Randomized trial assessing the influence of local and landscape factors on plant diversity, indicating implications for conservation planning.
High rates of deforestation in highly biodiverse tropical forests underscore the importance of understanding the mechanisms that structure plant communities. Elucidating plant species responses to environmental drivers allows robust predictions of successional trajectories and more effective restoration planning. We used a database-based framework integrated with spatial analyses to assess the influence of local (pH, organic matter, cation exchange capacity), and landscape factors (forest cover, heterogeneity, aggregation index, edge density) on taxonomic richness and diversity, successional groups, and age categories of plant communities across gradients of anthropogenic disturbance. We employed 128 landscapes which represent a gradient of forest cover delimited by 200 m buffers associated with different plant communities. Our results showed that plant total abundance is only explained by the effect of factors at the local scale: soil and topographic variables (availability of nutrients and organic matter). We did not find any effect of local and landscape factors on total richness and diversity. On the other hand, pioneer species responded to both local and landscape drivers, with abundance influenced by climatic and landscape configuration variables, while richness and diversity were mainly controlled by local soil and climatic conditions. Intermediate and late-successional groups showed more specific responses, with diversity linked to landscape structure or climate, and demographic stages differing in their sensitivity to temperature and landscape aggregation. Our results highlight that local and landscape factors influence plant community structure and that the response is differential depending on the successional group and age category. These findings provide a multiscale framework for conservation planning in tropical ecosystems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maza‐Villalobos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: