower K 3 September reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower H 1 9 September reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower H 1 0 6 339,833 163,003 160,991 Alopecurus myosuroides 14,6 Amaranthus retroflexus n.d Anchusa arvensis 0,6 Apera spica-venti 9,5 Artemisia vulgaris 10,4 Atriplex patula 0,3 Avena fatua 17,6 Capsella bursa-pastoris 0,5 July reduced tillage nothing/sunflower J 2 8 September direct seedling nothing/sunflower G 1 2 September direct seedling nothing/sunflower G 1 0 0,5 July direct seedling camelina/sunflower I 2 2 September reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower F 3 7 September reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower F 3 0 13,2 July reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower H 1 7 September direct seedling camelina/sunflower E 3 10 September direct seedling camelina/sunflower E 3 0 4,9 July direct seedling nothing/sunflower G 1 4 September reduced tillage nothing/nothing D 2 5 September reduced tillage nothing/nothing D 2 0 36,9 July reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower F 3 6 September direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower C 2 5 September direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower C 2 0 8,9 July direct seedling camelina/sunflower E 3 6 September reduced tillage camelina/sunflower B 1 6 September reduced tillage camelina/sunflower B 1 0 0,6 July reduced tillage nothing/nothing D 2 9 September direct seedling nothing/nothing A 1 September direct seedling nothing/nothing A 1 0 6 1,8 July direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower C 2 8 August reduced tillage nothing/sunflower X 3 August reduced tillage nothing/sunflower X 3 0 6 5,1 July reduced tillage camelina/sunflower B 1 4 August direct seedling nothing/nothing W 3 August direct seedling nothing/nothing W 3 0 5 (%) July direct seedling nothing/nothing A 1 5 August reduced tillage camelina/sunflower V 2 6 August reduced tillage camelina/sunflower V 2 0 Field soil preparation soil cover rotation plot block Richness Total abundance August direct seedling camelina/sunflower S 1 4 August reduced tillage nothing/nothing T 1 8 August direct seedling nothing/sunflower U 2 August direct seedling nothing/sunflower U 2 0 1 August direct seedling camelina/sunflower S 1 0 August reduced tillage nothing/nothing T 1 0 Appendix 3-5: date August direct seedling nothing/sunflower Q 3 3 August reduced tillage nothing/nothing R 3 6 August direct seedling nothing/sunflower Q 3 Apera spica-Artemisia Atriplex Avena Capsella bursa-Cyanus 0 August reduced tillage nothing/nothing R 3 0 Anchusa arvensis venti vulgaris patula fatua pastoris segetum
	M21 August August August August	Y ~ soil preparation + soil cover rotation + block + date Poa annua reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower F Persicaria lapathifolia direct seedling nothing/sunflower direct seedling nothing/sunflower G	3 1	106,542 29,5 F 3 0 n.d G 1 0	5 1	320,705 38166,6 6287,6	nd	nd
	M22 August August M23 August August August August M24 August August August August M25 August August August August	Y ~ soil preparation * soil cover rotation + block + date Persicaria maculosa reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower H Polygonum aviculare direct seedling camelina/sunflower direct seedling camelina/sunflower I Y ~ soil preparation + soil cover Reseda lutea reduced tillage nothing/sunflower reduced tillage nothing/sunflower J rotation * block + date Rumex crispus direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower K Y ~ soil cover rotation + soil Rumex obtusifolius reduced tillage camelina/sunflower reduced tillage camelina/sunflower L preparation * block + date Y ~ soil preparation + soil cover rotation * date + block Senecio vulgaris direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower direct seedling CC-mix/sunflower M 1 1 2 2 3 3 Silene latifolia reduced tillage nothing/sunflower reduced tillage nothing/sunflower N 1	110,501 n.d H 1 0 n.d I 2 0 115,111 n.d J 2 0 n.d K 3 0 104,931 n.d L 3 0 115,565 0,8 M 1 0 2,4 N 1 0	8 1 5 9 4 2 4	322,662 n.d 7,9 331,619 6,0 n.d 313,664 n.d 328,754 1315,9 4,9	nd nd nd nd	nd nd nd nd
	M26 August August August August	Y ~ soil cover rotation + soil preparation * date + block Sonchus asper direct seedling nothing/nothing direct seedling nothing/nothing O Stellaria media reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower reduced tillage CC-mix/sunflower P	2 2	109,985 4,2 O 2 0 17,2 P 2 0	4 4	323,562 91,6 30,4	nd	nd
			209

