Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231553. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231553

Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests: Results from a large-scale plot network

Agustina Malizia 1,*,#, Cecilia Blundo 1,#, Julieta Carilla 1,#, Oriana Osinaga Acosta 1,#, Francisco Cuesta 2,3, Alvaro Duque 4, Nikolay Aguirre 5, Zhofre Aguirre 6, Michele Ataroff 7, Selene Baez 8, Marco Calderón-Loor 2,9, Leslie Cayola 10,11, Luis Cayuela 12, Sergio Ceballos 1, Hugo Cedillo 13, William Farfán Ríos 14, Kenneth J Feeley 15, Alfredo Fernando Fuentes 10,11, Luis E Gámez Álvarez 16, Ricardo Grau 1, Juergen Homeier 17,18, Oswaldo Jadan 13, Luis Daniel Llambi 8, María Isabel Loza Rivera 10,19,20, Manuel J Macía 21,22, Yadvinder Malhi 23, Lucio Malizia 24, Manuel Peralvo 3, Esteban Pinto 3, Sebastián Tello 20, Miles Silman 25, Kenneth R Young 26
Editor: RunGuo Zang27
PMCID: PMC7170706  PMID: 32311701

Abstract

Our knowledge about the structure and function of Andean forests at regional scales remains limited. Current initiatives to study forests over continental or global scales still have important geographical gaps, particularly in regions such as the tropical and subtropical Andes. In this study, we assessed patterns of structure and tree species diversity along ~ 4000 km of latitude and ~ 4000 m of elevation range in Andean forests. We used the Andean Forest Network (Red de Bosques Andinos, https://redbosques.condesan.org/) database which, at present, includes 491 forest plots (totaling 156.3 ha, ranging from 0.01 to 6 ha) representing a total of 86,964 identified tree stems ≥ 10 cm diameter at breast height belonging to 2341 identified species, 584 genera and 133 botanical families. Tree stem density and basal area increases with elevation while species richness decreases. Stem density and species richness both decrease with latitude. Subtropical forests have distinct tree species composition compared to those in the tropical region. In addition, floristic similarity of subtropical plots is between 13 to 16% while similarity between tropical forest plots is between 3% to 9%. Overall, plots ~ 0.5-ha or larger may be preferred for describing patterns at regional scales in order to avoid plot size effects. We highlight the need to promote collaboration and capacity building among researchers in the Andean region (i.e., South-South cooperation) in order to generate and synthesize information at regional scale.

Introduction

The Tropical Andes have been identified as one of the most important hotspots of global biodiversity [1, 2]. Indeed, this region is one of the most diverse terrestrial hotspots on Earth [1]. There are approximately 45,000 identified vascular plant species occurring in the Andes, 20,000 of which are endemic to the region [1]. There are also likely to be many more species (up to 35%) that have not yet been described [3]. Moreover around 60 million people depend directly or indirectly on ecosystem services provided by Andean forests, such as water and the regulation of regional climates [4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

Andean forests face a high risk of degradation as a result of climate change [9, 10] and land use change [11, 12] due to human population growth [7] and migration [12, 13, 14, 15], and a combination of these factors [15]. Changes in Andean forest cover includes both forest regrowth mostly frequent above 2000 m asl and deforestation that often concentrates below 1000 m asl [12]. Some Andean countries have already lost ~50–60% (~550.500 km2 total) of their cloud forests [16] due to historical and ongoing land use changes, linked to the expansion of the agricultural frontier, increase in extension of cattle ranching areas for pastures, and other economic activities such as mining, road constructions among others [17, 18, 19]. Furthermore, as a result of warming, some forests and grasslands are experiencing an apparent shift in plant species composition (i.e. increasing relative abundances of species from lower elevations) [10, 20]. Moreover, model projections for biomes [21] and vascular plant species [22] predict upward shifts and the loss of optimal conditions in their lower and mid ranges. These changes may compromise the persistence of Andean forest ecosystems and may reduce the provision of benefits for human populations.

Recently, Mathez-Stiefel et al. [23] developed a research agenda for Andean forests landscapes where they highlighted critical knowledge gaps on the ecology of Andean mountain ecosystems, and the effect of socio-environmental changes over forest functions and dynamics. This includes the need to understand general patterns of tree diversity along elevational and latitudinal gradients, as well as forest structure and forest dynamics across environmental gradients at continental scales throughout integrated and collaborative research initiatives [23].

