Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:48:19.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of tree-on-tree interactions and abiotic conditions on woody communities in Brazilian savannas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2023

Davi Borges Chagas*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-graduação em Botânica, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil Herbário do Tocantins (HTO), Núcleo de Estudos Ambientais, Universidade Federal do Tocantins, Porto Nacional, Tocantins, Brazil
Alessandro Rapini*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-graduação em Botânica, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil
Pedro Manuel Villa
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-graduação em Botânica, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil
Rosane Garcia Collevatti
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Genética & Biodiversidade, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal do Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil Laboratório de Ecologia Espacial e Conservação, Departamento de Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil
*
Corresponding authors: Davi Borges Chagas and Alessandro Rapini; Emails: davibchagas@gmail.com, rapinibot@yahoo.com.br
Corresponding authors: Davi Borges Chagas and Alessandro Rapini; Emails: davibchagas@gmail.com, rapinibot@yahoo.com.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fire plays a crucial role in shaping plant communities in South American savannas. However, the impact of biotic interactions on tree communities still needs to be better explored. In this study, we evaluated the influence of tree-on-tree interactions and abiotic conditions on the structure and diversity of woody communities in savannas of Central Brazil. We used plots of 10 × 10 m in three preservation areas of savanna to assess the abundance and composition of juveniles and adults in woody communities associated with two Apocynaceae tree species: Hancornia speciosa, postulated to show negative interactions with the associated tree community, and Himatanthus obovatus, postulated to show positive interactions. Our results revealed that while abiotic factors, represented by the altitude, are more critical in shaping the community of juvenile trees, tree-on-tree interactions have a stronger influence on adult tree populations, driving community dynamics during plant recruitment. Specifically, Hancornia speciosa reduces the abundance of adults, whereas Himatanthus obovatus enhances their relative abundance; both shape the composition of tree communities. Consequently, tree-on-tree interactions create distinct mosaics at various stages of regeneration, contributing to savanna dynamics and conservation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Savanna is an heterogeneous vegetation in the tropics and subtropics, usually characterised by a continuous C4 herbaceous layer with a discontinuous C3 tree stratum, where fire is a prevalent endogenous disturbance (Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Archibald, Hoffmann and Bond2011, Reference Lehmann, Anderson, Sankaran, Higgins, Archibald, Hoffmann, Hanan, Williams, Fensham, Felfili, Hutley, Ratnam, San Jose, Montes, Franklin, Russell-Smith, Ryan, Durigan, Hiernaux, Haidar, Bowman and Bond2014, Pausas and Bond, Reference Pausas and Bond2020). Tropical savannas are distributed in Africa, Australia and South America (Figure 1a) under different fire regimes and dynamics, covering approximately 20% of the terrestrial surface (Archibald et al. Reference Archibald, Lehmann, Gómez-Dans and Bradstock2013, Reference Archibald, Bond, Hoffmann, Lehmann, Staver, Stevens, Scogings and Sankaran2019, Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Archibald, Hoffmann and Bond2011). In South America, savannas are mainly distributed in the Cerrado (Borghetti et al. Reference Borghetti, Barbosa, Ribeiro, Ribeiro, Walter, Scogings and Sankaran2019, Critical Ecosystem Partner Fund, 2018, Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Archibald, Hoffmann and Bond2011, Olson et al. Reference Olson, Dinerstein, Wikramanayake, Burgess, Powell, Underwood, D’amico, Itoua, Strand, Morrison, Loucks, Allnutt, Ricketts, Kura, Lamoreux, Wettengel, Hedao and Kassem2001), a phytogeographic domain that covers approximately 2 million km2 (Figure 1b). The Cerrado harbours 12,363 species of angiosperm in Brazil; more than half of this diversity (6,939 species) belongs to savannas (cerrado sensu lato vegetation), which corresponds to approximately 95% of angiosperm species in the Brazilian savannas and includes over 1,000 species of trees (Flora and Funga of Brazil, 2022).

Figure 1. Study area, vegetation, sample design and target plants. (a) Savanna biome area (dark grey) with emphasis on South America (WWF   2019). (b) Cerrado domain area (dark grey; IBGE   2019) and Cerrado Biosphere Reserve (black; MMA, 2019) in Brazil, showing the study area. (c) Landscape in the study area. (d) Hancornia speciosa. (e) Himatanthus obovatus. (f) Scheme of sample plots: – plot limits; – target species; – subplots.

More than half of the native vegetation cover in the Cerrado domain is already converted to croplands, mainly of soybean, and pasturelands or has been changed to hydroelectric dams, urban areas or mining. Most of the remaining area (>80%) is not covered by pristine vegetation and remains under intense anthropic pressure, mainly because of the agribusiness expansion (INPE, 2019, Klink and Machado, Reference Klink and Machado2005, Lahsen et al. Reference Lahsen, Bustamante and Dalla-Nora2016, Overbeck et al. Reference Overbeck, Vélez-Martin, Menezes, Anand, Baeza, Carlucci, Dechoum, Durigan, Fidelis, Guido, Moro, Munhoz, Reginato, Rodrigues, Rosenfield, Sampaio, Barbosa da Silva, Silveira, Sosinski, Staude, Temperton, Turchetto, Veldman, Viana, Zappi and Müller2022, Strassburg et al. Reference Strassburg, Brooks, Feltran-Barbieri, Iribarrem, Crouzeilles, Loyola, Latawiec, Oliveira Filho, Scaramuzza, Scarano, Soares-filho and Balmford2017). Conservation units protect less than 10% of the Cerrado (ICMBio, 2019, Lahsen et al. Reference Lahsen, Bustamante and Dalla-Nora2016), which will not be effective in the face of current land use and the effects of climate change (Velazco et al. Reference Velazco, Villalobos, Galvão and De Marco Júnior2019). Over 30% of the remaining Cerrado is estimated to be devastated by 2050, leading to the extinction of hundreds of plant species (Strassburg et al. Reference Strassburg, Brooks, Feltran-Barbieri, Iribarrem, Crouzeilles, Loyola, Latawiec, Oliveira Filho, Scaramuzza, Scarano, Soares-filho and Balmford2017). In the last two or three decades, the Cerrado agricultural frontiers have comprised mainly savannas in the states of Maranhão (MA), Tocantins (TO), Piauí (PI) and Bahia (BA), a region known as MATOPIBA (Pivello et al. Reference Pivello, Vieira, Christianini, Ribeiro, Menezese, Berlinck, Melog, Marengo, Tornquist, Tomas and Overbeck2021, Sano et al. Reference Sano, Rosa, Scaramuzza, Adami, Bolfe, Coutinho, Esquerdo, Maurano, Narvaes, Oliveira Filho, Silva, Victoria, Ferreira, Brito, Bayma, Oliveira and Bayma-Silva2019). This region comprises the most significant remnants of original vegetation in the Cerrado, but its flora remains little known (Santana and Simon, Reference Santana and Simon2022).

