1. Introduction
Afforestation of arid sandy regions has long been employed as a strategy to combat sand encroachment threatening agricultural and inhabited areas. The establishment of vegetation on dunes mitigates sand movement, promotes the deposition of fine particles, and enhances soil fertility through organic litter decomposition. Additionally, it improves soil structure and water retention capacity, thereby contributing to ecosystem stabilization. Sustainable forest management in these environments not only supports timber and fodder production but also serves as an important tool in the fight against desertification [1].
Dune ecosystems are inherently dynamic and harsh, shaped by factors such as high solar radiation, persistent winds, proximity to marine influences, and episodic disturbances like drought and sand burial [2]. Plant species that colonize dunes typically exhibit early successional traits, including rapid establishment and wide dispersal, but tend to be poorly adapted to shade and intense competition [3]. This ecological profile renders dune vegetation vulnerable to invasion by more competitive species capable of tolerating these environmental constraints.
Sand dunes, formed by the influence of wind and climatic extremes, are a dynamic component of arid and semi-arid landscapes from all around the world. Their mobility causes an important threat to infrastructure, agriculture, and livelihood. To combat these influences, as well as desertification processes, afforestation has been introduced in the last century as a suitable strategy. Through afforestation, trees and woody shrubs have anchored shifting sands, increased surface roughness, as well as built microhabitats that improve the overall ecology. These interventions have been proven to mitigate sand movement, as well as improve soil properties, especially fertility, water retention, and organic content, becoming an essential method in the long-term rehabilitation of ecosystems.
At a global level, sand dunes cover many regions and areas. If we group them by size, some of the largest sand dunes are found in China (Badain Jaran Dunes), Argentina (Duna Federico Kirbus), France (Dune du Pilat), Namibia (Dune 7), Oman (Ramlat Jadilah), and Australia (Mount Tempest). If we group them by their spectacular nature, both ecological and geological, we can mention the Star Dune and White Sands (the USA), Athabasca Dunes (Canada), Erg Chebbi (Morocco), and Mui Ne (Vietnam). Besides their size and uniqueness, these dunes are very diverse. Mostly stable dunes are present in the USA and Canada, where high precipitations and evapotranspiration sustain vegetation cover [4,5]. The deserts in China are impressive in their coverage (over ~600,000 km2), size (they have some of the world’s tallest dunes), and distinctive dune-lake complexes [6]. Another example from China (the Horqin Sandy Land) also showcases the effect of severe anthropogenic desertification, caused by overgrazing and collecting fuelwood [7]. Another example worth mentioning here comes from Australia, where extensive inland dunefields are present, showing how even vegetated arid dunes have low rates of sand transport because of the resilient native flora [8,9,10].
The distribution of plant species in dune systems is closely linked to geomorphological features shaped by wind erosion, sand deposition, and dune movement [11,12]. For instance, interdune depressions often function as “vegetation islands,” where psammophytes, steppe species, and limnocryptophyte-meadow plants can coexist [11].
Afforestation is among the most widely applied methods for stabilizing mobile sand dunes [13]. It not only increases plant cover and soil nitrogen content [14,15] but also contributes to atmospheric carbon sequestration. Vegetation cover has been shown to enhance soil moisture levels [6], enrich soil nutrient content, and facilitate the recovery of plant diversity [16].
Fixation of shifting sand dunes through afforestation represents a critical first step toward ecological restoration. By stabilizing sand surfaces, this approach enables natural colonization and establishment of native flora [17]. Moreover, afforestation provides tangible benefits to local communities, such as fuelwood, shelter from wind, and protection of agricultural lands [18,19,20]. The use of highly resilient genotypes obtained in breeding programs and the conception of the most suitable species composition should ensure the achievement of forest lands restoration plans [21,22,23,24,25].
In recent centuries, many countries have introduced non-native tree species into coastal dune areas to develop foredunes, inhibit the migration of transgressive dunes, and control coastal erosion, often driven by economic motivations [26,27,28]. For example, in Portugal, Pinus species were planted both to prevent inland dune expansion and for timber production [29]. Similarly, in South Korea, coastal forests have been established to shield villages and farmlands from strong winds and sand intrusion from beaches [30].
Several reviews have addressed sand dune ecology [31,32,33] and forest rehabilitation broadly [34,35,36,37,38], but no dedicated review has focused on the interface between trees and sand dunes. This represents a major knowledge gap given the increasing importance of nature-based solutions for climate adaptation and land degradation neutrality Furthermore, no previous study has combined a systematic literature review with a bibliometric analysis to uncover trends, geographic patterns, and institutional knowledge networks in the domain of tree-based dune rehabilitation.
This study aims to fill that gap by critically evaluating the global literature on the role of trees in sand dune rehabilitation. Through a combined traditional and bibliometric approach, we provide a comprehensive synthesis of afforestation strategies, commonly used tree species, and key outcomes related to soil improvement, vegetation dynamics, and socio-economic benefits.
This article pursues the following specific objectives: (1) Global bibliometric analysis of ISI-indexed publications related to tree-based dune rehabilitation, including analysis of geographic distribution, publication trends, research institutions, journals, key authors, and keywords; (2) Identification and evaluation of commonly used tree species in sand dune afforestation programs worldwide, with an emphasis on species selection strategies, resilience traits, and ecological impact; (3) Assessment of key factors influencing afforestation success, including climatic variables, soil properties, biodiversity interactions, and socio-economic drivers or constraints; (4) Highlighting both positive and negative outcomes of tree-based dune rehabilitation on local ecosystems, groundwater levels, and long-term sustainability; (5) Proposing a set of best practices and recommendations for future afforestation projects that balance ecological restoration goals with human needs and climate adaptation imperatives.
Our review provides a much-needed synthesis that links tree-based interventions with dune stabilization across diverse environmental settings. By addressing a global research gap and identifying critical success factors, this study offers a robust foundation for future interdisciplinary research, policy development, and applied restoration strategies. Given the increasing pressure of land degradation, especially in vulnerable dryland regions of Africa, Asia, and Southern Europe, more integrated afforestation planning—rooted in local context and scientific evidence—will be vital.
We conclude by outlining key directions for future research, including the need for: (1) Long-term monitoring of afforestation projects under different climatic regimes; (2) Development of species mixtures that optimize both ecological resilience and community benefits; (3) Integration of remote sensing and modeling tools for site selection and performance evaluation; (4) Greater inclusion of socio-economic perspectives in dune management programs.
2. Materials and Methods
We started this study with a bibliometric analysis intended to evaluate the global scientific research about the use of trees on sand dunes between 1995–2024. We have used the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) from the Web of Science database, complemented by Scopus. This has allowed us to identify relevant publications and to test different search strategies. After testing different keywords, we have selected the phrase “trees on sand dunes” as our main search term.
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, which provide a standardized framework to enhance the transparency and completeness of systematic reviews [39]. The PRISMA statement, originally published in 2009, is designed to help authors clearly report the rationale, methodology, and findings of their reviews. In line with open science practices, we have made our database, including the full list of included and excluded studies, available on the Open Science Framework (OSF); our registration number is osf.io/ruz7y. The OSF is a free and open platform that supports the sharing of research materials to promote transparency, collaboration, and reproducibility in scientific research [40].
The selection process of the papers included in this review is illustrated in Figure 1. In total, 461 publications were retrieved from Scopus and 476 from Web of Science, accounting for 937 publications. After removing 301 duplicates, 636 unique records remained. Titles and abstracts of these records were screened based on the following inclusion criteria: studies published in English, and articles whose title and/or abstract referred to the specific topic. The following exclusion criteria were adopted: papers not in English, previous reviews, non-scientific articles, non-published materials, and letters to editors were excluded. After this manually performed screening, 57 bibliographic sources were excluded, and 1 full-paper was not retrieved. The remaining 578 full-text records were deeply inspected. A total of 148 articles were excluded because they were irrelevant to the topic and another 8 were excluded because they did not have abstracts. Finally, 422 papers were included in this systematic review (Figure 1). The overlap between the databases was substantial: 301 articles (approximately 32%) were identified as duplicates found in both Scopus and Web of Science. This indicates a significant but not complete overlap between the two sources, supporting the decision to include both databases to ensure comprehensive coverage.
As such, our bibliometric approach focused on nine key aspects: (1) types of publications, (2) research domains, (3) year of publication, (4) countries of publications, (5) authors, (6) institutions, (7) journals, (8) publishers, (9) keywords. We processed the obtained data with the Web of Science Core tools (version 5.35, Clarivate), Scopus, Excel (version 2024), and Geochart [41,42,43,44]. In addition, we used VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) to realize visual maps and clusters [45].
In the second stage of our analysis, we used a more traditional approach. This took the form of a literature review that allowed us to conduct a more detailed analysis of the 422 selected articles. Our findings were then grouped into four research clusters: (1) Tree species used in the afforestation of sand dunes, (2) Local results from all over the world, (3) Factors that influence the success of afforestation works from sand dunes, and (4) The effects of afforestation on sand dunes. Figure 2 showcases our methodology.
3. Results
3.1. Bibliometric Review–Synthesis of Literature
We identified 422 publications on this topic. The vast majority of these are articles (380 articles, accounting for 90% of the total publications), followed by 23 proceedings papers (6%), 13 book chapters (3%), and 6 reviews (1%) (Figure 3).
The most frequently cited research areas are: Ecology (50 articles), Plant sciences (46 articles), Environmental sciences (42 articles), and Forestry (39 articles) (Figure 4).
The distribution of the number of articles published per year shows that the first article on this topic was published in a recognized journal as early as 1955. The years with the highest number of articles published (23 articles) are 2018 and 2021. A significant increase in the number of publications occurred after 2010 (Figure 5).
Authors from 84 countries have published articles on this topic. The most well-represented countries are the USA, China, Australia, and Japan (Figure 6).
The countries of the authors who published articles on this topic are grouped into several clusters. The identified clusters are grouped into six categories: Cluster 1: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Switzerland; Cluster 2: Canada, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Russia; Cluster 3: Egypt, England, Portugal, South Africa, Wales; Cluster 4: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, USA; Cluster 5: India, Japan, People’s Republic of China; Cluster 6: Australia, Israel, New Zealand. Cluster 1 primarily includes European countries with similar climates. Cluster 2 brings together countries from both Eastern and Northern Europe and North America. Cluster 3 includes countries from different continents, but with shared historical or linguistic ties. Cluster 4 contains countries from both North and South America. Cluster 5 consists of major Asian countries. The final cluster, Cluster 6, groups countries that are predominantly characterized by arid or desert landscapes (Figure 7).