Tree or stem density and basal area may increase with elevation in extra Andean tropical montane forests [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. However, in Andean forests, our understanding of structural parameters is limited to a handful of locations that have reported differing trends [29, 30, 31]. For example, in the tropical section of the Andes, basal area may increase with altitude until mid-elevations [32], and then decrease [30] or remain stable [29]. In subtropical Andes, basal area tended to increase with elevation [31]. Baez et al. [33] made an effort to describe regional patterns of Andean forests structure and dynamics along elevation and latitudinal gradients. These authors found that in tropical mountain forests, basal area increased at lower elevation but did not change along the elevation gradient. They also found that in subtropical Andes, changes in basal area appear to be influenced by land use history together with environmental variation [33].

Plant species richness and diversity are thought to decline away from the equator and towards higher latitudes and elevations [34, 35]. However, elevational patterns of species richness have been studied much more intensively than latitudinal ones [34]. For example, a hump-shaped diversity pattern has been reported for various plant groups along elevational gradients in the Andes, including vascular epiphytes in Bolivia [36], non-vascular bryophytes in Colombia [37], and ferns in Ecuador and Bolivia [35]. Tree species richness (as well as tree genera and family richness) also shows the hump-shaped pattern, reaching a maximum at intermediate elevations (i.e. 1000 m asl) in subtropical Andes of Argentina [38], while decreasing above 1800 m asl in tropical Andes of Ecuador [30]. Still, regional-scale studies of tree community structure and composition along broader environmental gradients in the Andes are lacking.

This study is one of the first attempts to describe and characterize regional patterns of forest structure and diversity in Andean forest communities across ~ 4000 km of latitude and ~ 4000 m of elevation gradient. In this sense, this study incorporates a higher dataset than Baez et al. [33] (i.e. 8 times more) as well as diversity patterns. Specifically, for structural patterns we assessed: stem density and basal area, and for diversity patterns we assessed: species richness, tree species composition and floristic similarity along these elevation and latitudinal gradients. To accomplish this, we used the Andean Forest Network, AFN (Red de Bosques Andinos, https://redbosques.condesan.org/) database that provides data on forests throughout the tropical and subtropical Andes. Our main hypothesis is that the climatic gradient generated by elevation and latitude model the structural and diversity patterns of Andean forests, with plot size playing a role in explaining these trends. Specifically, we hypothesis that: (1) Tree communities located near the equator will have higher species richness, higher stem density and higher basal area than those located further away from the equator; and (2) Tree communities from lower elevations have a higher species richness, lower stem density and lower basal area than those located at higher elevations.

Materials and methods

Andes origin and vegetation

The Andes Mountains originated through a major uplift of the Central Andes during the Paleogene (65 to 34 Ma) and subsequent plates collisions intensified mountain building in the Northern Andes (23 Ma) [39]. However, the Andes reached their modern elevation during the late mid Miocene (~12 Ma) and early Pliocene (~4.5 Ma) [39, 40]. The formation of the Andes mountains had an enormous effect on regional climate regulation and was crucial for the evolution of landscapes and ecosystems in South America, including current biodiversity patterns of Amazon ecosystems [39]. For example, the uplift of the cordillera changed the Amazonian landscape by re-configuring the patterns of drainage and creating a vast influx of sediments into the basin [39]. Recent Pleistocene glaciations (110,000 to 10,000 b.p.) were also important in determining Andean forest biodiversity and species distributions [41]. For example, by acting as a refuge for biodiversity and by allowing immigration of holarctic species (e.g. Alnus), not only due to changes in temperature and CO2 worldwide, but also due to variations in precipitation over the Amazon which had direct influence in Andean forests [42].