6,410,0029

Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We greatly acknowledge the "Clover ME" for funding AA's PhD thesis. We wish to thank R. Saguez, C. Mallet, V. Garcia, L. Bocher-Leroy, G. Ingelaere, F. Bartowiack, C.-E. Bernard, S. Delormel, J. Fatus and J. Demarcq for their contribution to field surveys. This study was part of the METAFOR research project funded by the Conseil Régional de Picardie.

All statistical analysis were performed using the "car", "ggplot2", "gridExtra", "lme4", "Matrix", "MuMIn", "mvabund" , "nlme", "reshape2" and "stats" packages in the R software environment version 3.4.1 (R Core Team 2017).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We greatly acknowledge the "Clover ME" for funding AA's PhD thesis. We would like to thank Emilie Gallet-Moron for her contribution in the mapping and GIS work and her help in organizing Figure 1. This work was performed, in partnership with the SAS PIVERT, within the framework of the French Institute for the Energy Transition (Institut pour la Transition Energétique ITE P.I.V.E.R.T. selected as an Investment for the Future: "Investissements d'Avenir"). This work was supported, as part of the Investments for the Future, by the French Government under the reference ANR-001.

Figure 2-1: Schematic Schematic figure of the expected effect of forest fragmentation (none, intermediate and high) on the shape of the  ~  relationship (AGR) for forest specialists (FS) and generalists (FG). For FS in non-fragmented (NF) systems, we expect proportional sampling patterns (Type I) (i.e. -diversity increases linearly as -diversity increases) to

LIST OF TABLES

 1in the main text) extracted from each of the 270 log-ratio models we ran (see main text for further explanations on the log-ratio models), the  ~  relationship (AGR) was classified into four types (I, II, INT, IND) for each of the three levels of fragmentation we tested (NF: non-fragmented; SF: semi-fragmented; HF: highly-fragmented) and for each of the three possible combinations of AGR we tested: 2-2: Outputs from the best candidate model (see main text for the list of candidate models) for each of the two compiled datasets used to analyze the observed variation in the magnitude of the coefficient estimate or slope parameter of the log() variable (i.e. the response variable) in the log-ratio model (see Equation 1in the main text) of the  ~  relationship (AGR): (1) FS+FG ~ FS+FG (n = 90); (2) FSorFG ~ FSorFG (n = 180). Linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) were used to relate the response variable against fragmentation level (frag: NF, SF, HF), spatial scale (scale: 1, 2, 3, 4), species type (sp: FS vs. FG) and all possible two-way interactions between all three explanatory variables (see the materials and methods section in the main text). Bold values are representing significant (p < 0.05) effects. Grey cells show marginal and conditional R-squared values for each of the three best candidate models. ....... 62 Table 3-1: Coefficient estimates from the best candidate model (see M24 in Appendix 3-3) linking species richness to soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block effect. Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects. The intercept represents the average weed species richness value for block1 in July under direct seedling treatment and under the Camelina / sunflower rotation treatment. Estimates need to be interpreted against the intercept value. Hence, the average weed species richness value for block1 in July under reduced tillage treatment and under the Camelina / sunflower rotation treatment is 1.403+0.631 = 2.034. .... 87 Table 3-2: Output of Type III ANOVA representing the best candidate model (M24 in Appendix 3-3) studying species richness with the change of soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block. Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects. ........................................ 87 Table 3-3: Overall statistics of the best candidate model selected (see M24 in Appendix 3-3 for the model formula) to study the impacts of soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block on weed species abundance (outcomes of the "manyglm" function from the "mvabund" package). Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects across all 40 studied weed species. Coefficient estimates are available at the species level (see Table 4 andAppendix 3-7). ....... 89 Table 3-4: Detailed statistics of the best candidate model selected (see M24 in Appendix 3-3 for the model formula) at the species level to study the impacts of soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block on weed species abundance individually. Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects (A) and their corresponding coefficient (B) across the five affected weed species (see Appendix 3-7 for the complete species abundance analysis). .................... 90 Table 3-5: Coefficient estimates from the best candidate model (see candidate model M13 in Appendix 3-3) linking crop yield, either measured as sunflower height (A) or as the average weight of sunflower seeds per stem (B), to soil preparation, soil cover rotation (only 3 levels here as the nothing / nothing control treatment could not be considered for crop yield) and block effect. Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects. The intercept represents the average crop yield value (height in cm or weight in g) for block1 under the Camelina / sunflower rotation