Our inventory identified 267 journals in which articles about trees and sand dunes were published. Among these, the most representative are Catena, Forest Ecology and Management, and Journal of Arid Environments (Table 1 and Figure 8).
Among the 86 publishers who have published articles on this subject, the most representative are: Elsevier (65 articles), Springer (59 articles), Wiley (25 articles), Taylor & Francis (17 articles), and MDPI (16 articles).
The institutions to which the authors of these articles belong, ranked by importance, are as follows: Chinese Academy of Sciences (18 articles); Indian Council of Agricultural Research (6 articles); University of Illinois (6 articles); National University of Mar del Plata (5 articles).
In these articles, the most frequently used keywords are vegetation, sand dunes, growth, soil, and dynamics (Table 2).
Based on their connections, keywords can be grouped into several clusters. The first cluster includes: desert, desertification, dunes, dynamics, erosion, management, plant, sand, vegetation, and water and wind erosion; the second cluster includes: communities, competition, facilitation, growth, patterns, restoration, succession, and survival; the third cluster includes: biodiversity, coastal dunes, conservation, diversity, ecology, evolution, and soil (Figure 9).
The evolution over time of the keywords used shows that, in the initial period, keywords such as sand dunes, succession, dunes, growth, tree, and patterns were used; in the middle period: vegetation, ecology, climate, plants, root, and competition; and in the recent period: desertification, erosion, climate-change, restoration, and biodiversity (Figure 10).
3.2. Tree Species Used in the Afforestation of Sand Dunes
A significant number of tree species are cited in studies concerning their use on sand dunes. Several of these species are presented in Table 3.
3.3. Local Experiences and Results in Sand Dune Afforestation Worldwide
The case studies we identified on each continent reveal diverse yet converging afforestation strategies that are rooted in ecological, technical, and socio-economic factors.
In Europe, the Deliblato Sands from Serbia show a long-term effort to stabilize dunes by using a mix of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), conifers, and grasses. Today, the dominance of Robinia demonstrates its role as a pioneer species characterized by rapid growth and great soil-binding [66].
In Asia, different responses to extreme environments were registered in several case studies. For example, in Pakistan’s Cholistan Desert, afforestation works used rainwater and saline groundwater to introduce tree crops like Ziziphus and date palms, halting desertification and enhancing the local communities’ livelihoods [93]. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia used an infrastructure strategy by combining mechanical barriers (dykes, ditches, concrete) with vegetation to protect railways [94]. In China’s Hainan Island, Casuarina equisetifolia and seasonal planting were used to stabilize coastal sands, although this led to low survival rates in windy areas [95]. Finally, in India’s Thar Desert, the indigenous Khejri tree (Prosopis cineraria) was used to demonstrate the importance of traditional ecological knowledge and species in addressing xeric conditions [63,96].
In Africa, the examples we have found highlight both a biophysical and community approach. For example, in North Sudan, agroforestry systems combined food crops with Acacia senegal in rotations that restored degraded savannas [97]. Native Commiphora cuttings were used in Somalia’s Hiiraan region to rehabilitate 30 ha of degraded dunes [98]. In Kenya, the survival of planted trees faces challenges, with the exception of Azadirachta indica, showcasing the crucial need to use species that are appropriate for site conditions and local communities [54]. Finally, Libya used a chemical innovation (bitumen mulch) in order to boost moisture retention and tree survival by up to 30%, proving how non-biological interventions can be a complementary tool in afforestation projects [99].
A unique report comes from Cuba, where Coccoloa uvifera was inoculated with Scleroderma bermudense and used in stabilizing coastal dunes, demonstrating the essential role of mycorrhizal partnerships [61].
Although all these cases show unique challenges, we found that successful projects share a series of common aspects: selecting site-adapted species (usually native ones), using integrated techniques (biological, mechanical, hydrological), and including local communities and traditional knowledge.
3.4. Factors Influencing the Success of Afforestation on Sandy Dunes
The success of afforestation works from sand dunes depends on several factors, from which the most important ones are typography, soil moisture, and microsite conditions.
A great example of the importance of topography comes from a Tamarix aphylla plantation from Israel. Here, the trees from steep dunes were larger, older, and better supported by the litter layer and water-repellent soil horizon. On the other hand, trees from flat dunes were more rare, stunted, and lacked both the litter and water-repellent soil. Trees had better growth rates on steep slopes as these facilitated a better subsurface water accumulation, while the tree litter allowed for a better moisture retention. Flat dunes lacked this dynamic, having scarcer water infiltration and poorer tree performance [91].
Similar cases were recorded all around the Mediterranean. Pinus pinea and P. halepensis plantations from Tunisia’s coastal dunes exhibited stress and reduced growth [100]. Scots pines from the Baltic Sea were sensitive to drought and temperature, regardless of the local site conditions, with positive results during winter-spring and summer, and declining ones during warm and dry periods [100].
Other examples of the impact of micro-typography come from Southern Thailand, where the tree species from Bang Boet dunes showcased more diversity and abundance on the sheltered side, where wind and salt exposure were more reduced [72]. Casuarina equisetifolia trees from Senegal also showed better results in interdune depressions and dune flanks.
Finally, the Culbin Forest from Scotland is a great example of the long-term impact of afforestation on dune characteristics. Even though sand texture remained constant, older trees improved moisture retention as organic matter accumulated over time [101].
In summary, we can identify the main factors that determine the success of afforestation works on sand dunes as: Topography (with its impact on water flow and exposure conditions), Soil moisture (especially retention capacity and water-repellent soil layers), and Microsite variations (like slope orientation, wind exposure, or salt spray).
Secondary factors are the specific species response to seasonal moisture and the long-term soil changes brought about by organic matter.
3.5. Effects of Afforestation on Sand Dunes
Afforestation and reforestation work from sand dunes located in arid regions raise important questions about their impact on groundwater. This is related more specifically to the fact that increased tree transpiration can balance groundwater recharge. Sand dunes are already very effective in groundwater recharge as rainfall infiltrates into dunes, allowing for a considerable amount of percolated water that replenishes the groundwater reservoir [90]. However, the balance between positive and negative effects is noted in most of the studies we have identified.
From an historic perspective, sand dunes were considered dynamic and hazardous systems that needed stabilization. This led to planting exotic trees that could stabilize them, leading at the same time to an increase in tourism and urban development. However, this entire process also led to erosion processes [102].
A good example comes from the northern Negev desert, Israel, where the afforestation with Tamarix aphylla was examined by some authors. The afforestation in this area showed a hierarchical impact on both vegetation and biodiversity. For example, the change in land-use led to a 30–50% decline in species and litter production. Furthermore, the T. aphylla leaves and litter showed an accumulation of salts that also impacted the soil salinity by a factor of 4–5 beneath tree canopies. Overall, the plant cover and aboveground biomass were reduced by 30%. The positive effects of afforestation (the shade and wind-blockage provided by trees) were mainly observed outside the canopy, while the plant cover was slightly impacted. This proves that afforestation can enhance plant diversity locally, but also that the negative impacts are harsh on both ecosystem functions and the local microhabitats [103].
Another example comes from China, where afforestation works led to improvements in soil properties. More importantly, soil organic carbon and total nitrogen concentrations increased between 3.2–6.5 times. Total phosphorus also rose by 15.1% in Pinus sylvestris plantations and 24.3% in Caragana microphylla plantations. This proves that afforestation improves plant diversity, productivity, and the soil’s physical condition [55].
The same positive-negative balance can also be observed in coastal dune afforestation. These have often been praised for stabilizing dunes and shielding nearby urban places from strong winds, sand, and salt spray. However, these interventions and the predominant use of exotic species have negative impacts on the recovery of dunes and can sometimes lead to coastline retreats. For example, the 2010 typhoon from the Korean Peninsula impacted sand dunes in different ways: some retreated further, while others recovered through the natural winter aeolian transport. Furthermore, pine tree afforested dunes showed less natural recovery than grass-covered ones. Although pine forests have reduced wind speeds, they also lead to shifts in flora as native species have declined [104].
The dunes from northeast Buenos Aires were impacted by a high paced urbanization from the early 20th century. This has altered both dune landforms and vegetation. The dunes were stabilized by the introduction of exotic shrubs and trees, but this also impacted the wind transportation of sediments toward the beach. Over time, this disrupted the sand supply, accelerating beach erosion. In addition, the native herbaceous species have been replaced by foreign woody plants, affecting the plant community as well as dune dynamics and mobility [105].
Another example comes from South Africa, where the Leptospermum laevigatum Australian shrub was introduced in the 1800s in order to stabilize dunes. Over time, this species has become a weed, especially for the endangered fynbos ecosystems from the Western Cape Province. In some cases, it even replaced Acacia saligna, another invasive species introduced in this area [70].
Another invasive species was noted in Portugal. Here, Acacia longifolia has reduced plant diversity and altered the microbial processes of dune soils. Although more studies are needed in this area, the invasion of A. longifolia proves our case that exotic species can significantly influence ecosystem processes and lead to system invasibility [106].
Similar cases occur in Israel and Mediterranean countries. Here, Acacia saligna has become a highly invasive species that changes the composition of plant communities, reduces species richness, and even causes the loss of endemic and protected species. This impacts areas of high ecological value, such as the Nizzanim Nature Reserve [51]. A study of a Mediterranean dune ecosystem invaded by A. saligna shows an increase in the density of soil nematodes and significant shifts in their composition [50].
Another study, this time on the impact of Pinus taeda, shows the same impact on plant communities, composition and traits, especially on non-graminoid species. This invasive species has restricted open vegetation species and changed the entire structure of the vegetation. In this context, many researchers and policymakers have started to consider the risk posed by the shift toward woody vegetation and how this impacts coastal ecosystems and sand dunes [81,107].
4. Discussion
4.1. Classical Review–Synthesis of Literature
We found that the literature about the role of trees in the rehabilitation of sand dunes is extensive and uses a multidisciplinary approach. This emphasizes the complexity of this subject from both an ecological and societal perspective. For example, conference proceedings represent 7% of total publications, emphasizing the interdisciplinary approach and the concern raised by this subject in academic and professional institutions. This diversity also stems from the large range of research domains tackled, such as ecology, forestry, land management, and climate science.