The Andean mountain forest ecosystem zonation is expressed in changes of forest architecture (i.e. decreases in tree stature and stem diameter, trends in stem deformation, hard, thick and smaller leaves; Fig 1) and tree community composition [16, 29, 30, 32, 33, 43] as elevation increases. The tropical and subtropical slopes vary in floristic composition and forest structure, from premontane forests (also called sub-andean forests) at lower elevations (from 500/800 to 700/1500 m asl) toward lower montane forests (1500/2700 m asl), upper montane forests (2700/2800 to 3300 m asl), and finally the upper treeline forests at higher elevations (3300/3500 -exceptionally 4000 m asl (Fig 1) [44]. Elevation ranges and vegetation zonation vary according to latitude, environmental humidity and topography [44]. For example, in the Andes of Colombia and Ecuador, moist inter-Andean valley slopes present similar gradations in vegetation zones. Further, vegetation zonation is related to changes in the frequency and persistence of cloud formation, which affects solar radiation, air temperature, and water regimes. Cloud formation varies from low cloud cover in premontane forest towards more persistent cloudiness in upper montane forest [16, 45, 46].

Fig 1. Andean mountain forest zonation.

Fig 1

Scheme of mountain forest zonation in the elevational gradient expressed in forest architecture along tropical and subtropical Andes. Adapted from [46].

Andean Forest Network

Background and standardized protocol of measurement

The AFN was created in 2012, being the first Network at this regional scale, and brings together scientists and decision makers interested in research, management and conservation of Andean forests. The main objective of the AFN is to generate knowledge about the ecology of the Andean forests throughout the collaborative work of its members, exchange, systematization and synthesis of information, development of research protocols, strengthening of research capabilities, and the articulation with decision making processes in the region. Specifically, the Andean Forest Network aims to: 1) promote the establishment and maintenance of long-term research sites through the installation and monitoring of permanent vegetation plots; 2) enhance the ability to understand the structure, composition, dynamics and functioning of Andean forests in a global context of environmental change; 3) promote collaboration and capacity building among researchers and technicians in the Andean region (i.e. South-South cooperation). For general information about the Network see https://redbosques.condesan.org/.

Members of the Andean Forest Network have detailed forest tree data (i.e. species identity, diameter, spatial coordinates) derived from research plots (both permanent and non-permanent). The Network prioritizes collaborative efforts amongst network members, encouraging them to share their data under confidence and transparent concepts, with previous consent and approval of the principal researchers and/or institutions [i.e. 10, 33, 47, 48, 49].

An important contribution of the Andean Forest Network has been the development of protocols for the establishment of permanent monitoring plots of plant diversity adapted to the conditions prevalent in the Andean forests [47, 48] which provide methodological approaches to study forest structure and dynamics of tree communities. Osinaga Acosta et al. [47], also includes an approach to consider and measure lianas, palms, ferns and herbs. For trees (with diameter ≥10 cm at breast height, DBH), the protocol encourages the establishment of 1-ha permanent forest plots subdivided in 20 × 20 m quadrants, where all individuals are identified to the lowest taxonomic level, marked with a numbered tags, and mapped in a x-y coordinate system to 1-m resolution. Botanical samples are collected and incorporated into local institutional herbaria. Plots are periodically recensused during which time mortality and recruitment events are recorded and the DBH of marked trees is remeasured. Recensus intervals vary among research objectives and available resources, although a five-year interval is suggested in order to maintain consistent monitoring over time [47].