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

GD and JL conceived the study and the analytical framework; AJ collected the field data; AA TH, JL, CXGL and SW ran the statistical analyses; EGM conducted all GIS analyses. AA, JL and GD led the writing; all co-authors discussed the results, provided feedback and commented on the initial versions of the manuscript.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Appendix 2-1: Data table (raw data) used in the log-ratio model showing the species richness (forest specialists, generalists and total) as well as the value of several covariates at different spatial scales across the 116 studied forest patches.

Article title

Winter cover crops decrease the abundance of weeds while increasing cash-crop yields AUTHOR NAMES AND ADDRESSES ALMOUSSAWI A. 1, 2 , LENOIR J. 1 , SPICHER F. 1 , DUPONT F 1 , CHABRERIE O.

ABSTRACT

In this study, we aim to evaluate the respective and combined effect of soil tillage reduction and winter cover crops (CCs) on both weed species recruitment and sunflower (Helianthus annuus) yields. By controlling the species composition and propagule pressure of weeds, we tested four soil cover rotation treatments with winter CCs (either Camelina sativa or a winter CC-mix of Leguminosae-Brassicaceae) or nothing (control) followed by a sunflower culture or nothing (control) in combination with two soil preparation treatments (reduced tillage vs. direct seedling) in a randomized complete block design with three replicates per treatment. Our experimental field thus comprises 24 subplots (4m × 1m) embedded in the interior of 24 experimental plots (12m × 8m) to avoid possible edge effects. In each subplot, seeds of 40 weed species were sown in May 2017 and seedling emergence was subsequently monitored in mid-July, August and September 2017. The vegetation was also surveyed in early July 2017 to estimate baseline conditions. We used generalized linear models to analyze the effect of soil cover rotation and soil preparation on species richness, abundance (i.e. number of individuals), and sunflower yield. We additionally used linear mixed-effects models to analyze species relative abundance changes with respect to the baseline survey. Our results show that reduced tillage may increase weed species richness under some circumstances, as well as the abundance of two annual species (i.e. Viola arvensis and Fumaria officinalis). Winter CC-mix reduces the abundance of the most dominant weed species (i.e. the exotic grass Echinochloa crus-galli) while increasing the average weight of sunflower seeds per stem. Irrespective of the tillage treatment, we found that C. sativa favors the presence of patrimonial weed species at the expense of noxious species. We conclude that direct seedling associated with winter CC-mix allows controlling weed abundance while increasing cash-crop yields, and thus meets criteria for a sustainable agriculture.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

G.D., F.D, J.L., A.A., and D.C. conceived the research idea as well as the analytical framework; A.A., F.S., B.B., F.D., O.C. and F.D. collected data in the field; A.A., F.S. and J.L. performed all statistical analyses; EGM provided maps and GIS support. A.A., with contributions from G.D., J.L., F.S., F.D., F.D., D.C and O.C., wrote the paper; all authors discussed the results, provided feedback, and commented on the initial version of the manuscript.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Appendix 3-1: Timeline of the different events occurring throughout the course of the experiment to prepare the right conditions for each of the eight studied treatments. Each of the eight treatments is repeated three times (i.e. three blocks).