From a temporal perspective, we can see that these publications have increased during the past two decades, highlighting this trend in environmental research [108,109,110]. This increase can be correlated with global concerns about desertification, erosion, climate change, and biodiversity conservation. Our keyword analysis also highlights this trend, with terms such as “restoration”, “desertification”, and “climate resilience” being more used in these studies.
From a geographical perspective, the largest number of contributions come from the USA, China, and Australia. Sand dunes are extensively present in these countries, leading to significant contributions in research focused on afforestation and land restoration. The results of these articles have been published in two journal categories: generalist environmental science journals (e.g., Catena, Forest Ecology and Management, Sustainability) and arid and coastal ecosystems journals (e.g., Journal of Arid Environments, Journal of Coastal Research).
The reviewed literature has emphasized important insights, but we must also acknowledge methodological biases that can impact these findings. As such, the majority of studies are either ecological or technical, focusing on measurable biophysical results (vegetation growth rates, soil stabilization metrics). This reflects a possible publication bias towards quantifiable and tractable results. On the other hand, the socio-economic implications and the perspectives of local communities are harder to track and, as such, are underrepresented in these studies, although they directly impact the success and sustainability of rehabilitation projects. In addition, most of the studies come from certain geographic areas, showing a possible geographic bias that affects the impact of these findings on certain ecological and cultural contexts.
In this context, it is important to recognize these constraints, especially in future studies. We need to include more interdisciplinary approaches that consider the ecological, social, economic, and political perspectives. Research that uses mixed methods, participatory approaches, and long-term monitoring can address these gaps and offer a more holistic understanding of the impact of trees on the rehabilitation of sand dunes.
4.2. Tree Species Used in the Afforestation of Sand Dunes
We inventoried 55 tree species used for the afforestation of sand dunes. Of course, the actual number is much higher, but even so, our results highlight the numerous attempts to rehabilitate these degraded lands, especially considering that, under such extreme conditions, very few tree species can survive.
Among the identified tree genera, most species belong to Pinus (nine species), Acacia (six species), and Juniperus (four species). Pines are used in many countries worldwide for the stabilization and rehabilitation of degraded lands [111,112,113]. Pines are a hardy species that tolerate a range of climates and soils. They are not demanding with respect to soil nutrients, can thrive on soils with different textures, tolerate calcium well, and can also grow on acidic soils. They are drought-resistant over time, showing adaptability to harsh site conditions, with intense sunlight or on shallow, nutrient-poor soils exposed to dryness.
Virginia juniper (Juniperus virginiana) has moderate ecological requirements and is adapted to a variety of conditions. It prefers sunny areas, is cold-resistant, and tolerates drought and dry air well. As for soil, it does not have specific requirements, but it grows well in calcareous, permeable, and well-drained soils.
However, Acacia species can become invasive and may cause more harm than good on sand dunes (see Section 3.5). Besides these, other studies have identified species that can be used in difficult conditions: Norway spruce [114,115,116], Ficus carica [117,118], Hippophae salicifolia [119], oak species [120,121], and Robinia pseudoacacia [87].
4.3. Local Experiences and Results in Sand Dune Afforestation Worldwide
The diversity of approaches in sand dune afforestation shows that successful projects depend on site-specific, multidisciplinary approaches and social conditions.
The case studies we have identified indicate a series of patterns across different continents. The most essential one is species selection, as successful programs used deep-rooted, fast-growing, and drought-tolerant species such as Robinia, Khejri, Acacia, Casuarina, and Seagrape. Besides their stabilizing purpose, these species also provide economic value (like fodder, timber, resin), creating further incentives for their long-term maintenance.
The second pattern is using an integrative approach that combines biological, mechanical, and chemical methods. For example, using grass and shrubs improves soil retention and regulates the microclimate. Moreover, water management is essential in supporting both the new plantations and the overall environment [122,123]. Here we can include Libya’s bitumen mulch, China’s fertilization protocols, and Saudi Arabia’s mechanical barriers. All these examples prove how afforestation can benefit from hybrid strategies.
The third pattern is represented by water management. This is even more important in arid areas (Pakistan’s Cholistan, Libya) where managing water in creative manners (by harvesting, reusing saline water, or dry-season planting) shows higher success margins. On the other hand, the case from Hainan, China, shows how poor survival rates can be caused by not incorporating adaptive water strategies, despite important technical inputs.
A fourth pattern comes from the engagement of communities and traditional knowledge. Sudan’s farmer-based agroforestry, Kenya’s collective plots with Azadirachta, and Somalia’s refugee-driven afforestation show how important it is to include local communities, impacting both ecology, monitoring, and ownership aspects.
If we compare these cases, we can also see a series of recurring challenges, namely low post-planting survival rates, species uniformity, livestock damage, and weak monitoring. All these aspects undermine the long-term success of these afforestation efforts. Furthermore, repeating only certain species without diversification (ex. the overuse of Robinia or Casuarina species) can lead to significant ecological imbalances.
In conclusion, we can say that effective dune afforestation is context-driven. The most successful projects combine resilient species with tailored techniques and the involvement of local communities. In addition, they balance traditional ecological knowledge with innovation techniques. Future success will depend on a long-term monitoring of these projects, as well as exchanging these practices at an international level, especially as climate variability poses more challenges to vulnerable landscapes.
4.4. Factors Influencing the Success of Afforestation on Sandy Dunes
Our analysis showed that numerous studies underscore the complex link between topography, soil structure, and water dynamics in the success of afforestation on sandy dunes.
We started by analyzing the importance of soil structure for these ecosystems. As other authors have also observed [8,124], measures conducted after afforestation have shown an increased improvement in nutrient contents, composition, and enzymes. The highest increase was observed in soil nutrient content and enzyme activity.
We have then moved to the importance of water dynamics, with similar results obtained by other authors who focus on the changes brought by afforestation on the surrounding features. For example, the water table decreases [125] as the soil is covered with a layer of litter. The development of trees at the dunes in Israel [91] also highlights the impact of the slope in mediating water redistribution. On steep dunes, enhanced subsurface lateral flow concentrates water at the base of the dunes, facilitating rapid tree growth. This local water accumulation—amplified by litter deposition and the development of a water-repellent layer—promotes positive feedback through increased deep infiltration via finger flow. Conversely, on flatter dunes, the absence of a water-repellent layer prevents runoff generation, inhibiting the concentration of water and thus limiting tree growth. These findings illustrate that even subtle variations in topography can create starkly divergent growth trajectories within the same plantation.
Soil moisture was our next reference, as afforestation projects can transform the soil-plant-water feedback in dune systems, with implications for long-term plantation resilience. For example, the long-term monitoring at Culbin Forest, Morayshire [101], demonstrates how afforestation can gradually modify dune system properties. While the mechanical composition of the sand remained largely unchanged, tree growth substantially reduced soil moisture content. However, organic matter incorporation in older stands increased the moisture-holding capacity of the upper soil layers, potentially mitigating some water limitations over time.
Climate conditions were our next topic for analysis, a fact complemented by the study of Scots pine forests along the south Baltic Sea coast [100]. This case highlights the temporal and spatial variability of climate-growth relationships in dune systems. Despite differences in local microsite conditions, tree growth across sites consistently responded positively to winter-spring and summer moisture availability. However, growth was predominantly limited by winter-spring temperatures and seasonal drought, suggesting that regional climate factors may override some site-specific characteristics. This reinforces our notion that successful afforestation strategies must account for both micro- and macro-environmental conditions.
We also found a connection between species composition and topography. This was also observed by some studies that have analyzed species along a topographic gradient throughout the restoration trajectory, showing that vegetation is restored on sand dunes by an upward spreading from interdune lowlands [126]. The study of Casuarina equisetifolia plantations in Senegal [59] further emphasizes the influence of microtopography on afforestation outcomes. Trees established in interdune depressions and flanks demonstrated significantly greater growth than those on dune summits. These microtopographic effects are likely driven by variations in water accumulation and wind exposure, echoing our findings related to all the factors that impact sand dunes.
Similar patterns of growth variability were observed in coastal afforestation across the Mediterranean region. The widespread growth decline reported in Tunisian pine stands (Pinus pinea and Pinus halepensis), originally established to stabilize dunes [100], underscores the vulnerability of afforestation projects to microsite-specific stressors. Factors such as exposure to wind and salt spray—particularly on windward aspects—further compound these challenges, as evidenced by the low species diversity and basal area on the windward side of the Bang Boet coastal dunes in Thailand [72].
Overall, all these studies highlight the importance of considering both abiotic and biotic factors—topography, water repellency, microtopography, and regional climate—when planning and managing afforestation on sandy dunes. Even though the effectiveness of revegetation on sand dunes was not so much studied, our study intends to highlight that the successful afforestation in these fragile environments requires site-specific strategies that account for topographic heterogeneity, potential feedback loops, and the dynamic interactions between soil properties and plant growth. Future research should focus on integrating these insights into predictive models to guide afforestation efforts under changing climatic conditions.
4.5. The Effects of Afforestation on Sand Dunes
4.5.1. Implications of Afforestation on Groundwater and Vegetation
Our study shows both the positive and negative effects of afforestation on sand dunes. These impacts vary based on the geographic context, tree species, and management goals. This fact was also pointed out in a study realized by Lipp [89] where dune systems from arid areas were marked as important for groundwater recharge because of their high infiltration capacity. As such, afforestation can increase water uptake through tree transpiration and dune stabilizing. Our recommendation is that desert dune management plans should consider this trade-off between vegetation cover and water availability.
4.5.2. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function
Our findings point to the dual nature of afforestation, a fact also pointed out by many case studies. While regional biodiversity may benefit from afforestation [55], the local ecosystems and biodiversity can also decline. From the articles published in the database, we found that the afforestation with Tamarix aphylla from northern Negev led to a considerable decrease in the richness of plant species, to an increased soil salinity, and to decreased plant cover and biomass [103]. Other authors have also pointed out these aspects. For example, the afforestation from Israel has led to a loss in the sandy ecosystem’s biology and ecology. By analyzing these results, our recommendations are: the reexamination of afforestation policies; avoiding the afforestation of naturally or low tree cover ecosystems (ex. grasslands, shrubs, open savannas); to create a clear set of criteria for afforestation projects and separate them from environmental projects (habitat restoration, carbon-sink projects, commercial tree plantations); and to allocate appropriate resources [127]. All these aspects also point to our suggestion that it is important to assess both the direct and indirect impacts of afforestation on ecosystems. This is even more important in arid and semiarid environments where the interactions between soil and vegetation are very dynamic.