Forest plot distribution, general information and climate data

At present, the Andean Forest Network comprises 491 forest plots spanning a latitudinal range from tropical Venezuela (8.63°N) to subtropical Argentina (26.77°S), a longitudinal range from the Pacific to the Atlantic versants (-80.14 to -63.84° W), and an elevation range from 41 to 3980 (mean ± SD = 1901 ± 903) m asl (Fig 2). Forest plots setup were based on the combination of several factors: (1) accessibility, (2) sustainable over time to ensure long term monitoring for some plots, and (3) homogeneity in terms of forest type, topography, and disturbances in order to be representative of particular forest types. The majority of the plots are located in mature forests but the AFN also includes several older secondary forests plots, i.e. > 30 years old [50] as a result of human activities and the associated land use changes [19, 51, 52, 53]. Censuses of plots were conducted between 2002 and 2017 (mean year of census = 2010.5±0.26) with the exception of one plot censused in 1988. The 491 plots range in size from 0.01 to 6 ha (mean plot size ± SD = 0.32 ± 0.47) totalizing 156.3 ha of which 68 plots are located in Argentina (62.7 ha; mean plot size ± SD = 0.92 ha ± 0.69); 27 in Bolivia (27 ha; mean plot size = 1 ha); 16 in Colombia (16 ha; mean plot size = 1 ha); 331 in Ecuador (34.4 ha; mean plot size ± SD = 0.10 ha ± 0.16); 46 in Peru (15.2 ha; mean plot size ± SD = 0.33 ha ± 0.37), and 3 in Venezuela (1.08 ha; mean plot size = 0.36 ha). Of the total of plots, 73% (n = 356) are permanent plots, of which 62% (n = 221) have been remeasured, in the majority of cases two to three times. Exceptionally, 22 plots (15 ha) in Argentina have been measured up to 6 times (i.e. 25 years of data) being the longest known subset for long-term studies of subtropical Andean forests (Fig 2, Table 1, S1 Table). Considering DBH cut off points, 47% of forest plots (n = 229) measured trees ≥10 cm, 37% (n = 184) measured trees ≥5 cm, 12% of forest plots (n = 60) measured trees ≥2.5 cm, and 4% (n = 18) measured trees ≥1cm (S1 Table). All relevant data upon which all the presented results in this manuscript are based on is included in the Supporting Information files; number of stems, basal area (both extrapolated to 1-ha), and species richness for the 491 plots in S1 Table while the abundance of species per country in S1 Appendix.

Fig 2. Distribution of Andean Forest Network plots.

Fig 2

Forest plots (permanent and non-permanent) of the Andean Forest Network located along the Andean forests of Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela (n = 491). Different symbols and colors represent plot size and number of censuses, respectively. Plot size categories refer to: <0.05 (n = 235; 10 plots of 0.01, 205 plots of 0.04, 20 plots of 0.05), ~0.25-ha (n = 87; 20 plots of 0.08-ha, 60 of 0.1-ha, and 7 plots of 0.24-ha), ~0.5-ha (n = 57; 49 plots of 0.36-ha, 6 of 0.40-ha, and 1 plot of 0.48-ha), and ~1-ha (n = 112; 109 plots of 1-ha, 2 of 0.96-ha, and 1 plot of 6-ha).

Table 1. Andean Forest Network metadata synthesis.
Countrya N°Plots (area) N° Perm plots Location Elevation Area Rainfall Temperature Censuses Min DBH Stems* Basal area* Spp richness*
S W (m asl) (ha) mm °C # yrs cm plot m2 plot #
min max min max min max Min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max
AR 68 (62.7) 63 -22.0 -26.8 -63.8 -65.5 396 2304 0.16 6.00 608 1693 12 22 1 6 1992 2017 5 10 78 1834 5.0 189.4 3 52
BO 27 (27) 27 -14.2 -22.2 -64.6 -69.0 662 3324 1.00 -- 644 1792 9 23 1 2 2003 2016 10 -- 430 1099 17.1 37.1 16 113
PE 46 (15.2) 16 -4.7 -13.2 -71.6 -79.5 745 3450 0.10 1.00 903 2007 10 25 1 2 1998 2017 2.5 10 33 1262 2.3 45.8 13 107
EC 331 (34.3) 231 0.7 -4.6 -77.2 -80.1 360 3980 0.01 1.00 790 5059 6 25 1 3 2000 2017 1 10 1 660 0.02 44.7 1 118
CO 16 (16) 16 5.5 8.7 -74.6 -77.4 41 2928 1.00 -- 1854 4354 12 27 2 3 2006 2014 1 -- 372 1245 18 40.6 31 120
VE 3 (1.1) 3 8.6 -- -71.0 -71.0 2300 2700 0.36 -- 1016 1043 13 14 1 -- 2017 -- 5 -- 323 332 14.7 16.1 37 39

aCountry codes are AR, Argentina; BO, Bolivia; PE, Peru; EC, Ecuador; CO, Colombia; and VE, Venezuela. Location (S, W), elevation (m asl), area (ha), total annual rainfall (mm), mean annual temperature (°C), censuses (#, years), minimum DBH (cm), number of stems (per plot), basal area (m2 per plot), and spp richness refer to range (minimum and maximum) values. Stems and basal area are reported per plot.