The boundaries between fire-prone savannas and fire-impending forests can be sharp and dynamic. Under intermediate rainfall and mild seasonality, similar resource conditions can support contrasting fire feedback loops and lead to the establishment of either savannas or forests as alternative stable vegetation types (‘biomes’ in Staver et al. Reference Staver, Archibald and Levin2011 or ‘ecosystems’ in Buisson et al. Reference Buisson, Le Stradic, Silveira, Durigan, Overbeck, Fidelis, Fernandes, Bond, Hermann, Mahy, Alvarado, Zaloumis and Veldman2019, see also Bond et al. Reference Bond, Bradley and Lee2016, Dantas et al. Reference Dantas, Hirota, Oliveira and Pausas2016, Le Stradic et al. Reference Le Stradic, Roumet, Durigan, Cancian and Fidelis2021, Midgley et al. Reference Midgley, Lawes and Chamaillé-Jammes2010, Pausas and Bond, Reference Pausas and Bond2020, Reis et al. Reference Reis, Lenza, Marimon, Gomes, Forsthofer, Morandi, Marimon Junior, Feldpausch and Elias2015, Touboul et al. Reference Touboul, Staver and Levin2018, Veldman et al. Reference Veldman, Buisson, Durigan, Fernandes, Le Stradic, Mahy, Negreiros, Overbeck, Veldman, Zaloumis, Putz and Bond2015). A large portion of South America is estimated to be under bi-stability, showing mainly savannas (low tree cover) in the Brazilian Cerrado domain and especially forests (high tree cover) in the eastern Amazonia domain (Staver et al. Reference Staver, Archibald and Levin2011). On a continental scale, the savanna vegetation is often reduced to a couple of functional groups, namely graminoid (mainly C4 grasses) and woody plants (mainly C3 trees). Hence, local patterns and processes that characterise heterogeneous landscapes are usually neglected (e.g. Levick and Rodgers, Reference Levick and Rogers2011), and the impact of interactions within life forms in structuring and maintaining the plant community assemblage is overlooked.

Recruitment is critical to savanna structure and dynamics (e.g. Borghetti et al. Reference Borghetti, Barbosa, Ribeiro, Ribeiro, Walter, Scogings and Sankaran2019), but this process has yet to be further investigated (Midgley et al. Reference Midgley, Lawes and Chamaillé-Jammes2010). Fire selectively affects recruitment more than established trees: it helps to maintain a low tree cover and favours the recruitment and persistence of savanna specialists to the detriment of forest specialists (Midgley et al. Reference Midgley, Lawes and Chamaillé-Jammes2010). Plant–plant interactions, such as competition and facilitation, within life forms can also be essential for recruitment, community assembling and vegetation structuring (Tatsumi et al. Reference Tatsumi, Cadotte and Mori2019, Tilman, Reference Tilman2004, Vega-Álvarez et al. Reference Vega-Álvarez, García-Rodríguez and Cayuela2019). However, their influence in savannas remains poorly explored and discussed (see Chagas et al. Reference Chagas, Rapini and Collevatti2020, Flake et al. Reference Flake, Honda, Pilon, Hoffmann and Durigan2022, Le Stradic et al. Reference Le Stradic, Roumet, Durigan, Cancian and Fidelis2021). Here, we evaluated the influence of tree-on-tree interactions and the altitude effect (abiotic conditions) on tree recruitment in a savanna within the MATOPIBA region in Central Brazil.

First, we compare the species number, abundance and composition of juvenile and adult trees in woody communities associated with two species of non-forest trees that are commonly found in savannas: Hancornia speciosa Gomes and Himatanthus obovatus (Müll. Arg.) Woodson (Apocynaceae). While H. speciosa seems to interact negatively with the neighbourhood occupation, H. obovatus seems to interact positively. The contrasting effects of these target species in the associated plant community were inferred from field observations and supported through laboratory tests on allelopathy (Gonçalves, Reference Gonçalves2016, Uhlmann et al. Reference Uhlmann, Oliveira and Santos2018). More recently, the number of rare species surrounding these trees also supported their opposite influence on the selectivity of coexisting species. In particular, H. speciosa acted as a filter, reducing the richness and abundance of surrounding trees while promoting evenness in the associated tree communities (Chagas et al. Reference Chagas, Rapini and Collevatti2020). By comparing juvenile and adult trees associated with these species, we aim to identify patterns of species turnover and changes in the community structure, providing evidence of the regional species pool and the potential factors involved in tree recruitment (Datry et al. Reference Datry, Bonada and Heino2015, Grime, Reference Grime1998, Salles and Schiavini, Reference Salles and Schiavini2007). Finally, we assess the relative importance of tree-on-tree interactions and abiotic conditions (on a local scale, embodied by the altitude) on the structure and diversity of woody communities.

Variation in the species number is a key parameter for assessing environmental restoration efforts. Still, it is equally important to consider species composition and abundance, as they impact the functioning and structuring of plant communities (Chagas and Pelicice, Reference Chagas and Pelicice2018, Grubb, Reference Grubb1977, Pausas and Bond, Reference Pausas and Bond2021, Ploughe et al. Reference Ploughe, Jacobs, Frank, Greenler, Smith and Dukes2019). Both negative and positive interactions can influence species composition, increase species richness and decrease population size, albeit in different strata (Hutchinson, Reference Hutchinson1967, Tilman, Reference Tilman2004, Vega-Álvarez et al. Reference Vega-Álvarez, García-Rodríguez and Cayuela2019, Whittaker, Reference Whittaker1969). Given the biotic filter imposed by H. speciosa and H. obovatus, we anticipate distinct patterns of tree recruitment in their surrounding compared to communities not associated with them. Consequently, we hypothesise that plant interactions will play a more significant role than altitude in shaping adult communities, whereas their influence on juvenile communities may be less pronounced.

Materials and methods

Study area

This study was conducted in a savanna of Central Brazil, in Porto Nacional, state of Tocantins, in 2016. The study area is in the Cerrado Biosphere Reserve (Figures 1b and 1c), delimited by the Man and the Biosphere programme of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Brito and Silva Reference Brito and Silva2019). Savanna plots were set up in three reserves of private rural properties with low anthropic activity, classified as cerrado sensu stricto (Ribeiro and Walter, Reference Ribeiro, Walter, Sano, Almeida and Ribeiro2008) and natural occurrences of Hancornia speciosa and Himatanthus obovatus. The reserves encompass ∼ 109, 40.5 and 14.5 ha, forming a polygon of ∼ 8,500 ha between 10º33′00″–10º48″30″S and 48º20′00″–48º26′00″W, with plots distributed in polygons of ∼ 23.5, 33.5 and 5 ha, respectively. Soils in the three reserves are oligotrophic and acidic, with low organic matter and high levels of aluminium (Pinheiro et al. Reference Pinheiro, Coimbra, Silva and Ferreira2018). Microenvironmental differences within and between sites were homogenised by the use of replicas at local and regional scales. However, abiotic factors, such as temperature, are not expected to vary enough locally to affect our results significantly. Although often seen as a prime determinant of savannas, soil properties are extremely uniform below 10–15 cm and are not associated with changes in the Cerrado composition and physiognomy (Ruggiero et al. Reference Ruggiero, Batalha, Pivello and Meirelles2002). Fire was recorded in these three reserves in the years 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2019 (Chagas and Pelicice, Reference Chagas and Pelicice2018; INPE, 2019).

Target species

Hancornia speciosa (Figure 1d), popularly known as ‘mangabeira’, produces fruits (‘mangabas’) that are used by the locals and small industries for candies, juices and jams. It is also a source of latex for traditional medicine. The species blooms from September to November, with fruit dispersal only after riped and fallen, from November to January. In Brazil, H. speciosa occurs in the Amazon, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest and Cerrado phytogeographic domains, reaching Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela (Almeida et al. Reference Almeida, Nogueira, Borges, Prado and Gonçalves2016, Collevatti et al. Reference Collevatti, Rodrigues, Vitorino, Lima-Ribeiro, Chaves and Telles2018, Flora and Funga of Brazil, 2022, Monachino, Reference Monachino1945).