As for the impact on soils, our findings show that fertility was improved by afforestation, including an increased organic carbon and nitrogen concentrations [55]. As other authors have mentioned, this can also lead to dune productivity improvements. However, this fact should always be analyzed in comparison with the shifts that take place in the plant composition and the possible declines of local species [81,107].
4.5.3. Coastal Dune Dynamics and Management
We also observed a special case for the planting of vegetation types on coastal dunes. Here, the objectives range from cultivating crops to the stabilization of mobile sand dunes [128]. From a historical perspective, afforestation was used to stabilize these dunes and protect nearby cities from wind erosion and salt spray [102,104]. However, some authors point out that introducing exotic trees has also led to a disruption in the natural dynamic of dunes, as it reduced wind, altered sand transport, and impacted the recovery of dunes after storms [104]. On their end, these shifts led to a retreat of the coastline and a reduction in the resilience of dunes. In this context, some authors are not very enthusiastic about the afforestation of these sand dunes. For example, Var der Meulen [129] maintains that the stabilization of dunes is not always necessary. If stabilization works are needed, only local plants should be used, with a focus on pioneers, not trees.
We found another good example for this situation in Israel’s coastal dunes, where a diverse range of sand species (psammophilic) are present alongside endemic ones [123]. As such, the British Mandate of Palestine introduced Acacia saligna, an Australian species, in the stabilization of dunes. As time passed, this species has naturalized and even invaded in an aggressive manner the coastal sandy habitats [124]. Overall, this species has changed this ecosystem entirely, as it created shade, altered soil chemistry, and modified the composition of plant and animal communities [125,126,127]. This example is essential in emphasizing the unintended ecological costs of afforestation, especially in the context of using non-native species.
4.5.4. Invasive Species and the Health of the Ecosystems
Most of the articles regarding the invasive species from sand dunes belong to the Acacia genus and are mainly described by authors from Israel. As such, our review shows that invasive species (including Acacia longifolia, Acacia saligna, and Pinus) can lead to significant disruptions in the ecosystems of dunes. This includes a reduction of native plants, an altering of the soil microbial communities, and an overall reshaping of entire ecological processes [41,43,44,99]. If we return to the concrete example from Israel, A. saligna was first introduced to stabilize dunes [122], but has reached a point nowadays where it invades sandy habitats and alters native biodiversity and soil properties [123,124]. These invasion mechanisms are also documented at a global level for Acacia saligna and other Australian acacias [125,126,127].
We also found some cases where these invasive species, like A. cyanophylla, have temporarily enhanced soil fertility [41]. However, this comes at significant costs on the resilience of ecosystems and native biodiversity. An example in this case comes again from Israel, where the invasion of A. saligna in the Nizzanim Nature Reserve led to a significant loss in endemic species and declines in the overall ecologic ecosystem [43]. This pattern was also observed in other areas of the globe, like Portugal [41] and Brazil [74]. These countries saw the introduction of Acacia to stabilize sand dunes [128]. Other examples come from Italy, where the same Acacia saligna is considered a major invader and is present in stands from coastal environments [129].
Our synthesis shows both benefits and disadvantages in the afforestation of sand dunes. Most outcomes are strongly linked with the geographic context, the selection of certain species, and the management of objectives. These dual perspectives are presented below for certain categories impacted by afforestation.
Implications for Groundwater and Vegetation
Sand dunes in arid areas play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, especially due to high infiltration rates [89]. The paradox is that afforestation may reduce water availability as tree transpiration and canopy interception diminish groundwater recharge. In this context, we recommend implementing strategies that take into account this trade-off between groundwater recharge and the stabilization of dunes, especially in environments where water is scarce.
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function
Afforestation has a dual role here as well. The advantage is that afforestation supports regional biodiversity [55], especially in cases where native species are used. The disadvantage is that afforestation can degrade local ecosystems, as in the case of northern Negev, where the use of Tamarix aphylla led to a decline in plant species richness, plant cover, and biomass [103]. In this context, we recommend re-evaluating afforestation policies. For example, we recommend avoiding planting trees in ecosystems with low canopies such as grasslands, open savannas, and shrublands. Another recommendation is to separate afforestation projects from habitat restorations or other commercial forestry initiatives. Each intervention should have its clear set of criteria and resources [127].
Another aspect that must be considered is the indirect effect of afforestation works, especially on the dynamic between soil and vegetation. The clear gain is that soil fertility clearly improves as organic carbon and nitrogen increase [55] but this also leads to a negative impact on local species and the composition of these ecosystems [81,107].
Coastal Dune Dynamics and Management
Coastal dunes also reflect this dual nature of afforestation works. From a historical perspective, afforestation was used to stabilize shifting sand and protect the local infrastructure from wind and salt spray [102,104]. However, these interventions have also altered the natural dynamics of these coastal systems. In particular, introducing exotic species has proved dangerous as it suppressed natural sand movement, has inhibited the recovery of dunes after storms, and has even accelerated coastline retreat [104]. In this context, we agree with Van der Meulen [129], who argues that the stabilization of these dunes is not worth it, and where it should be implemented, it must include only local vegetation and not trees.
A relevant example comes from Israel’s coastal dunes, where the British introduced Acacia saligna to stabilize these ecosystems [130]. The results were positive, but over time, this species has become invasive, altering the ecosystem through its shade, changing the soil chemistry, and disrupting native plants and animals [131,132,133,134]. This example highlights our recommendation to avoid using non-native species and to opt for strategies that are adapted to the specific ecosystem of each region.
Invasive Species and the Health of the Ecosystem
As we have seen, dune ecosystems have a recurring theme for invasive tree species that alter the native ecosystem. If we look at Israel again, Pinus and Acacia species (A. saligna, A. Cyanophylla) have considerably changed native ecosystems [48,50,51,106] by reducing the diversity of native plants, changing soil microbial communities, and impacting the ecosystem in the long-term. Even though some of these species have improved soil fertility [48], the long-term declines in ecosystem resilience and native biodiversity are more damaging. For example, A. saligna has invaded Israel’s Nizzanim Nature Reserve, causing a decline of endemic species and a disruption of ecological processes [50]. Similar patterns were observed in other countries that used Acacia species, such as Portugal [48], Brazil [81,135], and Italy [136].
5. Conclusions
Our review has synthesized the current knowledge about afforestation on sand dunes, highlighting both opportunities and challenges. We have revealed an important growth in articles that address this topic over the past two decades, with key research hubs in the USA, China, and Australia.
Our findings prove that afforestation is useful in stabilizing mobile sand dunes, improves soil fertility, and enhances carbon sequestration. Numerous species have been tested in afforestation works, with a focus on Pinus, Acacia, and Juniperus species. However, although these species have fulfilled their roles, they have also caused negative ecological consequences, mainly the spread of invasive species and the disruption of native plant communities.
We have seen that the success of afforestation depends on local factors, mainly topography, soil structure, water resources, and climate. Furthermore, the integration of local traditions adapted to the specific of certain areas (the Deliblato Sands from Serbia, the Cholistan Desert from Pakistan, coastal areas from China) highlight the need to integrate scientific knowledge with community practices if we want to conduct successful afforestation strategies. The balance between positive and negative aspects is also revealed by the impact of afforestation on groundwater dynamics and plant invasion. This proves our concern for carefully selecting species and adaptive management strategies that should balance both ecological restoration and the socio-economic context.
To improve on-the-ground outcomes, we recommend the following: (1) avoid planting known invasive species such as Acacia saligna in Mediterranean and semi-arid ecosystems, where their spread has proven ecologically disruptive; (2) prioritize the use of native or locally adapted species that align with historical vegetation patterns and community use; and (3) implement participatory afforestation strategies that involve local communities from the planning phase onward, ensuring long-term sustainability and local ownership.
From a policy perspective, our synthesis supports the development of regional guidelines that account for local environmental conditions, species suitability, and socio-cultural contexts. These guidelines should be flexible but grounded in evidence-based practices, allowing for adaptive management as conditions change. Afforestation efforts must also be aligned with broader land management goals, including biodiversity conservation and groundwater regulation.
Future studies should focus on these native species, local environment conditions, and the involvement of communities in planning and maintaining these works. Integrating ecological, social, and economic perspectives will be essential in sustaining and preserving these sand dunes.
In summary, afforestation works on sand dunes are ideal for both ecological restoration and climate change mitigation. However, they require a site-specific approach that takes into account the complexity of these landscapes. By linking science with policy and practice and tailoring interventions to local contexts, we can enhance the effectiveness of sand dune rehabilitation efforts globally. Future research and international collaboration are essential in supporting and improving our worldwide need to combat land degradation and desertification.
Conceptualization, G.M.; methodology, N.C.T. and M.M.; software, G.M., N.C.T., A.C. and D.M.; validation, N.C.T. and M.M.; formal analysis, G.M., A.C. and D.M.; investigation, G.M.; resources, D.M., N.C.T. and M.M.; data curation, M.M., A.C. and D.M.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M. and L.D.; writing—review and editing, G.M., D.M., M.M. and L.D.; visualization, N.C.T. and M.M.; supervision, D.M. and L.D.; project administration, G.M. and M.M.; funding acquisition, G.M. and N.C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
No new data were created or analyzed in this study.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Selection process of the eligible reports based on the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
Figure 2 Schematic presentation of the workflow used in our research.
Figure 3 Distribution of the main publication types related to trees on sand dunes.
Figure 4 Distribution of the primary research areas in publications analyzed bibliometrically.
Figure 5 Annual distribution of articles on trees on sand dunes.
Figure 6 Countries with contributing authors of articles on trees on sand dunes.
Figure 7 Country clusters of authors publishing on trees on sand dunes.
Figure 8 Key journals featuring articles on trees on sand dunes.
Figure 9 Authors’ keywords related to trees on sand dunes.
Figure 10 Annual distribution of keywords related to trees on sand dunes.