Appendix 3-2: List of weed species used and sown at each of the 24 plots of the experimental site as well as for the three replicates in the greenhouse (cf. germination test).

Appendix 3-3: List of candidate models together with their corresponding AIC values for the three response variables studied. Y corresponds to weed abundance or weed richness or sunflower yield (weight of seeds/stem or height).

Appendix 3-4: Species germination percentage in the field versus the greenhouse. Extreme values (>100%) in the field are due to the seedbank effect Appendix 3-5: Weed species richness and total abundance with the difference in soil preparation, soil cover rotation, block and date in the studied 24 plots.

Appendix 3-6: Abundance of weed species according to the block (A) and date (B) effects.

Only the most abundant species are presented. This part corresponds to an ongoing experiment that needs further surveys in order to have more advanced results that support publication

ABSTRACT

Hedgerows are linear habitats that may provide optimal conditions for forest plant specialist species to establish if dispersal is not a limitation. Yet, very few forest herbs occur in recent hedgerows, potentially due to the very limited dispersal abilities of forest plants or due to the deteriorated biotic and abiotic conditions within recent hedgerows: strong edge effects due to the non-mature tree canopy leading to a fierce interspecific competition for light with the more generalist species inhabiting the recent hedgerows. By using an experimental approach, we examined whether the absence of forest plant species in hedgerows is due to dispersal or recruitment limitations. On 12 April 2018, we sowed and/or transplanted 17 and 13 forest plant species, respectively, across five hedgerows in northern France. Within each hedgerow, each plant species was sown and/or transplanted in both undisturbed and disturbed (i.e. vegetation removal) plots using a paired design to test for potential recruitment limitation due to competition with the resident vegetation. As a control, the same set of species were sown and/or transplanted on 22 April 2018 across 2 transects in a neighbouring forest patch and using the same paired design with both disturbed and undisturbed plots.

Discussion

In our results, two forest species succeeded to germinate within hedgerows (i.e. Veronica hederifolia & Stellaria holostea), which suggests that both species are limited by their dispersal ability and thus would be able to germinate within hedgerows if dispersal was not a limitation.

This validated H1, at least for these two forest species. In addition, the germination success of Veronica hederifolia and Stellaria holostea appears to be greater in hedgerows than in forest, regardless of the competition level which consequently drops out H3 for these two forest herb species which seem to be unaffected by competition with the resident vegetation. Concerning the transplant experiment, nine out of the thirteen studied forest plant species succeeded to establish in hedgerows, while the other four species (Hycanthoides non-scripta, Anemone nemorosa, , Glechoma hederacea and Veronica hederifolia) showed limited establishment in hedgerows either with or without resident vegetation. This suggests that H4 does not hold for most of the tested species that were able to persist within hedgerows. Noteworthy, we found a significant interaction effect between habitat conditions and competition, suggesting that the transplants of the tested forest herbs tend, in general, to better establish in hedgerows without the resident vegetation. This supports H3 and the general idea that biotic conditions may impede forest herb establishment within hedgerows. [START_REF] Huseyinoglu | Competitive, stress-tolerant and ruderal based classification of some plant species in an Alpine community of the Giresun Mountains in Turkey[END_REF] and [START_REF] Mccarthy | Experimental Studies of Hickory Recruitment in a Wooded Hedgerow and Forest[END_REF] explained that most forest plant species are stress-tolerant, but only species combining both stress tolerance strategy and competitive strategy are encountered in hedgerows. This is also supported by [START_REF] Hermy | An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation[END_REF] who have found that ancient forest species with both stress-tolerant and competitive strategies are more abundant than other forest plant species. Species dispersal ability and immigration process contribute to the abundance of species in hedgerows (Henry Allan [START_REF] Gleason | The Structure and Development of the Plant Association[END_REF]. Several studies explained that forest plant species are very limited by their dispersal abilities [START_REF] Flinn | Recovery of forest plant communities in post-agricultural landscapes[END_REF][START_REF] Jacquemyn | Influence of environmental and spatial variables on regional distribution of forest plant species in a fragmented and changing landscape[END_REF]. This may be due to their relatively large Patch area and patch length were calculated using digitized forest patches in each window (based on recent aerial photographs, all taken after the year 2000). For calculating forest patch historical age, we reconstructed the historical changes in forest cover within the nine studied landscape windows using maps from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. From these maps, all forest patches were digitized, and patch historical age was estimated using the date of the oldest map on which a patch was already a forest. As a given patch may contain a mosaic of fragments with different historical ages, we calculated an area-weighted average of the historical age of all fragments composing a given patch.