Himatanthus obovatus (Figure 1e) is popularly known as ‘Tiborna’. The plant is used in folk medicine as an antitumour agent and has immunomodulatory properties. It blooms throughout the year, with a peak from October to December, and the seeds are wind dispersed. The species is also used for reforestation because of its rapid growth. In Brazil, H. obovatus occurs in the Amazon, Caatinga and Cerrado phytogeographic domains, reaching Bolivia (Flora and Funga of Brazil, 2022, Plumel, Reference Plumel1991, Soares et al. Reference Soares, Cavalcante, Romero and Bandeira2016).

Sampling

In each of the three reserves, 30 plots of 10 × 10 m were set up (Figure 1f): ten plots with an adult individual of H. speciosa in the centre (Hancornia plots), ten with an adult individual of H. obovatus (Himatanthus plots) and ten without any of the target species (Control plots), but with a wood species of similar height in the centre of the plot. Plots were at least 10 m distant from each other, and plots of the same type (Hancornia, Himatanthus or Control) had a minimum distance of 20 m. A map showing the plot distribution is available in Chagas et al. (Reference Chagas, Rapini and Collevatti2020), and the coordinates and altitude of the plots are available in Supplementary Information S1. To quantify adult trees, in each plot, we collected all plants with stem perimeter at ground ≥10 cm (3.18 cm of diameter) or height ≥1 m (Felfili et al. Reference Felfili, Rezende, Silva and Silva2000), including dead individuals. Frames of 0.5 × 0.5 m were used to quantify seedlings and saplings (juveniles hereafter), including individuals <10 cm in circumference and <1 m in height (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, Reference Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg1974). The frames were distributed within the plots, from the centre to the angles of the plot, at 1 m far from each other, comprising four transects with six frames, totalling 24 frames per plot (Figure 1f). We recorded all woody species within each subplot (Felfili et al. Reference Felfili, Rezende, Silva and Silva2000) and counted the number of individuals for each species. The vouchers are deposited in the herbarium of Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana (HUEFS), with duplicates sent to the herbarium of Universidade Federal do Tocantins (HTO). The species were identified in the least inclusive taxonomic categories and classified according to the APG IV (2016).

Data analysis

For each type of plot (Hancornia, Himatanthus or Control), we calculated species richness (number of species; Tokeshi, Reference Tokeshi1993) and abundance (number of individuals; Magurran, Reference Magurran2004). To standardise species richness, we calculated rarefaction curves based on plot sampling effort and 500 randomisations of the original matrix of each plant stage (juvenile and adult trees) separately, using the Jackknife1 estimator implemented in the package EstimateSWin910 (Colwell, Reference Colwell2017). For adult trees, we used the rarefaction curves of Chagas et al. (Reference Chagas, Rapini and Collevatti2020). We also evaluated the species richness extrapolated to twice the sampling effort using the package iNEXT (iNterpolation and EXTrapolation; Chao et al. Reference Chao, Gotelli, Hsieh, Sander, Ma, Colwell and Ellison2014). The relative abundance was calculated for each species (Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, Reference Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg1974). We tested the data distribution using the Shapiro–Wilk test to corroborate the normality assumption (Crawley, Reference Crawley2013). We then used the Kruskal–Wallis H test (non-parametric test for non-normally distributed data) to compare the median and interquartile range of measures among plot types and plant stages (p ≤ 0.05). We applied a posteriori Dunn’s test to compare the median using Bonferroni adjustment to control the error rate (Dinno, Reference Dinno2017). The analyses were performed in R3.4.4 (R Core Team, 2019).

Generalised linear models were used to test the effect of target species, height of the central tree and altitude on the number of individuals, species richness and relative abundance of juveniles and adults in the communities. The link function for normal distribution and residual distributions of models was evaluated to select the quasi-Poisson distribution as the most suitable (Crawley, Reference Crawley2013). The number of individuals, species richness and relative abundance was selected as response variables in separate models for juveniles and adults. The predictors were represented by two continuous explanatory variables (altitude as an abiotic factor and height of the central plant as a biotic factor) and one categorical variable factor (i.e. plot). We also obtained a null model with only the intercept, and all variables in a single model formed the global model.

The models were compared using the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Those with the lowest AIC correction value for finite samples (Δ AICc) were considered the most suitable for the data (Burnham and Anderson, Reference Burnham and Anderson2002). Models with Δ AICc<2.0 were considered equally plausible to explain the variation in observed data (Burnham and Anderson, Reference Burnham and Anderson2002, Burnham et al. Reference Burnham, Anderson and Huyvaert2011). We also obtained the corrected Akaike weight (wAICc), indicating the relative suitability of the models (Portet, Reference Portet2020). Analyses were performed in R3.4.4, using the packages vegan, APE and lme4. To estimate predictor coefficients on a comparable scale, we used the package jtools (Long, Reference Long2020).

To assess the similarity in species composition and abundance among plots, we applied the UPMGA (unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean) based on Jaccard (Jaccard, Reference Jaccard1908) and Bray–Curtis coefficients (Bray and Curtis, Reference Bray and Curtis1957). Cluster confidence was calculated based on bootstrap, using 1000 replications in PAST 3.23 (Hammer et al. Reference Hammer, Harper and Ryan2001). For each plot, we calculated beta diversity and its turnover and nestedness components between juveniles and adults using the package betapart (Baselga, Reference Baselga2010), also implemented in R3.4.4.

Results

We recorded 5,173 individuals belonging to 110 tree species: 76 species (2,264 individuals) as juveniles and 101 (2,909 individuals) as adults. Fifty-seven species (804 individuals) of juveniles and 85 species of adults (598) were recorded in Hancornia plots, 60 (746) of juveniles and 76 (1,077) of adults in Himatanthus plots and 60 (714) of juveniles and 78 (1,232) of adults in Control plots (Figure 2; Supplementary Information S2). Considering juvenile and adult trees in the three types of plots, 34 species (29.35%) were found exclusively as adults and nine (7.33%) exclusively as juveniles; 67 species (63.30%) were recorded in both stages. Hancornia plots had more exclusive species (15) than Himatanthus (5) and Control (3) plots; the three types of plots shared 33 (30.27%) species. Control plots showed more dead individuals (11) than Hancornia (5) and Himatanthus (9) plots (Supplementary Information S2).

Figure 2. Sample design and results. Number of individuals (ind.) and species (spp.) in the woody community and associations of Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots, according to juvenile and adult trees.

The three plot types showed similar richness for juveniles when the sampling effort is controlled, tending to stabilisation after a rapid initial accumulation (Figure 3a). If twice the number of plots was collected for each type (extrapolated species richness), we expected an increase of seven species (64 vs 57) for juveniles in Hancornia plots, five (65 vs 60) in Himatanthus plots and 15 (75 vs 60) in Control plots (Figure 3a). The Hancornia plots showed higher richness for adult tree species when sampling effort is controlled; Himatanthus and Control plots showed similar richness, with the three types of plots tending to stabilise after a rapid initial accumulation (Figure 3b). If twice the number of plots was collected for each type (species richness extrapolated), increases of seven (92 vs 85) species were estimated for adults in Hancornia plots, five (81 vs 76) in Himatanthus plots and 15 (93 vs 78) in Control plots (Figure 3b).

Figure 3. Expected number of species obtained from a rarefaction analysis based on the sampling effort (10 × 10 m plots) in Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots: (a) juvenile and (b) adult trees.

