Aim To disentangle whether long-range periphery-to-core gradient of forest understorey plants could be attributed to past forest landscape and/or to current environmental filtering processes. We investigated (1) whether species response to past land use (ancient versus recent forest) was consistent with species response to distance to present forest edge (core versus periphery) (2) what life-history traits explained plant response to distance to present edge and past land use (3) whether distance to past forest edge explained current species distribution better than distance to present forest edge.Location Temperate forests in the northern half of France (80,000 km²).Methods Local climate, soil and stand characteristics, past land use, and present and past landscape metrics were collected on 11,936 plots using National Forest Inventory data and historical maps from 1831. Logistic regressions were applied to determine the response patterns of 181 species to present and past landscape, while controlling for local habitat quality (soil, climate and stand).Results Species response to distance to present edge very well matched response to past land use. Plant traits related to colonization capacity explained species response to present edge and past land use. The spatial distribution of 42 species was better explained by distance to forest edge in 1831, 37 species were better explained by distance to present edge and 24 species were better explained by distance to present edge and past land use.Main conclusions Two mechanisms were responsible for the long-range periphery-to-core gradient: (1) past landscape and colonization processes and (2) present edge-related mechanisms. This suggests that plant community differences between periphery and core zones are thus related to dispersal limitation and not only to environmental filters. Our results underline the need to combine landscape ecology and history and have important implications for forest plant dynamics and conservation in the context of climate change.

Mechanical site preparation methods that used tools mounted on lightweight excavators and that provided localised intensive preparation were tested in eight experimental sites across France where the vegetation was dominated either by (L.) Moench or (L.) Kuhn. Two lightweight tools (Deep Scarifier: DS; Deep Scarifier followed by Multifunction Subsoiler: DS+MS) were tested in pine ( L., var. (Loudon) Hyl. or Aiton) and oak ( (Matt.) Liebl. or  L.) plantations. Regional methods commonly used locally (herbicide, disk harrow, mouldboard plow) and experimental methods (repeated herbicide application; untreated control) were used as references in the experiments. Neighbouring vegetation cover, seedling survival, height and basal diameter were assessed over three to five years after plantation. For pines growing in , seedling diameter after four years was 37% and 98% greater in DS and DS+MS, respectively, than in the untreated control. For pines growing in , it was 62% and 107% greater in the same treatments. For oak, diameter was only 4% and 15% greater in , and 13% and 25% greater in , in the same treatments. For pines, the survival rate after four years was 26% and 32% higher in and 64% and 70% higher in , in the same treatments. For oak, it was 3% and 29% higher in and 37% and 31% higher in . Herbicide, when applied for three or four years after planting, provided the best growth performances for pines growing in and and for oaks growing in . For these species and site combinations, DS+MS and DS treatments reduced the neighbouring vegetation cover for one to four years following site preparation.Molinia caeruleaPteridium aquilinumPinus sylvestrisPinus nigracorsicanaPinus pinasterQuercus petraeaQuercus roburM. caeruleaP. aquilinumM. caeruleaP. aquilinumM. caeruleaP. aquilinumM. caeruleaP. aquilinumM. caerulea P. aquilinumP. aquilinum