Leading journals publishing articles on trees on sand dunes.
| Crt. No. | Journal | Documents | Citations | Total Link Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Catena | 14 | 264 | 12 |
| 2 | Forest Ecology and Management | 14 | 461 | 4 |
| 3 | Journal of Arid Environments | 12 | 210 | 3 |
| 4 | Journal of Coastal Research | 11 | 126 | 4 |
| 5 | Geomorphology | 9 | 215 | 9 |
| 6 | Quaternary Research | 6 | 447 | 11 |
| 7 | Tree-structure and Function | 6 | 125 | 8 |
| 8 | Aeolian Research | 6 | 41 | 5 |
| 9 | Journal of Coastal Conservation | 6 | 60 | 2 |
| 10 | Earth Surface Processes and Landforms | 5 | 166 | 6 |
| 11 | Restoration Ecology | 4 | 79 | 4 |
| 12 | Sustainability | 4 | 25 | 4 |
| 13 | Journal of Arid Land | 4 | 85 | 3 |
| 14 | Annals of Arid Zones | 4 | 36 | 1 |
Most frequently used keywords in articles on trees on sand dunes.
| Crt. No. | Keyword | Occurrences | Total Link Strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | vegetation | 65 | 173 |
| 2 | sand dunes | 45 | 99 |
| 3 | soil | 30 | 94 |
| 4 | growth | 38 | 79 |
| 5 | restoration | 22 | 68 |
| 6 | dynamics | 30 | 66 |
| 7 | patterns | 31 | 66 |
| 8 | succession | 22 | 61 |
| 9 | forest | 28 | 60 |
| 10 | diversity | 24 | 59 |
| 11 | plants | 21 | 54 |
| 12 | desert | 22 | 53 |
| 13 | dunes | 26 | 52 |
| 14 | tree | 20 | 51 |
| 15 | climate | 22 | 42 |
| 16 | desertification | 21 | 40 |
Tree species used on sand dunes.
| Crt. No. | Tree Species | Region | Risk Level/Invasiveness on Sand Dunes | Citing Article |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Abies sachalinensis F.Schmidt | Japan | Low–Native, non-invasive | Nishijima et al., 2004 [ |
| 2 | Acacia auriculiformis A.Cunn. ex. Benth. | Malaysia | Medium–Fast-growing, naturalized; potentially invasive | Ang et al., 2006 [ |
| 3 | Acacia cyanophylla Lindl. | Marocco | High–Invasive in Mediterranean regions | Dounas et al., 2022 [ |
| 4 | Acacia mangium Willd. | Malaysia | Medium–Known for invasiveness in some tropical zones | Ang et al., 2006 [ |
| 5 | Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. | Niger | Low–Native in Africa | Laminou Manzo [ |
| 6 | Acacia raddiana (Forssk.) Galasso & Banfi | Niger | Low–Native, adapted to arid zones | Laminou Manzo [ |
| 7 | Acacia saligna (Labill.) H.L.Wendl. | Israel | High–Known invasive in Mediterranean dune ecosystems | Applebaum et al., 2023; Cohen and Bar, 2017 [ |
| 8 | Anacardium occidentale L. | Brazil | Medium–Generally low risk, but can alter ecosystems | Rebelo et al., 2024 [ |
| 9 | Angophora costata | Australia | Low–Native to Australian coasts | Burrows, 1986 [ |
| 10 | Azadirachta indica A.Juss. | Kenya | Medium–Cultivated; potential invasiveness in drylands | Olukoye et al., 2009 [ |
| 11 | Bauhinia rufescens Lam. | Niger | Low–Native to Sahel | Laminou Manzo [ |
| 12 | Caragana microphylla Lam. | China | Low–Native, used for dune stabilization | Li et al., 2025 [ |
| 13 | Cassia siamea (Lam.) Irwin et Barneby | Vietnam | Medium–Non-native in some zones; potential invader | Harwood et al., 1998 [ |
| 14 | Casuarina equisetifolia L. | China; Senegal | High–Invasive on tropical/coastal dunes worldwide | Chen et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019; Ndiaye et al., 1993 [ |
| 15 | Cistus creticus L. | Greece | Low–Native Mediterranean species | Daskalopoulos et al., 2021 [ |
| 16 | Coccoloba uvifera L. | Cuba | Low–Coastal native species | Galardis et al., 2024 [ |
| 17 | Diphysa americana (Mill.) M.Sousa | Mexico | Low–Native in range | Ramírez-Pinero et al., 2019 [ |
| 18 | Eucaliptus sp. | China | High–Many species known invaders; site-specific risks | Gao et al., 2019 [ |
| 19 | Ficus carica L. | Egipt | Medium–Cultivated; may become naturalized | Abdel-Rahman, 2010 [ |
| 20 | Haloxylon aphyllum Minkw. | Kazakhstan | Low–Native in arid zones | Chlachula and Zhagloskaya, 2017 [ |
| 21 | Haloxylon salicornicum (Moq.) Bunge ex Boiss. | India | Low–Native and adapted | Saxena and Singh, 1976 [ |
| 22 | Juniperus communis L. | Serbia | Low–Native European species | Cuk et al., 2023 [ |
| 23 | Juniperus oxycedrus L. | Spain | Low–Native, non-invasive | Rubio-Casal et al., 2010 [ |
| 24 | Juniperus phoenicea L. | Spain | Low–Native, dune stabilizer | Armas and Pugnaire, 2009; Rubio-Casal et al., 2010 [ |
| 25 | Juniperus virginiana L. | Serbia | Medium–Can spread aggressively in some climates | Cuk et al., 2023 [ |
| 26 | Kunzea ericoides (A.Rich.) Joy Thomps. | New Zealand | Low–Native and effective | Smale, 1994 [ |
| 27 | Leptospermum laevigatum (J. Garete.) F. Muell. | South Africa | High–Aggressive invasive in some areas | Gordon, 1999 [ |
| 28 | Litsea glutinosa | China | Low–Native, used for restoration | Gao et al., 2018 [ |
| 29 | Pandanus odorifer (Forssk.) Kuntze | Thailand | Low–Coastal native | Marod et al., 2020 [ |
| 30 | Picea glauca [Moench] Voss | Canada | Low–Native, boreal zones | Cournoyer and Filion, 1994 [ |
| 31 | Picea glehnii F.Schmidt | Japan | Low–Native to Japan | |
| 32 | Pinus halepensis Mill. | Tunisia; Greece | Medium–Naturalized, may displace native shrubs | Bouachir et al., 2017; Daskalopoulos et al., 2021 [ |
| 33 | Pinus nigra J.F.Arnold | Belgium; USA | Medium–Naturalized, long-term impacts debated | Ampe and Langohr, 2003; Gulezian and Nyberg, 2011 [ |
| 34 | Pinus pinea L. | Tunisia | Low–Widely planted Mediterranean native | Bouachir et al., 2017 [ |
| 35 | Pinus radiata D.Don | Argentina; UK; | High–Documented invasive in New Zealand and South Africa | Amiotti et al., 2013; Beets et al., 2001; Hill and Wallace, 1989 [ |
| 36 | Pinus resinosa (Sol. Ex Aiton) | Canada | Low–Native boreal pine | Kellman and Kading, 1992 [ |
| 37 | Pinus sylvestris L. | Serbia | Low–Native across Europe | Cuk et al., 2023 [ |
| 38 | Pinus strobus L. | Canada | Medium–Some invasiveness reported outside native range | Kellman and Kading, 1992 [ |
| 39 | Pinus taeda L. | Brazil | High–Invasive in South America and Africa | Fischer et al., 2014 [ |
| 40 | Pinus thunbergii Parl. | Japan | Low–Coastal stabilizer in Japan | Nanko et al., 2019 [ |
| 41 | Populus alba var. pyramidalis L. | China | Medium–Clonal spread; invasive tendencies in some zones | Otoda et al., 2013 [ |
| 42 | Prosopis chilensis Stunz. | Niger | Medium–Controversial; invasive outside native range | Laminou Manzo [ |
| 43 | Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce | India | Low–Native, culturally important | Saxena and Singh, 1976 [ |
| 44 | Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) Raf. | Iran | High–Highly invasive in many arid regions | Moradi et al., 2017 [ |
| 45 | Prunus serotina (Ehrh.) | Hungary | High–Major invader in Europe | Juhasz and Bagi, 2009 [ |
| 46 | Quercus robur L. | France | Low–Native oak species | Ampe and Langohr, 2003; Muhamed et al., 2013 [ |
| 47 | Quercus rubra L. | Canada | Medium–Invasive in some European countries | Kellman and Kading, 1992 [ |
| 48 | Robinia pseudoacacia L. | Serbia; Romania | High–Widely invasive in Europe | Cuk et al., 2023; Ciuvat et al., 2023 [ |
| 49 | Salix alaxensis (Andersson) Coville | Canada | Low–Native riparian species | Purdy and Bayer, 1995 [ |
| 50 | Salix silicicola L. | Canada | Low–Native willow species | Purdy and Bayer, 1995 [ |
| 51 | Syzygium antisepticum (Blume) Merr. & L.M.Perry | Thailand | Low–Native, low ecological risk | Marod et al., 2020 [ |
| 52 | Syzygium grande (Wight) Walp. | Thailand | Low–Native, low ecological risk | Marod et al., 2020 [ |
| 53 | Tamarix sp. | Israel | High–Invasive in arid regions | Lipp, 1995 [ |
| 54 | Tamarix aphlylla (L.) H.Karst. | Iran; Israel | High–Saline soil spreader; documented invader | Nouri Sadegh et al., 2012; Arbel et al., 2005 [ |
| 55 | Ulmus pumila L. | Mongolia | High–Known invader in North America and Europe | Jiang et al., 2014 [ |
1. Burley, J. The conservation and use of plant resources in dry lands. Techniques for Desert Reclamation; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 199-218.
2. Maun, M.A. The Biology of Coastal Sand Dunes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.
3. Tilman, D. The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am. Nat.; 1985; 125, pp. 827-852. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/284382]
4. Muhs, D.R.; Wolfe, S.A. Sand dunes of the northern Great Plains of Canada and the United States. Geol. Surv. Can. Bull.; 1999; 534, 97.