Habitat quality within a focal forest patch highly depends on soil and light conditions.

Within each of the 135 quadrats of 1000m 2 , soil samples from the 0-10cm horizon, were collected after litter removal along the diagonal containing the three nested sub-quadrats, i.e. at 0, 2.25, 7.1, and 22.4m from a corner taken at random, so that a total of 1, 2, 3 and 4 soil samples were available for the 1, 10, 100, and 1000m 2 quadrats, respectively. At the lab, each soil sample was dried, sieved and analysed for organic matter content, total nitrogen (N), available phosphorus (Olsen P) and pHwater following AFNOR French norms (X31-109, X31-111, X31-113 and X31-104, respectively). Across all quadrats, soil pH, carbon-nitrogen ratio (C:N) and available P ranges from 2.92 to 7.94 (mean ± standard error: 4.90 ± 1.33), 9.67 to 32.59 (mean ± standard error: 15.12 ± 3.49) and 2.17 to 84.64 mg Olsen-P.kg -1 (mean ± standard error: 12.30 ± 8.90), respectively.

Light availability within the herb layer level was estimated by calculating the community weighted mean values of the shade casting ability index (SCA) of the canopy species for each individual quadrat or sub-quadrat based on the SCA index of each individual species weighted by its abundance within the quadrat or sub-quadrat [START_REF] Verheyen | Driving factors behind the eutrophication signal in understorey plant communities of deciduous temperate forests[END_REF]. The SCA index is Appendix 3-1: Timeline of the different events occurring throughout the course of the experiment to prepare the right conditions for each of the eight studied treatments. Each of the eight treatments is repeated three times (i.e. three blocks). Appendix 3-6: abundance of weed species according to the block (A) and date (B) effects.

Soil preparation

Only most abundant species are presented.

Appendix 3-7: Detailed outputs of the best candidate model selected (see M24 in Appendix 3-3 for the model formula) at the species level to study the impacts of soil preparation, soil cover rotation, date and block on weed species abundance individually (outcomes of the "manyglm" function from the "mvabund" package). Bold values represent significant (p<0.05) effects (A) and their corresponding coefficient estimates (B).

A) Coefficient Table

Al op ec ur us m yo su ro id es Am ar an th us re tro fle xu s An ch us a ar ve ns is Ap er a sp ic a-ve nt i Ar tem isi a vu lg ar is At rip lex pa tu la Av en a fa tu a Ca ps ell a bu rs a-pa sto ris Cy an us se ge tu m Ch en op od iu m al bu m Li pa nd ra po ly sp er m a Ci rs iu m ar ve ns e Co ria nd ru m sa tiv um Ec hi no ch lo a cr us -g al li Ep ilo bi um tet ra go nu m Fa llo pi a co nv ol vu lu s Fu m ar ia of fic in al is Ga lin so ga qu ad rir ad ia ta Ga liu m ap ar in e Ki ck xi a el at in e Li na ria vu lg ar is Lo liu m pe re nn e M at ric ar ia ch am om ill a Pa pa ve r rh oe as Pl an ta go la nc eo la ta Pl an ta go m aj or Po a an nu a Pe rs ica ria la pa th ifo lia Pe rs ica ria m ac ul os a Po ly go nu m av icu la re Re se da lu te a Ru m ex cr isp us Ru m ex ob tu sif ol iu s Se ne cio vu lg ar is Si len e la tif ol ia So nc hu s as pe r St ell ar ia m ed ia Tr ip le ur os pe rm um in od or um Ve ro ni ca pe rs ica Vi ol a ar ve ns is (Intercept)