Compared to Control plots, Hancornia plots showed lower abundance (number of individuals) and Himatanthus plots higher relative abundance in adults. No parameter analysed here showed significant differences between Control and Hancornia or Himatanthus plots for juveniles (Table 1). Relative abundance was higher in adults than in juveniles in all types of plots. However, Control plots showed relatively higher numbers of adult individuals (abundance) and species (richness), a difference not observed in Hancornia and Himatanthus plots. In contrast, Himatanthus plots showed a higher adult relative abundance, a relative difference not shared with Control and Hancornia plots (Table 2).

Table 1. Comparison between plot types (Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control) according to plant stages (juveniles and adults), showing median and interquartile range of number of individuals (abundance), number of species (richness) and relative (species) abundance

Medians and interquartile ranges followed by the same letter did not differ based on Kruskal–Wallis H test (i.e. p > 0.05); ** indicates p < 0.01.

abMedians and interquartile ranges followed by the same letter did not differ based on Kruskal–Wallis H test (p < 0.05).

Table 2. Comparison between life stages (juveniles and adults) according to each type of plot (Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control), showing median and interquartile range of number of individuals (abundance), number of species (richness) and relative (species) abundance

* Indicates p < 0.05, ** p <0.01 and *** p < 0.001, based on Kruskal–Wallis H test.

In juvenile trees, the best-fit models contained only the altitude variable with a significant positive effect for the number of individuals (∼ 85%, Est. 0.008 p < 0.001), number of species (∼ 65%, Est. 0.005 p < 0.001) and relative abundance (∼ 65%, Est. 0.005 p < 0.001) (Fig. 4; Table 3). In adults, the best-fit models for the number of individuals (∼ 50%), number of species (∼ 27%) and relative abundance (∼ 53%) contained the variable plot (target species), in combination with altitude and height of the central plant, only altitude (though not significantly better than a null hypothesis) or alone, respectively (Figure 4; Table 3). For adults, the significant effects observed in the number of individuals were produced by Hancornia (Est. −0,682 p < 0.001) and the height of central plant (Est. −0,150 p < 0.01), in the number of species by Hancornia (Est. −0.306 p < 0.05) and altitude (Est. 0.004 p < 0.05) and in relative abundance by Himatanthus (Est. 0.378 p < 0.01; Table 3).

Figure 4. Influence of abiotic (altitude) and biotic (plots and height of the central plant) factors in explanatory models for the number of individuals (abundance), number of species (richness) and relative (species) abundance of (a) juvenile and (b) adult trees in Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots indicated by the corrected Akaike weight (wAICc); * indicates the most suitable models (Table 4 and Supplementary Information S3).

Table 3. Parameters and p-values estimated in the generalised linear model explaining the number of individuals, number of species and relative abundance of the influence of abiotic (altitude) and biotic (plots and height of central plant) factors in juvenile and adult trees

1Difference between Control plots and Hancornia (Han) and Himatanthus (Him) plots.

* Indicates p-values < 0.05, ** p-values < 0.01 and *** p-values < 0.001.

Similarity coefficients, both Jaccard and Bray–Curtis, highly supported clusters of juvenile and adult trees (Figure 5). Within these groups, Himatanthus plots were more dissimilar for juveniles and Hancornia plots more dissimilar for adults when compared to Control plots (Figure 5a); the higher dissimilarity of Hancornia plots for juveniles with Bray–Curtis was not supported (i.e. <50% bootstrap; Figure 5b)

Figure 5. Dendrogram of similarity between woody species for juvenile and adult trees: (a) Jaccard coefficient, based on species presence and absence matrix and (b) Bray–Curtis coefficient, based on species abundance matrix.

Beta diversity between juveniles and adults was similar in the three types of plots, ranging from 0.281 in Hancornia plots to 0.294 in Himatanthus plots. However, the dissimilarity between juveniles and adults in Hancornia plots was mainly due to nestedness than turnover, whereas turnover in Himatanthus and Control plots was higher than nestedness (Table 4).

Table 4. Beta diversity (total dissimilarity) and their components (turnover and nestedness) between juvenile and adult trees in Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots

Discussion

Our results support the hypothesis that Hancornia speciosa and Himatanthus obovatus act as biotic filters, influencing tree recruitment in woody communities within savannas. Therefore, they confirm that plant–plant interactions, extending beyond the extensively discussed complex tree–grass coexistence (e.g. Archibald et al. Reference Archibald, Lehmann, Gómez-Dans and Bradstock2013, Chagas and Pelicice, Reference Chagas and Pelicice2018, Dantas et al. Reference Dantas, Hirota, Oliveira and Pausas2016, Flake et al. Reference Flake, Honda, Pilon, Hoffmann and Durigan2022, Holdo and Nippert, Reference Holdo and Nippert2023, Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Archibald, Hoffmann and Bond2011, Levick and Rogers, Reference Levick and Rogers2011, Midgley et al. Reference Midgley, Lawes and Chamaillé-Jammes2010, Sankaran, Reference Sankaran2019, Sankaran et al. Reference Sankaran, Ratnam and Hana2004, Scholes and Archer, Reference Scholes and Archer1997, Sharpe, Reference Sharpe1992), also play a role in shaping savanna dynamics within life forms.

The distinct species composition patterns observed in juveniles and adults, along with lower tree abundance and a higher number of rare tree species during the adult stage, resulting in higher evenness (see Chagas et al. Reference Chagas, Rapini and Collevatti2020), provide further evidence for the selective impact of Hancornia speciosa on the woody community. The beta diversity between juveniles and adults in H. speciosa-associated communities, primarily driven by nestedness, strengthens this hypothesis. Hence, Hancornia speciosa seems to restrict the coexistence of tree species and limit their abundance, as traditionally expected in communities primarily driven by negative interactions (Hutchinson, Reference Hutchinson1967, Tilman, Reference Tilman2004, Whittaker, Reference Whittaker1967, Reference Whittaker1969). Consequently, H. speciosa appears to function as a biotic filter during the development of woody plants.

The negative interactions of H. speciosa with neighbouring communities during the recruitment result in the exclusion of less-tolerant species, reducing tree richness and constraining populations of tolerant species. Consequently, the abundance of adults in the vicinity is kept lower, reducing the direct competition with other trees (see references in Schöb et al. Reference Schöb, Michalet, Cavieres, Pugnaire, Brooker, Butterfield, Cook, Kikvidze, Lortie, Xiao, Al Hayek, Anthelme, Cranston, García, Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Reid, le Roux, Lingua, Nyakatya, Touzard, Zhao and Callaway2014, Verdú et al. Reference Verdú, Jordano and Valiente-Banuet2010). The lower abundance associated with H. speciosa possibly explains why fewer dead trees are found closer to this species. The vacant space and increased light resulting from plant exclusion in its vicinity are expected to facilitate new colonisations and the dominance of tolerant species, leading to higher abundances of juvenile trees and herbs (Grime, Reference Grime1998, Lima and Gandolfi, Reference Lima and Gandolfi2009). The reduced tree cover favours the grass layer and consequently the likelihood of fires occurring closer to H. speciosa. However, no significant differences were found in the richness and abundance of herbs (Chagas et al. Reference Chagas, Rapini and Collevatti2020) and juvenile trees associated with this species. Since germination is generally less affected by the negative influence of allelochemicals compared to plant growth (Gui Ferreira and Aquila, Reference Gui Ferreira and Aquila2000, and references therein), selection pressure is probably more intense during development. This could explain the observed differences in species composition and abundance between juvenile and adult trees (Barnes and Archer, Reference Barnes and Archer1999, Salles and Schiavini, Reference Salles and Schiavini2007).