5. Kocurek, G.; Carr, M.; Ewing, R.; Havholm, K.G.; Nagar, Y.C.; Singhvi, A.K. White Sands Dune Field, New Mexico: Age, dune dynamics and recent accumulations. Sediment. Geol.; 2007; 197, pp. 313-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2006.10.006]
6. Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Dong, Z.; Zhang, C. Responses of dune activity and desertification in China to global warming in the twenty-first century. Glob. Planet. Change; 2009; 67, pp. 167-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.02.004]
7. Zhang, T.H.; Zhao, H.L.; Li, S.G.; Li, F.R.; Shirato, Y.; Ohkuro, T.; Taniyama, I. A comparison of different measures for stabilizing moving sand dunes in the Horqin Sandy Land of Inner Mongolia, China. J. Arid Environ.; 2004; 58, pp. 203-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2003.08.003]
8. Jennings, J.N. A revised map of the desert dunes op Australia. Aust. Geogr.; 1968; 10, pp. 408-409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049186808702508]
9. Wasson, R.J.; Fitchett, K.; Mackey, B.; Hyde, R. Large-scale patterns of dune type, spacing and orientation in the Australian continental dunefield. Aust. Geogr.; 1988; 19, pp. 89-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049188808702952]
10. Hesse, P.P.; Simpson, R.L. Variable vegetation cover and episodic sand movement on longitudinal desert sand dunes. Geomorphology; 2006; 81, pp. 276-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.04.012]
11. Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Yan, Q.; Wu, J. Species richness and vegetation pattern in interdune lowlands of an active dune field in Inner Mongolia, China. Biol. Conserv.; 2007; 140, pp. 29-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.030]
12. Zuo, X.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, T.; Guo, Y.; Wang, S.; Drake, S. Spatial pattern and heterogeneity of soil properties in sand dunes under grazing and restoration in Horqin Sandy Land, Northern China. Soil Tillage Res.; 2008; 99, pp. 202-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.02.008]
13. Li, C.; Li, Y.; Tang, L. Soil organic carbon stock and carbon efflux in deep soils of desert and oasis. Environ. Earth Sci.; 2010; 60, pp. 549-557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-009-0195-1]
14. Hu, F.L.; Shou, W.K.; Liu, B.; Liu, Z.M.; Busso, C.A. Species composition and diversity, and carbon stock in a dune ecosystem in the Horqin Sandy Land of northern China. J. Arid Land; 2015; 7, pp. 82-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40333-014-0038-0]
15. Li, Y.; Brandle, J.; Awada, T.; Chen, Y.; Hana, J.; Zhang, F.; Luo, Y. Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen in the plant-soil system after afforestation of active sand dunes in China’s Horqin Sandy Land. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.; 2013; 177, pp. 75-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.06.007]
16. Bremer, L.L.; Farley, K.L. Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2010; 19, pp. 3893-3915. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9936-4]
17. Li, Y.L.; Cui, J.Y.; Zhang, T.H.; Okuro, T.; Drake, S. Effectiveness of sand-fixing measures on desert land restoration in Kerqin Sandy Land, northern China. Ecol. Eng.; 2009; 35, pp. 118-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.09.013]
18. Ffolliott, P.F.; Gottfried, G.J.; Rietveld, W.J. Dryland forestry for sustainable development. J. Arid Environ.; 1995; 30, pp. 143-152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(05)80065-5]
19. Orlovsky, N.; Birnbaum, E.H. The role of Haloxylon species for combating desertification in Central Asia. Plant Biosyst.; 2002; 136, pp. 233-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263500212331351139]
20. Yu, K.; Li, D.; Li, N. The evolution of greenways in China. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2006; 76, pp. 223-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.034]
21. Budeanu, M.; Şofletea, N.; Petriţan, I.C. Among-population variation in quality traits in two Romanian provenance trials with Picea abies L. Balt. For.; 2014; 20, pp. 37-47.
22. Budeanu, M.; Besliu, E.; Pepelea, D. Testing the radial increment and climate–growth relationship between Swiss stone pine European provenances in the Romanian Carpathians. Forests; 2025; 16, 391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16030391]
23. Apostol, E.N.; Stuparu, E.; Scarlatescu, V.; Budeanu, M. Testing Hungarian oak (Quercus frainetto Ten.) provenances in Romania. iForest; 2020; 13, pp. 9-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor3108-012]
24. Besliu, E.; Curtu, A.L.; Apostol, E.N.; Budeanu, M. Using adapted and productive European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) provenances as future solutions for sustainable forest management in Romania. Land; 2024; 13, 183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13020183]
25. Chira, D.; Borlea, F.G.; Chira, F.; Mantale, C.Ş.; Ciocîrlan, M.I.; Turcu, D.O.; Mang, Ş.M. Selection of elms tolerant to Dutch elm disease in south-west Romania. Diversity; 2022; 14, 980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d14110980]
26. Martínez, M.L.; García-Franco, J.G. Plant–plant interactions in coastal dunes. Coastal Dunes: Ecology and Conservation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 205-220.
27. Latorre, E.C.E.; Canavero, A. Coastal dunes changes from 1966 to 2001 in the de La Plata River, Uruguay. Rev. Ibero-Am. Cienc. Ambient.; 2014; 5, pp. 27-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6008/SPC2179-6858.2014.001.0003]
28. Snowdon, P. Growth of Pinus elliottii, P. pinaster and P. radiata on coastal dune soils near Jervis Bay, Australian Capital Territory. Aust. For.; 2003; 66, pp. 161-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2003.10674907]
29. Costa, J.C. The coastal vegetation of the Portuguese divisory sector: Dunes, cliffs and low scrub communities. Finisterra; 2000; 35, pp. 69-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18055/Finis1670]
30. Kim, Y.; Choi, K.H.; Jung, P.M. Changes in foredune vegetation caused by coastal forests. Ocean Coast. Manag.; 2014; 102, pp. 103-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.001]
31. Livingstone, I.; Wiggs, G.F.; Weaver, C.M. Geomorphology of desert sand dunes: A review of recent progress. Earth Sci. Rev.; 2007; 80, pp. 239-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.09.004]
32. Hugenholtz, C.H.; Levin, N.; Barchyn, T.E.; Baddock, M.C. Remote sensing and spatial analysis of aeolian sand dunes: A review and outlook. Earth Sci. Rev.; 2012; 111, pp. 319-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.11.006]
33. Durán, O.; Parteli, E.J.; Herrmann, H.J. A continuous model for sand dunes: Review, new developments and application to barchan dunes and barchan dune fields. Earth Surf. Process. Landf.; 2010; 35, pp. 1591-1600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.2070]
34. Dincă, L.; Crisan, V.; Ienaşoiu, G.; Murariu, G.; Drăşovean, R. Environmental Indicator Plants in Mountain Forests: A Review. Plants; 2024; 13, 3358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants13233358] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39683151]
35. Fernandes, A.A.; Adams, C.; de Araujo, L.G.; Romanelli, J.P.; Santos, J.P.B.; Rodrigues, R.R. Forest landscape restoration and local stakeholders: A global bibliometric mapping analysis. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 16165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142316165]
36. Timis-Gansac, V.; Dincă, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G.; Cheregi, G.; Timofte, C.S.C. Conservation biodiversity in arid areas: A review. Sustainability; 2025; 17, 2422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su17062422]
37. Bullock, R.; Lawler, J. Community forestry research in Canada: A bibliometric perspective. For. Policy Econ.; 2015; 59, pp. 47-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.009]
38. Dincă, L.; Constandache, C.; Postolache, R.; Murariu, G.; Tupu, E. Timber Harvesting in Mountainous Regions: A Comprehensive Review. Forests; 2025; 16, 495. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16030495]
39. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.
40. OSF. Available online: https://osf.io/ (accessed on 2 June 2025).
41. Clarivate.com. Web of Science Core Collection. Available online: https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/web-of-science-core-collection/ (accessed on 20 May 2025).
42. Elsevier. Scopus. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus (accessed on 20 May 2025).
43. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Excel. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel?legRedir=true&CorrelationId=3bb60ab0-fe13-41a4-812b-2627667cf346 (accessed on 26 May 2025).
44. VOSviewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 22 May 2025).
45. Geochart. Available online: https://developers.google.com/chart/interactive/docs/gallery/geochart (accessed on 23 May 2025).
46. Nishijima, H.; Nakata, M. Relationship between plant cover type and soil properties on Syunkunitai coastal sand dune in eastern Hokkaido. Ecol. Res.; 2004; 19, pp. 581-591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1703.2004.00674.x]
47. Ang, L.; Maruyama, Y.; Mullins, C.; Seel, W. Effects of periodic drought on gas exchange and phyllode water status of Acacia mangium and A. auriculiformis growing on sand tailings. Plantation Technology in Tropical Forest Science; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2006; pp. 239-245.
48. Dounas, H.; Bourhia, M.; Outamamat, E.; Bouskout, M.; Nafidi, H.A.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; Ouahmane, L. Effects of dual symbiotic interactions performed by the exotic tree golden wreath wattle (Acacia cyanophylla Lindl.) on soil fertility in a coastal sand dune ecosystem. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2022; 10, 895462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.895462]
49. Laminou Manzo, O.; Ibrahim, D.; Campanella, B.; Paul, R. Effects of mycorrhizal inoculation of the substrate on growth and water stress tolerance of five sand dune fixing species: Acacia raddiana Savi; Acacia nilotica (L.) Willd. ex Del. var. adansonii; Acacia senegal (L.) Willd; Prosopis chilensis Stunz.; Bauhinia rufescens Lam. Geo-Eco-Trop; 2009; 33, pp. 115-124.
50. Applebaum, I.; Doniger, T.; Steinberger, Y. Temporal dynamics of soil nematode population in an Acacia saligna invaded Mediterranean sand dune ecosystem. Nematology; 2023; 25, pp. 979-991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685411-bja10270]
51. Cohen, O.; Bar, P. The impact of Acacia saligna invasion on the indigenous vegetation in various coastal habitats in Israel and its implication for nature conservation. Isr. J. Plant Sci.; 2017; 64, pp. 111-121.
52. Rebelo, L.G.; Silva, M.C.; da Silva, H.J.; Gurgel, E.S.C.; Barbosa, B.V.; Teodoro, G.S. Traits vary differently across a lowland forest–sand dune gradient in two common trees of the Amazon restinga coast. Aust. J. Bot.; 2024; 72, BT23044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1071/BT23044]
53. Burrows, F.J. The effect of taproot length and soil disturbance on the growth of Angophora costata seedlings planted on dunes restored after mineral sand mining. Reclam. Reveget. Res.; 1986; 4, pp. 167-182.