- 14,82 -22,74 -18,21 -19,65 -2,78 -18,35 -17,85 -14,82 -11,19 0,68 -26,72 -14,82 -18,45 7,63 -1,72 -2,77 -13,61 -10,11 -15,68 -18,21 -14,82 -18,21 0,36 -14,82 -28,15 -17,85 2,42 -13,03 -14,82 -23,14 -17,85 -14,82 -14,82 -5,58 -20,73 -15,11 -20,75 -14,82 -24,95 -0,12 block2 0 0 0 0 -0,6 0 0 0 0 -0,6 0 0 0 -0,43 0,42 -10,65 0 -9,42 14,04 0 0 9,34 0,74 0 0 0 -2,19 0 0 9,75 0 0 0 -0,33 0 11,81 9,63 0 0 0,13 block3 0 0 0 10,39 1,27 0 0 0 0 -0,52 0 0 9,22 - nothing/nothing 0 9,29 0 8,75 0,2 -9,46 -8,87 0 0,69 2,05 0 0 -9,58 0,62 0,42 0,69 -0,41 0 0,03 0 0 8,87 0,28 0 8,74 -8,87 -0,18 -2,94 0 0,74 -8,87 0 0 3,71 10,2 0,63 10,14 0 0,38 -0,46 nothing/sunflower 0 9,29 0 0 -1,37 -9,46 -8,87 0 -8,93 0,5 8,87 0 -9,58 0,03 -10 0 -0,41 -8,86 1,12 0 0 0 -0,15 0 0 -8,87 -0,23 -1,19 0 -10,29 -8,87 0 0 2,48 0 -10,95 0 0 -0,59 -0,16 July 0 0 -8,51 -10,21 -0,38 9,11 0 0 -9,19 -0,46 8,51 0 9,22 -0,75 1,67 0,69 2,08 0 0,72 -8,51 0 -8,51 0,29 0 0 8,51 1,4 -0,73 0 11,14 0 0 0 7,4 -8,44 2,18 -9,28 0 0 -0,87 September 0 0,69 -8,51 -10,21 2,04 0 8,51 0 -0,69 -0,56 0 0 0 -0,5 -8,65 0 -9,21 9,42 0,52 -8,51 0 -8,51 -0,57 0 9,28 0 0,75 -0,54 0 11,03 8,51 0 0 1,32 0,69 1,25 0 0 13 -0,67 block2:reduced tillage 0 -1,1 0 -9,98 -0,21 0 9,34 0 -10,79 0,51 -9,34 0 0 0,64 -0,42 9,95 -1,79 18,83 -12,01 -9,34 0 -9,34 -0,59 0 0 0 1,83 -1,4 0 -11,26 0 0 0 -0,68 0 -1,37 -9,63 0 1,97 0,92 block3:reduced tillage 0 -11,78 9,34 -20,37 -1,99 9,94 0 0 -10,79 -0,09 -9,34 0 0 -0,23 10,6 -0,69 -1,1 9,42 -12,92 -9,34 0 0 -0,75 0 10,13 9,34 -0,82 -27,94 0 -11,25 -9,34 0 0 -0,77 -0,69 -3,14 -10,73 0 -10,86 -1,37

B) P-Table

Al op ec ur us m yo su ro id es Am ar an th us re tro fle xu s An ch us a ar ve ns is Ap er a sp ic a-ve nt i Ar tem isi a vu lg ar is At rip lex pa tu la Av en a fa tu a