The higher dissimilarity of juvenile composition in the community surrounding Himatanthus obovatus suggests that this species has a greater influence on initial recruitment compared to Hancornia speciosa (Barnes and Archer, Reference Barnes and Archer1999, Peláez et al. Reference Peláez, Dirzo, Fernandes and Perea2019). It likely modifies the environment by providing shading, which in turn reduces surrounding temperature and water loss, thereby facilitating initial recruitment (Bruno et al. Reference Bruno, Stachowicz and Bertness2003, Stachowicz, Reference Stachowicz2001). Positive plant–plant interactions typically involve individuals from the upper strata (shrubs and trees) influencing the components of the lower stratum (herbs and juvenile trees; Barnes and Archer, Reference Barnes and Archer1999, Peláez et al. Reference Peláez, Dirzo, Fernandes and Perea2019, Vega-Álvarez et al. Reference Vega-Álvarez, García-Rodríguez and Cayuela2019). However, altitude was found to have a greater influence than target species in explaining the variation in communities of juvenile trees.

These positive or negative effects of biotic interactions observed in this study may have implications beyond the taxonomic attributes of plant communities (i.e. species richness, species composition, dissimilarity pattern) under different target species and control treatment. For example, it has been shown that density-dependent biotic factors can affect the phylogenetic structure of plant communities (Campos et al. Reference Campos, Schaefer, Pontara, Senra, Viana, Oliveira, Candido and Villa2021, Carrión et al. Reference Carrión, Gastauer, Mota and Meira-Neto2017, Galván-Cineros et al. Reference Galván-Cisneros, Gastauer, Massante, Villa and Meira-Neto2023). Specifically, in a scenario of high floristic similarity (i.e. phylogenetically related species are ecologically more similar), their ecological traits can be conserved within evolutionary niches, and then facilitation can be the primary process determining phylogenetic overdispersion (Cavender-Bares et al. Reference Cavender-Bares, Kozak, Fine and Kembel2009, Webb et al. Reference Webb, Ackerly, McPeek and Donoghue2002). However, facilitation also can promote phylogenetic evenness if ecological traits are predominantly convergent (Carrión et al. Reference Carrión, Gastauer, Mota and Meira-Neto2017, Cavender-Bares et al. Reference Cavender-Bares, Kozak, Fine and Kembel2009). Furthermore, we presume that the higher dissimilarity of juveniles is shaped by colonisations and stochastic recruitment processes (i.e. under neutrality-based stochastic hypotheses; Cavender-Bares et al., Reference Cavender-Bares, Kozak, Fine and Kembel2009; Webb et al., Reference Webb, Ackerly, McPeek and Donoghue2002), which can determine a random phylogenetic structure simultaneously with environmental factors in the Cerrado.

Implications for conservation

The MATOPIBA region intersects the Amazon agricultural frontier within the eastern and southern Amazonia, commonly called the ‘arc of deforestation’. This vast area is experiencing intense degradation in the Cerrado–Amazonia transition (Marques et al. Reference Marques, Marimon Junior, Marimon, Matricardi, Mews and Colli2020). The deforestation in this region can have implications for the climate, potentially leading to prolonged and warmer dry seasons in the region (Costa and Pires, Reference Costa and Pires2010, Marengo et al. Reference Marengo, Jimenez, Espinoza, Cunha and Aragão2022). The savannas of Tocantins studied here are located in the centre of an extensive area characterised by bi-stable tree cover conditions (Staver et al. Reference Staver, Archibald and Levin2011), at the interface between two phytogeographic domains, one currently covered mainly by savannas and the other dominated by forests; they are under significant threats from land use (Marques et al. Reference Marques, Marimon Junior, Marimon, Matricardi, Mews and Colli2020, Pivello et al. Reference Pivello, Vieira, Christianini, Ribeiro, Menezese, Berlinck, Melog, Marengo, Tornquist, Tomas and Overbeck2021, Sano et al. Reference Sano, Rosa, Scaramuzza, Adami, Bolfe, Coutinho, Esquerdo, Maurano, Narvaes, Oliveira Filho, Silva, Victoria, Ferreira, Brito, Bayma, Oliveira and Bayma-Silva2019) and local climate change (Costa and Pires, Reference Costa and Pires2010).

Fire is a recurrent disturbance in this region, impacting areas of varying sizes and resulting in landscapes with patches at different stages of regeneration. Consequently, the savannas consist of mosaics of associations at different successional stages, with distinct species composition and abundance (Chagas and Pelicice, Reference Chagas and Pelicice2018, Silva et al. Reference Silva, Loiola, Rosatti, Silva, Cianciaruso and Batalha2011). Effective fire management is essential for maintaining the diversity of vegetation types and plant diversity within this mosaic (Abreu et al. Reference Abreu, Hoffmann, Vasconcelos, Pilon, Rossatto and Durigan2017, Arnan et al. Reference Arnan, Cerdá and Rodrigo2020, Buisson et al. Reference Buisson, Le Stradic, Silveira, Durigan, Overbeck, Fidelis, Fernandes, Bond, Hermann, Mahy, Alvarado, Zaloumis and Veldman2019, Durigan et al. Reference Durigan, Pilon, Abreu, Hoffmann, Martins, Fiorillo, Antunes, Carmignotto, Maravalhas, Vieira and Vasconcelos2020, Pivello et al. Reference Pivello, Vieira, Christianini, Ribeiro, Menezese, Berlinck, Melog, Marengo, Tornquist, Tomas and Overbeck2021). However, the composition and structure of plant communities can also influence soil nutrients as well as nutrient turnover and availability (Pellegrini, Reference Pellegrini2016). Consequently, they play a role in shaping the heterogeneity of tree cover and the distribution of fire regimes in savanna landscapes.

Differences observed between juvenile and adult trees in our study support the negative influence of H. speciosa on the neighbouring plant community and suggest the possibility of a positive interaction between H. obovatus and the surrounding plant community (Barnes and Archer, Reference Barnes and Archer1999, Peláez et al. Reference Peláez, Dirzo, Fernandes and Perea2019). In regions where H. speciosa is more prevalent, there is a tendency for trees to be less abundant compared to the average savanna, which potentially increases the risk of fires and reduces the likelihood of forest encroachment. Both species act as structuring agents in regenerating communities and contribute to the formation of successional mosaics of associations, resulting in higher levels of beta diversities in fire-prone savannas.

Tree recruitment in savannas can be directly influenced by the composition and abundance of adult trees, but it is also shaped by environmental filters and limiting biotic interactions (Cadotte and Tucker, Reference Cadotte and Tucker2017, Lortie et al. Reference Lortie, Brooker, Choler, Kikvidze, Michalet, Pugnaire and Callaway2004). In the absence of disturbance, tree-on-tree competition is a potential limiting factor for tree cover, thereby impacting tree–grass ratios (Sankaran et al. Reference Sankaran, Ratnam and Hana2004). This study demonstrated that local tree-on-tree interactions can also drive the composition and structure of woody communities in savannas with intense fire regimes. These interactions affect tree cover and contribute to landscape heterogeneity at a regional scale. Considering the spatial distribution of tree species and their associated communities is crucial for understanding savanna dynamics and should be noticed in management plans and restoration projects. Therefore, tree-on-tree interactions should be taken into account when implementing burning patch mosaics in savannas to ensure the persistence of ecological processes essential for biodiversity maintenance.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467423000196

Acknowledgements

We thank Cássia Beatriz Munhoz and Rafael Costa for their suggestions to improve the initial version of the manuscript.