54. Olukoye, G.A.; Kinyamario, J.I. Community participation in the rehabilitation of a sand dune environment in Kenya. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2009; 20, pp. 397-409. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.932]
55. Li, Y.; Cao, W.; Chen, Y.; Han, L. Responses of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus stoichiometry to afforestation of severely desertified land in northern China. Ecol. Indic.; 2025; 175, 113520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113520]
56. Harwood, C.E.; Kha, L.D.; Dien, P.Q.; Van Thang, L. Performance of Australian dry-zone Acacia species on white sandy soil in dry, Southeastern Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings Series; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia, 1998; pp. 29-35.
57. Chen, D.; Ye, G.; Gao, W.; You, L.; Nie, S.; Wang, Y.P. Ecological response of Casuarina equisetifolia to environmental stress in coastal dunes in China. J. For. Res.; 2018; 23, pp. 173-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2018.1469209]
58. Gao, W.; Huang, S.; Huang, Y.; Yue, X.; Ye, G. Effects of tree species on soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in a coastal sand dune of southern subtropical China. Vegetos; 2019; 32, pp. 142-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42535-019-00017-4]
59. Ndiaye, P.; Mailly, D.; Pineau, M.; Margolis, H.A. Growth and yield of Casuarina equisetifolia plantations on the coastal sand dunes of Senegal as a function of microtopography. For. Ecol. Manag.; 1993; 56, pp. 13-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(93)90100-2]
60. Daskalopoulos, V.; Polemis, E.; Fryssouli, V.; Kottis, L.; Bandini, D.; Dima, B.; Zervakis, G.I. Mallocybe heimii ecto-mycorrhizae with Cistus creticus and Pinus halepensis in Mediterranean littoral sand dunes—Assessment of phylogenetic relationships to M. arenaria and M. agardhii. Mycorrhiza; 2021; 31, pp. 497-510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00572-021-01038-1]
61. Galardis, M.B.; Sánchez, R.L.; Pruneau, L.; Eichler-Lobermann, B.; Fall, F.; Bâ, A.M. Using the ectomycorrhizal symbiosis between Coccoloba uvifera L. and Scleroderma bermudense Coker to restore a degraded coastal sand dune in Cuba. Trees; 2024; 38, pp. 127-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00468-023-02470-w]
62. Ramírez-Pinero, M.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Guevara, S. Canopy asymmetry in solitary Diphysa americana trees: Wind and landscape on the Mexican coast. J. Coast. Conserv.; 2019; 23, pp. 163-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0648-3]
63. Abdel-Rahman, A. Effect of drought and habitat condition on some physiological and biochemical constituents of Ficus carica L. fruits. Catrina Int. J. Environ. Sci.; 2010; 5, pp. 23-30.
64. Chlachula, J. Between sand dunes and hamadas: Environmental sustainability of the Thar Desert, west India. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3602. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073602]
65. Saxena, S.K.; Singh, S. Some observations on the sand dunes and vegetation of Bikaner district in western Rajasthan. Ann. Arid Zone; 1976; 15, pp. 313-322.
66. Ćuk, M.; Ponjarac, R.; Igić, D.; Ilić, M.; Oldja, M.; Vukov, D.; Čarni, A. Historical overview of the Deliblato sands afforestation. Šumarski List; 2023; 147, pp. 383-392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31298/sl.147.7-8.7]
67. Rubio-Casal, A.E.; Leira-Doce, P.; Figueroa, M.E.; Castillo, J.M. Contrasted tolerance to low and high temperatures of three tree taxa co-occurring on coastal dune forests under Mediterranean climate. J. Arid Environ.; 2010; 74, pp. 429-439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.10.004]
68. Armas, C.; Pugnaire, F.I. Ontogenetic shifts in interactions of two dominant shrub species in a semi-arid coastal sand dune system. J. Veg. Sci.; 2009; 20, pp. 535-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01055.x]
69. Smale, M.C. Structure and dynamics of kanuka (Kunzea ericoides var. ericoides) heaths on sand dunes in Bay of Plenty, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Bot.; 1994; 32, pp. 441-452.
70. Gordon, A.J. Biological control of Australian myrtle, Leptospermum laevigatum (J. Gaertn.) F. Muell. (Myrtaceae), in South Africa. Biological Control of Weeds in South Africa (1990–1998); ARC-Plant Protection Research Institute: Stellenbosch, South Africa, 1999; pp. 139-143.
71. Gao, W.; Yue, X.J.; Chen, D.Z.; Nie, S.; Chen, M.Y.; Ye, G.F. Seasonal dynamics of leaf and litter stoichiometry of different tree species in a coastal sand dune of southern subtropical China. Vegetos; 2018; 31, pp. 37-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2229-4473.2018.00071.X]
72. Marod, D.; Sungkaew, S.; Mizunaga, H.; Thinkampheang, S.; Thongsawi, J. Woody plant community and distribution in a tropical coastal sand dune in southern Thailand. J. Coast. Conserv.; 2020; 24, 44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-020-00761-9]
73. Cournoyer, L.; Filion, L. Variation in wood anatomy of white spruce in response to dune activity. Arct. Alp. Res.; 1994; 26, pp. 412-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1551803]
74. Bouachir, B.B.; Khorchani, A.; Guibal, F.; El Aouni, M.H.; Khaldi, A. Dendroecological study of Pinus halepensis and Pinus pinea in northeast coastal dunes in Tunisia according to distance from the shoreline and dieback intensity. Dendrochronologia; 2017; 45, pp. 62-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2017.06.008]
75. Ampe, C.; Langohr, R. Morphological characterisation of humus forms in recent coastal dune ecosystems in Belgium and northern France. Catena; 2003; 54, pp. 363-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00128-0]
76. Gulezian, P.Z.; Nyberg, D.W. Naturalized pine (Pinus nigra) promotes growth of woody vegetation in native sand prairie: Impacts of invasion 130 years after introduction. Nat. Areas J.; 2011; 31, pp. 6-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.031.0102]
77. Amiotti, N.M.; Zalba, P.; Ares, A.; Rossi, J.M. Coniferous afforestation increases soil carbon in maritime sand dunes. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.; 2013; 59, pp. 289-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2011.627326]
78. Beets, P.N.; Gilchrist, K.; Jeffreys, M.P. Wood density of radiata pine: Effect of nitrogen supply. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2001; 145, pp. 173-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00405-9]
79. Hill, M.O.; Wallace, H.L. Vegetation and environment in afforested sand dunes at Newborough, Anglesey. Forestry; 1989; 62, pp. 249-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/forestry/62.3.249]
80. Kellman, M.; Kading, M. Facilitation of tree seedling establishment in a sand dune succession. J. Veg. Sci.; 1992; 3, pp. 679-688. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3235836]
81. Fischer, F.M.; Oliveira, J.M.; Dresseno, A.L.; Pillar, V.D. The role of invasive pine on changes of plant composition and functional traits in a coastal dune ecosystem. Nat. Conserv.; 2014; 12, pp. 19-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2014.004]
82. Nanko, K.; Suzuki, S.; Noguchi, H.; Ishida, Y.; Levia, D.F.; Ogura, A.; Sakamoto, T. Mechanical properties of Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) planted on coastal sand dunes: Resistance to uprooting and stem breakage by tsunamis. Wood Sci. Technol.; 2019; 53, pp. 469-489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00226-019-01078-z]
83. Otoda, T.; Zhang, G.; Wang, L.; Yoshikawa, K. Effects of different planting methods on the early establishment of two introduced tree species in the Mu Us Sandy Land of China. Landsc. Ecol. Eng.; 2013; 9, pp. 59-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11355-011-0177-9]
84. Moradi, M.; Imani, F.; Naji, H.R.; Moradi Behbahani, S.; Ahmadi, M.T. Variation in soil carbon stock and nutrient content in sand dunes after afforestation by Prosopis juliflora in the Khuzestan province (Iran). iForest; 2017; 10, 585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3832/ifor2137-010]
85. Juhasz, M.; Bagi, I. The critical effect of drought stress on the invading features of bird cherry (Prunus serotina Ehrh.) during the dispersion stage on a sand-dune area in Hungary. Cereal Res. Commun.; 2009; 37, pp. 553-556.
86. Muhamed, H.; Touzard, B.; Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y.; Michalet, R. The role of biotic interactions for the early establishment of oak seedlings in coastal dune forest communities. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2013; 297, pp. 67-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.02.023]
87. Ciuvat, A.L.; Abrudan, I.V.; Ciuvat, C.G.; Marcu, C.; Lorent, A.; Dinca, L.; Szilard, B. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.) in Romanian Forestry. Diversity; 2022; 14, 780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d14100780]
88. Purdy, B.G.; Bayer, R.J. Allozyme variation in the Athabasca sand dune endemic, Salix silicicola, and the closely related widespread species, S. alaxensis. Syst. Bot.; 1995; 20, pp. 179-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2419448]
89. Lipp, J. Utilization of oxygen-18 and deuterium in stem flow for the identification of transpiration sources: Soil water versus groundwater in sand dune terrain. Application of Tracers in Arid Zone Hydrology, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Vienna, Austria, 22–26 August 1994; IAHS: Wallingford, UK, 1995.
90. Nouri Sadegh, A.; Kiaei, M.; Samariha, A. Experimental characterization of shrinkage and density of Tamarix aphylla wood. Cellul. Chem. Technol.; 2012; 46, 369.
91. Arbel, Y.; Yair, A.; Oz, S. Effect of topography and water repellent layer on the non-uniform development of planted trees in a sandy arid area. J. Arid Environ.; 2005; 60, pp. 67-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.03.008]
92. Jiang, D.; Tang, Y.; Busso, C.A. Effects of vegetation cover on recruitment of Ulmus pumila L. in Horqin Sandy Land, northeastern China. J. Arid Land; 2014; 6, pp. 343-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40333-013-0204-9]
93. Akram, M.; Kahlown, M.A.; Soomro, Z.A. Desertification control for sustainable land use in the Cholistan Desert, Pakistan. The Future of Drylands, Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference on Desertification and Drylands Research, Tunis, Tunisia, 19–21 June 2006; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 483-492.
94. Almujibah, H.; Elamary, A.; Alwetaishi, M. Seeking ways for dealing with the impacts of sandstorms on the railway network in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 9436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14159436]
95. Bi, H.; Liu, Q. Desertification and re-afforestation of the coastal land in Changjiang County, Hainan Island. Chin. J. Geochem.; 2001; 20, 374.