Ca ps ell a bu rs a-pa sto ris Cy an us se ge tu m Ch en op od iu m al bu m Li pa nd ra po ly sp er m a Ci rs iu m ar ve ns e Co ria nd ru m sa tiv um Ec hi no ch lo a cr us -g al li Ep ilo bi um tet ra go nu m Fa llo pi a co nv ol vu lu s Fu m ar ia of fic in al is Ga lin so ga qu ad rir ad ia ta Ga liu m ap ar in e Ki ck xi a el at in e Li na ria vu lg ar is Lo liu m pe re nn e M at ric ar ia ch am om ill a Pa pa ve r rh oe as Pl an ta go la nc eo la ta Pl an ta go m aj or Po a an nu a Pe rs ica ria la pa th ifo lia Pe rs ica ria m ac ul os a Po ly go nu m av icu la re Re se da lu te a Ru m ex cr isp us Ru m ex ob tu sif ol iu s Se ne cio vu lg ar is Si len e la tif ol ia So nc hu s as pe r St ell ar ia m ed ia Tr ip le ur os pe rm um in od or um Ve ro ni ca pe rs ica

Vi ol a ar ve ns is block 1 0,986 0,986 0,986 0,986 0,986 0,986 1 0,575 0,986 0,986 1 0,901 0,078 0,986 0,953 0,986 0,986 0,078 0,986 1 0,986 0,986 1 0,925 0,986 0,986 0,986 1 0,986 0,986 1 1 0,986 0,874 0,157 0,986 1 0,974 0,953 reduced tillage 1 0,473 0,986 0,991 0,966 0,966 0,988 1 0,519 0,988 0,966 1 1 0,251 0,473 0,988 0,04 0,991 0,762 0,969 1 0,986 0,948 1 0,836 0,986 0,229 0,966 1 0,988 0,978 1 1 0,988 0,991 0,171 0,473 1 0,966 0,001 rotation 1 1 0,999 0,968 0,881 0,992 1 1 0,979 0,23 1 1 0,943 0,038 0,973 0,995 1 0,995 0,992 1 1 1 1 1 0,995 0,999 1 0,992 1 0,968 1 1 1 0,084 0,862 0,343 0,91 1 1 1 date 1 0,996 0,996 0,433 0,35 0,943 0,996 1 0,969 0,996 0,991 1 0,872 0,484 0,936 0,996 0,16 0,862 0,996 0,996 1 0,996 0,659 1 0,873 0,991 0,996 0,996 1 0,632 0,996 1 1 0,001 0,97 0,659 0,958 1 0,012 0,911 block:reduced tillage 1 0,997 0,997 0,417 0,943 0,974 0,997 1 0,997 0,974 0,997 1 0,997 0,943 0,997 0,956 0,997 0,925 0,925 0,997 1 0,997 0,954 1 0,997 0,997 0,865 0,201 1 0,897 0,997 1 1 0,974 0,997 0,954 0,997 1 0,417 0,343 Mots-clés : biodiversité, espèces forestières, fragmentation de l'habitat, limites de dispersion, limites de recrutement, règles d'assemblage des communautés, pratiques agricoles, végétation.

Summary

The absence of a given species in a local community despite its presence elsewhere in the landscape may be due either to dispersal limitation or to recruitment limitation. The aim of the thesis is to evaluate the respective importance of these limitations on community assembly. I first investigated the relationship between local and proximal diversity at different scales and for different forest fragmentation levels in an agricultural landscape. Results highlight the importance of considering species identity when studying the effect of fragmentation on plant community composition. I then assessed the germination success and persistence of vascular plant species using semi-controlled experiments. In the first experiment, I monitored the germination success and persistence of sown weed species, and their subsequent effect on crop yield, under contrasted agricultural practices. I evidenced a sorting effect of agricultural practices on local plant species composition. In the second experiment, I assessed the potential of hedgerows to serve as habitats for forest plant species. I sought seeds and transplanted seedlings in hedgerows to monitor germination and persistence, respectively, each time with and without removing the resident vegetation to further assess the role of competition. My preliminary results show that few species germinate and survive in hedgerows, suggesting that both recruitment limitations are at play. Results from this work emphasize the importance of dispersal in the colonization of habitat; and of recruitment in the colonization of linear habitats. I finally discuss the consequences of these results for ecosystem conservation and for maintaining the delivered services.