Financial support

This study is part of the first author’s PhD thesis, developed at PPGBot-UEFS, with a fellowship from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – Brazil (CNPq) and support from the Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. CNPq productivity grants have continuously supported AR (Fellowship nº. 307396/2019-3) and RGC. RGC was supported by a Visiting Research Fellowship from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, process nº 2022/10760-1).

Competing interests

None.

Ethical statement

None.

References

Abreu, RCR, Hoffmann, WA, Vasconcelos, HL, Pilon, NA, Rossatto, DR and Durigan, G (2017) The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna. Science Advances 3, e1701284. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701284 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Almeida, LM, Nogueira, CA, Borges, PP, Prado, ADL and Gonçalves, PJ (2016) State of the art of scientific literature on Hancornia speciosa: trends and gaps. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 38, 110. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452016869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APG IV (2016) An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 181, 120. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archibald, S, Bond, WJ, Hoffmann, W, Lehmann, C, Staver, C and Stevens, N (2019) Distribution and determinants of savannas. In Scogings, PF and Sankaran, M (eds), Savanna Woody Plants and Large Herbivores. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 124.Google Scholar
Archibald, S, Lehmann, CER, Gómez-Dans, JL and Bradstock, RA (2013) Defining pyromes and global syndromes of fire regimes. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 64426447. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211466110 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnan, X, Cerdá, X and Rodrigo, A (2020) Do forest fires make biotic communities homogeneous or heterogeneous? Patterns of taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic ant beta diversity at local and regional landscape scales. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 3, 67. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, PW and Archer, S (1999) Tree-shrub interactions in a subtropical savanna parkland: competition or facilitation? Journal of Vegetation Science 10, 525536. https://doi.org/10.2307/3237187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baselga, A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 134143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, ML, Bradley, C and Lee, DE (2016) Foraging habitat selection by California spotted owls after fire. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80, 12901300. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghetti, F, Barbosa, E, Ribeiro, L, Ribeiro, JF and Walter, BMT (2019) South American savannas. In Scogings, PF and Sankaran, M (eds), Savanna Woody Plants and Large Herbivores. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 77122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, JR and Curtis, JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecology Monographs 27, 325349. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, BN and Silva, EB (2019) Análise multitemporal de uso e cobertura da terra na Reserva da Biosfera do Cerrado. Ateliê Geográfico 13, 7391. https://doi.org/10.5216/ag.v13i2.54747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruno, JF, Stachowicz, JJ and Bertness, MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 119125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buisson, E, Le Stradic, S, Silveira, FAO, Durigan, G, Overbeck, GE, Fidelis, A, Fernandes, GW, Bond, WJ, Hermann, J-M, Mahy, G, Alvarado, ST, Zaloumis, NP and Veldman, JW (2019) Resilience and restoration of tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and grassy woodlands. Biological Reviews 94, 590609. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12470 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multi-model Inference: A Practical Information-theoretic Approach. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson, DR and Huyvaert, KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65, 2335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadotte, MW and Tucker, CM (2017) Should environmental filtering be abandoned? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32, 429437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campos, PV, Schaefer, CEGR, Pontara, V, Senra, EO, Viana, PL, Oliveira, FS, Candido, HG and Villa, PM (2021) Exploring the relationship between soil and plant evolutionary diversity in the Roraima table mountain OCBIL, Guayana Highlands. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 133, 587603. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blab013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrión, JF, Gastauer, M, Mota, NM and Meira-Neto, JAA (2017) Facilitation as a driver of plant assemblages in Caatinga. Journal of Arid Environments 142, 5058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavender-Bares, J, Kozak, KH, Fine, PVA and Kembel, SW (2009) The merging of community ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecology Letters 12, 693715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01314.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagas, DB and Pelicice, FM (2018) Response of vegetation to fire disturbance: short-term dynamics in two savanna physiognomies. Community Ecology 19, 211222. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2018.19.3.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chagas, DB, Rapini, A and Collevatti, RG (2020) Biotic interactions and limitations to explain their effects on a neotropical savanna plant community. Acta Oecologica 108, 103627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2020.103627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, A, Gotelli, NJ, Hsieh, TC, Sander, EL, Ma, KH, Colwell, RK and Ellison, AM (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecology Monographs 84, 4567. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0133.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collevatti, RG, Rodrigues, EE, Vitorino, LC, Lima-Ribeiro, MS, Chaves, LJ and Telles, MPC (2018) Unravelling the genetic differentiation among varieties of the Neotropical savanna tree Hancornia speciosa Gomes. Annals of Botany 122, 973984. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcy060 Google ScholarPubMed
Colwell, RK (2017) EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. Version 8.2. User’s Guide and Application. Available at http://purl.oclc.org/estimates Google Scholar
Costa, MH and Pires, GF (2010) Effects of Amazon and Central Brazil deforestation scenarios on the duration of the dry season in the arc of deforestation. International Journal of Climatology 30, 19701979. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2013) The R Book, 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Critical Ecosystem Partner Fund (2018) Ecosystem Profile: Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot. Available at http://www.cepf.net/where_we_work/regions/south_america/cerrado/Pages/default.aspx Google Scholar
Dantas, VL, Hirota, M, Oliveira, RS and Pausas, JG (2016) Disturbance maintains alternative biome states. Ecology Letters 19, 1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12537 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Datry, T, Bonada, N and Heino, J (2015) Towards understanding the organisation of metacommunities in highly dynamic ecological systems. Oikos 125,149159. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinno, A (2017) “dunn.test” Package: Dunn’s Test of Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums. R Studio package version 1. 0.14. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dunn.test.Google Scholar
Durigan, G, Pilon, NAL, Abreu, RCR, Hoffmann, WA, Martins, M, Fiorillo, BF, Antunes, AZ, Carmignotto, AP, Maravalhas, JB, Vieira, J and Vasconcelos, HL (2020) No net loss of species diversity after prescribed fires in the Brazilian savanna. Frontiers in Forest and Global Change 3, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felfili, JM, Rezende, AV, Silva, J and Silva, MA (2000) Changes in the floristic composition of Cerrado sensu stricto in Brazil over a nine-year period. Journal of Tropical Ecology 16, 579590. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400001589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flake, SW, Honda, EA, Pilon, NAL, Hoffmann, WA and Durigan, G (2022) Not all trees can make a forest: tree species composition and competition control forest encroachment in a tropical savanna. Journal of Ecology 110, 301312. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13820 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flora and Funga of Brazil (2022) Flora and Funga of Brazil. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br Google Scholar
Galván-Cisneros, CM, Gastauer, M, Massante, JC, Villa, PM and Meira-Neto, JAA (2023) Simultaneous competition and environmental filtering in woody communities of the understory of Eucalyptus plantations in the Cerrado. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 59, 125731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2023.125731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, VD (2016) Potencial Alelopático de Extratos Foliares de Espécies do Cerrado. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculdade de Agronomia e Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Brazil.Google Scholar
Grime, JP (1998) Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. Journal of Ecology 86, 902910. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00306.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, PJ (1977) The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biological Reviews 52, 107145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1977.tb01347.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gui Ferreira, A and Aquila, EMEA (2000) Alelopatia: uma área emergente da ecofisiologia. Revista Brasileira de Fisiologia Vegetal 12, 175204. http://www.uv.mx/personal/tcarmona/files/2010/08/Gui-y-Alvez-1999.pdf Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø, Harper, DAT and Ryan, PD (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4, 19.Google Scholar
Holdo, RM and Nippert, JB (2023) Linking resource- and disturbance-based models to explain tree–grass coexistence in savannas New Phytologist 237, 19661979. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18648 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchinson, TC (1967) Comparative studies of the ability of species to withstand prolonged periods of darkness. Journal of Ecology 55, 291299. https://doi.org/10.2307/2257878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2019) BIOMA (MapServer). Available at https://mapasinterativos.ibge.gov.br/arcgis/rest/services/BIOMA/MapServer.Google Scholar
ICMBio – Instituto Chico Mendes (2019) Unidades de Conservação no Bioma Cerrado. Available at http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/unidadesdeconservacao/biomas-brasileiros/cerrado.Google Scholar
INPE – Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (2019) Portal do Monitoramento de Queimadas e Incêndios. Available at http://www.inpe.br/queimadas Google Scholar
Jaccard, P (1908) Sur la distribution florale. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 44, 223270. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-268384 Google Scholar
Klink, CA and Machado, RB (2005) Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology 19, 707713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00702.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahsen, M, Bustamante, MMC and Dalla-Nora, EL (2016) Undervaluing and overexploiting the Brazilian Cerrado at our peril. Environment 58, 415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1229537 Google Scholar
Le Stradic, S, Roumet, C, Durigan, G, Cancian, L and Fidelis, A (2021) Variation in biomass allocation and root functional parameters in response to fire history in Brazilian savannas. Journal of Ecology 109, 41434157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, CER, Anderson, TM, Sankaran, M, Higgins, SI, Archibald, S, Hoffmann, WA, Hanan, NP, Williams, RJ, Fensham, RJ, Felfili, J, Hutley, LB, Ratnam, J, San Jose, J, Montes, R, Franklin, D, Russell-Smith, J, Ryan, CM, Durigan, G, Hiernaux, P, Haidar, R, Bowman, DMJS and Bond, WJ (2014) Savanna vegetation-fire-climate relationships differ among continents. Science 343, 548552. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247355 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, CER, Archibald, SA, Hoffmann, WA and Bond, WJ (2011) Deciphering the distribution of the savanna biome. New Phytologist 191, 197209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03689.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levick, SR and Rogers, KH (2011) Context-dependent vegetation dynamics in an African Savanna. Landscape Ecology 26, 515528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9578-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, RAF and Gandolfi, S (2009) Structure of the herb stratum under different light regimes in the submontane Atlantic rain forest. Brazilian Journal of Biology 69, 289296. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842009000200008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, JA (2020) “jtools” Package: Analysis and Presentation of Social Scientific Data. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/jtools/index.html.Google Scholar