96. Dammala, P.K.; Kolli, S.; Garaga, R.; Reddy, K.R.; Kumar, P. Aeolian sand dune fixation—Critical review of measures, challenges and future perspectives with a case study on Thar Desert. CATENA; 2025; 250, 108786. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2025.108786]
97. Hammer, T. Reforestation and Community Development in the Sudan; DERAP Publication No. 150 Chr. Michelsen Institute: Bergen, Norway, 1982; x + 72p.
98. Zollner, D. Sand dune stabilization in Central Somalia. For. Ecol. Manag.; 1986; 16, pp. 223-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-1127(86)90022-8]
99. Moomen, S.E.; Barney, C.W. A modern technique to halt desertification in the Libyan Jamahiriya. Agric. Meteorol.; 1981; 23, pp. 131-136.
100. Janecka, K.; Harvey, J.E.; Trouillier, M.; Kaczka, R.J.; Metslaid, S.; Metslaid, M.; Wilmking, M. Higher winter-spring temperature and winter-spring/summer moisture availability increase Scots pine growth on coastal dune microsites around the South Baltic Sea. Front. For. Glob. Change; 2020; 3, 578912.
101. Wright, T.W. Profile development in the sand dunes of Culbin Forest, Morayshire: I. Physical properties. J. Soil Sci.; 1955; 6, pp. 270-283.
102. Garzo, P.A.; Dadon, J.R.; Isla, F.I. Touristic urbanization and greening of coastal dune fields: A long-term assessment of a temperate sandy barrier of Argentina. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2025; 35, pp. 206-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-025-2319-2]
103. Katz, O.; Stavi, I. Hierarchical effects of Tamarix aphylla afforestation in a sand dune environment on vegetation structure and plant diversity. For. Sci.; 2020; 66, pp. 568-577.
104. Choi, K.H.; Kim, Y.; Jung, P.M. Adverse effect of planting pine on coastal dunes, Korea. J. Coast. Res.; 2013; 65, pp. 909-914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI65-154.1]
105. Marcomini, S.; López, R.; Picca, P.; Madanes, N.; Bertolín, L. Natural coastal dune-field landforms, plant communities, and human intervention along Buenos Aires Northern Aeolian Barrier. J. Coast. Res.; 2017; 33, pp. 1051-1064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00219.1]
106. Marchante, E.; Kjøller, A.; Struwe, S.; Freitas, H. Invasive Acacia longifolia induce changes in the microbial catabolic diversity of sand dunes. Soil Biol. Biochem.; 2008; 40, pp. 2563-2568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.06.017]
107. Bechara, F.C.; Reis, A.; Bourscheid, K.; Vieira, N.K.; Trentin, B.E. Reproductive biology and early establishment of Pinus elliottii var. elliottii in Brazilian sandy coastal plain vegetation: Implications for biological invasion. Sci. Agric.; 2013; 70, pp. 88-92.
108. Enescu, C.M.; Mihalache, M.; Ilie, L.; Dinca, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G. Agricultural benefits of shelterbelts and windbreaks: A bibliometric analysis. Agriculture; 2025; 15, 1204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111204]
109. Bratu, I.; Dinca, L.; Constandache, C.; Murariu, G. Resilience and decline: The impact of climatic variability on temperate oak forests. Climate; 2025; 13, 119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cli13060119]
110. Dinca, L.; Murariu, G.; Lupoae, M. Understanding the ecosystem services of riparian forests: Patterns, gaps, and global trends. Forests; 2025; 16, 947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f16060947]
111. Dincă, L.; Achim, F. The management of forests situated on fields susceptible to landslides and erosion from the Southern Carpathians. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev.; 2019; 19, pp. 183-188.
112. Silvestru-Grigore, C.V.; Dinulică, F.; Spârchez, G.; Hălălișan, A.F.; Dincă, L.C.; Enescu, R.E.; Crișan, V.E. Radial growth behavior of pines on Romanian degraded lands. Forests; 2018; 9, 213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f9040213]
113. Vlad, R.; Constandache, C.; Dinca, L.; Tudose, N.C.; Sidor, C.G.; Popovici, L.; Ispravnic, A. Influence of climatic, site and stand characteristics on some structural parameters of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) forests situated on degraded lands from east Romania. Range Manag. Agrofor.; 2019; 40, pp. 40-48.
114. Murariu, G.; Dinca, L.; Tudose, N.; Crișan, V.; Georgescu, L.; Munteanu, D.; Mocanu, G.D. Structural characteristics of the main resinous stands from Southern Carpathians, Romania. Forests; 2021; 12, 1029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12081029]
115. Dincă, L.; Murariu, G.; Enescu, C.M.; Achim, F.; Georgescu, L.; Murariu, A.; Holonec, L. Productivity differences between southern and northern slopes of Southern Carpathians (Romania) for Norway spruce, silver fir, birch and black alder. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca; 2020; 48, pp. 1070-1084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha48211824]
116. Crișan, V.-E.; Dincă, L.; Bragă, C.; Murariu, G.; Tupu, E.; Mocanu, G.D.; Drasovean, R. The configuration of Romanian Carpathians landscape controls the volume diversity of Picea abies (L.) stands. Land; 2023; 12, 406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12020406]
117. Keleg, F.; El-Gazzar, A.; Zahran, A. Studies on root distribution of Jourdan almond and Sultani fig. Alex. J. Agric. Res.; 1981; 29, pp. 219-224.
118. Abdel-Razik, M.; Van de Ven, G.; El-Darier, S.; Hussein, H. Fruit Tree Cultivation in the Northwestern Coastal Zone of Egypt; CABO Verlag 68 Centre for Agrobiological Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1987; 56p.
119. Dincă, L.; Holonec, L.; Socaciu, C.; Dinulică, F.; Constandache, C.; Blaga, T.; Peticilă, A. Hippophae salicifolia D. Don—A miraculous species less known in Europe. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca; 2018; 46, pp. 474-483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha46211155]
120. Şimonca, V.; Oroian, I.; Chira, D.; Tăut, I. Methods for quantification of the decline phenomenon and determination of the vulnerability degree for the oak stands in Northwestern Transylvania, Romania. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca; 2017; 45, pp. 623-631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nbha45210839]
121. Li, M.; Tong, Y.; Cao, Z.; Huang, J.; Zhang, S.; Xu, S.; Ding, Y.; Wang, W.; Maimaiti, A.; Wang, L.
122. Tudose, N.C.; Cheval, S.; Ungurean, C.; Broekman, A.; Sanchez-Plaza, A.; Cremades, R.; Mitter, H.; Kropf, B.; Davidescu, Ș.O.; Dincă, L.
123. Constandache, C.; Tudor, C.; Popovici, L.; Radu, V.; Crisan, V.; Dinca, L.C. Structural Characteristics of the Pine Stands on Degraded Lands in the South-East of Romania, in the Context of Climate Changes. Appl. Sci.; 2024; 14, 8127.
124. Du, S.; Xie, H.; Zhang, G.; Qiao, F.; Geng, G. Improvement effects of different afforestation measures on the surface soil of alpine sandy land. Biology; 2025; 14, 144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology14020144]
125. Lemauviel, S.; Roze, F. Ecological study of pine forest clearings along the French Atlantic sand dunes: Perspectives of restoration. Acta Oecologica; 2000; 21, pp. 179-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(00)00051-5]
126. Miyasaka, T.; Okuro, T.; Miyamori, E.; Zhao, X.; Takeuchi, K. Effects of different restoration measures and sand dune topography on short- and long-term vegetation restoration in northeast China. J. Arid Environ.; 2014; 111, pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.07.003]
127. Avisar, A.; Aronson, J.; Dayan, T. Afforestation with River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) Drives Biotic Homogenization in Coastal Sand Dunes. 2025; SSRN 5225432 Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5225432 (accessed on 2 June 2025).
128. Cooper, A.; Jackson, D. Dune gardening? A critical view of the contemporary coastal dune management paradigm. Area; 2021; 53, pp. 345-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/area.12692]
129. Van der Meulen, F.; Salman, A.H.P.M. Management of Mediterranean coastal dunes. Ocean. Coast. Manag.; 1996; 30, pp. 177-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(95)00060-7]
130. Kutiel, P. Conservation and management of the Mediterranean coastal sand dunes in Israel. J. Coast. Conserv.; 2001; 7, pp. 183-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02742480]
131. Bar, P.; Cohen, O.; Shoshany, M. Invasion rate of the alien species Acacia saligna within coastal sand dune habitats in Israel. Isr. J. Plant Sci.; 2004; 52, pp. 115-124.
132. Yelenik, S.G.; Stock, W.D.; Richardson, D.M. Ecosystem-level impacts of invasive Acacia saligna in the South African fynbos. Restor. Ecol.; 2004; 12, pp. 44-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00289.x]
133. Le Maitre, D.C.; Gaertner, M.; Marchante, E.; Ens, E.J.; Holmes, P.M.; Pauchard, A.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Rogers, A.M.; Blanchard, R.; Blignaut, J.
134. Souza-Alonso, P.; Rodríguez, J.; González, L.; Lorenzo, P. Here to stay: Recent advances and perspectives about Acacia invasion in Mediterranean areas. Ann. For. Sci.; 2017; 74, 55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13595-017-0651-0]
135. Antunes, C.; Pereira, A.J.; Fernandes, P.; Ramos, M.; Ascensão, L.; Correia, O.; Máguas, C. Understanding plant drought resistance in a Mediterranean coastal sand dune ecosystem: Differences between native and exotic invasive species. J. Plant Ecol.; 2018; 11, pp. 26-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtx014]
136. Del Vecchio, S.; Acosta, A.; Stanisci, A. The impact of Acacia saligna invasion on Italian coastal dune EC habitats. Comptes Rendus Biol.; 2013; 336, pp. 364-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2013.06.004]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Marin Mirabela 1 ; Murariu Gabriel 2
; Munteanu, Dan 3 1 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor 128, 077190 Voluntari, Romania; [email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (N.C.T.); [email protected] (M.M.)
2 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and Environmental, Dunarea de Jos University Galati, Physics and Environment, Domneasca Street no. 47, 800008 Galati, Romania, Rexdan Research Infrastructure, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 800008 Galati, Romania
3 Faculty of Automation, Computer Sciences, Electronics and Electrical Engineering, “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, 800008 Galati, Romania; [email protected]