Lortie, CJ, Brooker, RW, Choler, P, Kikvidze, Z, Michalet, R, Pugnaire, FI and Callaway, RM (2004) Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107, 433438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13250.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, AE (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marengo, JA, Jimenez, JC, Espinoza, J-C, Cunha, AP and Aragão, LEO (2022) Increased climate pressure on the agricultural frontier in the Eastern Amazonia–Cerrado transition zone. Scientific Reports 12, 457. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04241-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, EQ, Marimon Junior, BH, Marimon, BS, Matricardi, EAT, Mews, HA and Colli, GR (2020) Redefining the Cerrado-Amazonia transition: implications for conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 29, 15011517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01720-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midgley, JJ, Lawes, MJ and Chamaillé-Jammes, S (2010) Savanna woody plant dynamics: the role of fire and herbivory, separately and synergistically. Australian Journal of Botany 58, 111. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT09034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2019) Reserva da Biosfera. Available at http://www.cepf.net/where_we_work/regions/south_america/cerrado/Pages/default.aspx Google Scholar
Monachino, J (1945) A revision of Hancornia (Apocynaceae). Lilloa 11, 1948.Google Scholar
Mueller-Dombois, D and Ellenberg, H (1974) Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Olson, DM, Dinerstein, E, Wikramanayake, ED, Burgess, ND, Powell, GVN, Underwood, EC, D’amico, JA, Itoua, I, Strand, HE, Morrison, JC, Loucks, CJ, Allnutt, TF, Ricketts, TH, Kura, Y, Lamoreux, JF, Wettengel, WW, Hedao, P and Kassem, KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51, 933938. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:teotwa]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overbeck, GE, Vélez-Martin, E, Menezes, LS, Anand, M, Baeza, S, Carlucci, MB, Dechoum, MS, Durigan, G, Fidelis, A, Guido, A, Moro, MF, Munhoz, CBR, Reginato, M, Rodrigues, RS, Rosenfield, MF, Sampaio, AB, Barbosa da Silva, FH, Silveira, FAO, Sosinski, ÊE, Staude, IR, Temperton, VM, Turchetto, C, Veldman, JW, Viana, PL, Zappi, DC and Müller, SC (2022) Placing Brazil’s grasslands and savannas on the map of science and conservation. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 56, 125687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2022.125687 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pausas, JG and Bond, WJ (2020) Alternative biome states in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends in Plant Science 25, 250263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2019.11.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pausas, JG and Bond, WJ (2021) Alternative biome states challenge the modelling of species’ niche shifts under climate change. Journal of Ecology 109, 39623971. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peláez, M, Dirzo, R, Fernandes, GW and Perea, R (2019) Nurse plant size and biotic stress determine quantity and quality of plant facilitation in oak savannas. Forest Ecology and Management 437, 435442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrini, AFA (2016) Nutrient limitation in tropical savannas across multiple scales and mechanisms. Ecology 97, 313324. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0869.1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinheiro, EA, Coimbra, RR, Silva, KLF and Ferreira, WDM (2018) Characterization and phenotypic variability in natural populations of mangabeira in the state of Tocantins, Brazil. Revista Caatinga 31, 560571. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252018v31n304rc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pivello, VR, Vieira, I, Christianini, AV, Ribeiro, DB, Menezese, LS, Berlinck, CN, Melog, FPL, Marengo, JA, Tornquist, CG, Tomas, WM and Overbeck, GE (2021) Understanding Brazil’s catastrophic fires: causes, consequences and policy needed to prevent future tragedies. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19, 233255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ploughe, LW, Jacobs, EM, Frank, GS, Greenler, SM, Smith, MD and Dukes, JS (2019) Community Response to Extreme Drought (CRED): a framework for drought-induced shifts in plant–plant interactions. New Phytologist 222, 5269. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15595 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plumel, MM (1991) Le genre Himatanthus (Apocynaceae): révision taxonomique. Bradea 5, 1101.Google Scholar
Portet, S (2020) A primer on model selection using the Akaike Information Criterion. Infectious Disease Modelling 5, 111128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2019.12.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at https://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Reis, SM, Lenza, E, Marimon, BS, Gomes, L, Forsthofer, M, Morandi, PS, Marimon Junior, BH, Feldpausch, TR and Elias, F (2015) Post-fire dynamics of the woody vegetation of a savanna forest (Cerradão) in the Cerrado-Amazon transition zone. Acta Botanica Brasilica 29, 408416. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062015abb0009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, JF and Walter, BMT (2008) As principais fitofisionomias do bioma Cerrado. In Sano, SM, Almeida, SP and Ribeiro, JF (eds), Cerrado: Ecologia e Flora (Volume 1). Brasília: Embrapa Informação Tecnológica.Google Scholar
Ruggiero, PGC, Batalha, MA, Pivello, VR and Meirelles, ST (2002), Soil-vegetation relationships in cerrado (Brazilian savanna) and semideciduous forest, Southeastern Brazil. Plant Ecology 160, 116. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015819219386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salles, JC and Schiavini, I (2007) Estrutura e composição do estrato de regeneração em um fragmento florestal urbano: implicações para a dinâmica e a conservação da comunidade arbórea. Acta Botanica Brasilica 21, 223233. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062007000100021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankaran, M (2019) Droughts and the ecological future of tropical savanna vegetation. Journal of Ecology 107, 15311549. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankaran, M, Ratnam, J and Hana, NP (2004) Tree–grass coexistence in savannas revisited – insights from an examination of assumptions and mechanisms invoked in existing models. Ecology Letters 7, 480490. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sano, EE, Rosa, R, Scaramuzza, CAM, Adami, M, Bolfe, EL, Coutinho, AC, Esquerdo, JCDM, Maurano, LEP, Narvaes, IS, Oliveira Filho, FJB, Silva, EB, Victoria, DC, Ferreira, LG, Brito, JLS, Bayma, AP, Oliveira, GH and Bayma-Silva, G (2019) Land use dynamics in the Brazilian Cerrado in the period from 2002 to 2013. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 54, e00138. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-3921.pab2019.v54.00138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santana, JCO and Simon, MF (2022) Plant diversity conservation in an agricultural frontier in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biodiversity and Conservation 31, 667681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02356-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schöb, C, Michalet, R, Cavieres, LA, Pugnaire, FI, Brooker, RW, Butterfield, BJ, Cook, BJ, Kikvidze, Z, Lortie, CJ, Xiao, S, Al Hayek, P, Anthelme, F, Cranston, BH, García, MC, Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y, Reid, AM, le Roux, PC, Lingua, E, Nyakatya, MJ, Touzard, B, Zhao, L and Callaway, RM (2014) A global analysis of bidirectional interactions in alpine plant communities shows facilitators experiencing strong reciprocal fitness costs. New Phytologist 202, 95105. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12641 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholes, RJ and Archer, SR (1997) Tree–grass interactions in savannas. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 517544. https://doi.org/10.1201/b10275-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, C (1992) Dynamics of savanna ecosystems. Journal of Vegetation Science 3, 293300. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235754 Google Scholar
Silva, DM, Loiola, PP, Rosatti, NB, Silva, IA, Cianciaruso, MV and Batalha, MA (2011) Os efeitos dos regimes de fogo sobre a vegetação de cerrado no Parque Nacional das Emas, GO: considerações para a conservação da diversidade. Biodiversidade Brasileira 1, 2639.Google Scholar
Soares, F, Cavalcante, L, Romero, N and Bandeira, MM (2016) Himatanthus Willd. ex Schult. (Apocynaceae): review. Pharmacognosy Reviews 10, 610. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-7847.176549 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stachowicz, JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51, 235246. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0235:MFATSO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staver, AC, Archibald, S and Levin, SA (2011) The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230232. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1210465 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strassburg, BBN, Brooks, T, Feltran-Barbieri, R, Iribarrem, A, Crouzeilles, R, Loyola, R, Latawiec, AE, Oliveira Filho, FJB, Scaramuzza, CADM, Scarano, FR, Soares-filho, B and Balmford, A (2017) Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1, 1315. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatsumi, S, Cadotte, MW and Mori, AS (2019) Individual-based models of community assembly: neighbourhood competition drives phylogenetic community structure. Journal of Ecology 107, 735746. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D (2004) Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 1085410861. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403458101 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokeshi, M (1993) Species abundance patterns and community structure. Advances in Ecological Research 24, 111186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60042-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touboul, JD, Staver, AC and Levin, SA (2018) On the complex dynamics of savanna landscapes. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, E1336E1345. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712356115 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uhlmann, LAC, Oliveira, RJ and Santos, MG (2018) Efeitos alelopáticos de extratos vegetais de Hancornia speciosa Gomes na germinação de Lactuca sativa L. Revista Fitos 12, 149162. https://doi.org/10.5935/2446-4775.20180014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega-Álvarez, J, García-Rodríguez, JA and Cayuela, L (2019) Facilitation beyond species richness. Journal of Ecology 107, 722734. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velazco, SJE, Villalobos, F, Galvão, F and De Marco Júnior, P (2019) A dark scenario for Cerrado plant species: effects of future climate, land use and protected areas ineffectiveness. Diversity and Distribution 25, 660673. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veldman, JW, Buisson, E, Durigan, G, Fernandes, GW, Le Stradic, S, Mahy, G, Negreiros, D, Overbeck, GE, Veldman, RG, Zaloumis, NP, Putz, FE and Bond, WJ (2015) Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13, 154162. https://doi.org/10.1890/140270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdú, M, Jordano, P and Valiente-Banuet, A (2010) The phylogenetic structure of plant facilitation networks changes with competition. Journal of Ecology 98, 14541461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01731.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, CO, Ackerly, DD, McPeek, MA and Donoghue, MJ 2002. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33, 475505. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, RH (1967) Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biological Reviews 42, 207–64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1967.tb01419.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whittaker, RH (1969) Evolution of diversity in plant communities. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology 27, 178195.Google Scholar
WWF – Word Wild Life (2019) Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World. Available at https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-ecoregions-of-the-world.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Study area, vegetation, sample design and target plants. (a) Savanna biome area (dark grey) with emphasis on South America (WWF   2019). (b) Cerrado domain area (dark grey; IBGE   2019) and Cerrado Biosphere Reserve (black; MMA, 2019) in Brazil, showing the study area. (c) Landscape in the study area. (d) Hancornia speciosa. (e) Himatanthus obovatus. (f) Scheme of sample plots: – plot limits; – target species; – subplots.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Sample design and results. Number of individuals (ind.) and species (spp.) in the woody community and associations of Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots, according to juvenile and adult trees.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Expected number of species obtained from a rarefaction analysis based on the sampling effort (10 × 10 m plots) in Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots: (a) juvenile and (b) adult trees.

Figure 3

Table 1. Comparison between plot types (Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control) according to plant stages (juveniles and adults), showing median and interquartile range of number of individuals (abundance), number of species (richness) and relative (species) abundance

Figure 4

Table 2. Comparison between life stages (juveniles and adults) according to each type of plot (Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control), showing median and interquartile range of number of individuals (abundance), number of species (richness) and relative (species) abundance

Figure 5

Figure 4. Influence of abiotic (altitude) and biotic (plots and height of the central plant) factors in explanatory models for the number of individuals (abundance), number of species (richness) and relative (species) abundance of (a) juvenile and (b) adult trees in Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots indicated by the corrected Akaike weight (wAICc); * indicates the most suitable models (Table 4 and Supplementary Information S3).

Figure 6

Table 3. Parameters and p-values estimated in the generalised linear model explaining the number of individuals, number of species and relative abundance of the influence of abiotic (altitude) and biotic (plots and height of central plant) factors in juvenile and adult trees

Figure 7

Figure 5. Dendrogram of similarity between woody species for juvenile and adult trees: (a) Jaccard coefficient, based on species presence and absence matrix and (b) Bray–Curtis coefficient, based on species abundance matrix.

Figure 8

Table 4. Beta diversity (total dissimilarity) and their components (turnover and nestedness) between juvenile and adult trees in Hancornia, Himatanthus and Control plots

Supplementary material: File

Chagas et al. supplementary material

Chagas et al. supplementary material 1

Download Chagas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 46.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chagas et al. supplementary material

Chagas et al. supplementary material 2

Download Chagas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 22.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chagas et al. supplementary material

Chagas et al. supplementary material 3

Download Chagas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 34.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chagas et al. supplementary material

Chagas et al. supplementary material 4

Download Chagas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 25.4 KB