*Number of stems, basal area and species richness were estimated for individual’s ≥ 10 cm DBH for comparison.

We extracted the following climatic data for each of the 491 plots from the CHELSA (Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas) dataset at 30 arc sec (~1 km) resolution (period 1970–2013) [54]: estimated ranges in total annual rainfall varied from 608 to 5059 mm yr-1 while estimated ranges in mean annual temperature varied from 5.9 to 27°C (Table 1, S1 Table). Estimated mean temperature for the three coldest months varied between -1 and 24°C, while the estimated mean temperature for the three warmest months varied from 11 to 32°C. Predicted seasonal thermal amplitude (mean temperature from the warmest quarter - mean temperature from the coldest quarter) varied from 1°C in Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela to 10°C in Argentina, showing intermediates values in Peru (2°C) and Bolivia (4°C), depicting a clear latitudinal trend in thermal seasonality such that the thermal amplitude increases with distance from the equator.

Data analyses

To analyze patterns in stem density, basal area and species richness, we considered those plots ≥ 0.1-ha (n = 236) where stems ≥10 cm DBH were measured. Due to high variability and dispersion when extrapolating basal area and stem density at a larger spatial scale we discarded plots of 0.01-ha, 0.04-ha, 0.05-ha and 0.08-ha (total n = 255). For those plots ≥ 0.1-ha, we estimated stem density and basal area at 1-ha for comparison while species richness was evaluated on a per plot basis. For calculations of stem density and basal area we used all stems ≥10 cm DBH (n = 97,054) while for species richness we used stems ≥10 cm DBH identified to species level (n = 86,964). We performed generalized linear models (GLM) [55] and used elevation, absolute latitude, and plot size as explanatory variables. We included the quadratic terms of elevation and latitude in the models in order to describe unimodal trends. We used a Quasi-Poisson distribution for stem density and species richness since Poisson distribution showed overdispersion in both variables, and a Gaussian distribution with log-link function for basal area [55]. We calculated the percentage of variance explained with the following equation VE = (Null Deviance-Residual Deviance)/Null Deviance x 100.

To analyze patterns of species composition and floristic similarity, we used all data available from all plots (n = 491) and from all species fully identified (2341) with stems ≥10 cm DBH. To describe species composition, we applied a Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling approach (NMDS) [56] based on a Bray-Curtis distance matrix [57] calculated from species abundance (stems per plots) between pairs of plots. We used a two-dimensional configuration because the final stress, an index of agreement between the distances in the graph configuration and the distances in the Bray-Curtis matrix, was 9.2 (most ecological community data sets have solutions with stress between 10 and 20; [58]. To explore the relationships between plots based on their species composition along elevation and latitudinal gradients we used Spearman’s correlation coefficients [59] between the scores in the axes of the NMDS and elevation and latitude. To describe floristic similarity, we estimated Bray Curtis distance based on species abundance data [60]. Bray Curtis distances were calculated among pairs of plots within latitudinal bands. For this, we created eight latitudinal bands every 5° along the latitudinal gradient (from 8° N to 27° S) (Table 2). Floristic similarity (i.e. beta diversity) varies between 0 and 100%, i.e. values close to 0 imply less shared species. To explore the relationship between Bray Curtis distance with the geographical distance (km) and elevational difference (m asl) between pairs of plots we performed a linear mixed-effects model (LMM) [61] using latitudinal bands as a random factor. Geographical distances and elevational differences were obtained with Euclidean distances among pairs of plots within each latitudinal band, considering geographical coordinates and elevation, respectively. We calculated the proportion of variance explained within and among latitudinal bands, i.e., marginal and conditional R2, respectively, according to the definitions given by Nakagawa & Schielzeth [62]. All analyses were performed in R 3.4.3 [63], using AER to test overdispersion in GLM, vegan for ordination analysis, and lme4 for LMM.

Table 2. Summary of total species identified per latitudinal band, followed by mean Bray-Curtis distance (max value in brackets), mean geographical distance (max value in brackets), number of plots and mean plot size in hectares (range values in brackets) across the latitudinal gradient of the Andean Forest Network.

Latitudinal bands Total # species identified Mean Bray-Curtis distance (max) Mean geographical distance (max) # plots Mean plot size (range)
10° - 5° N 729 0.05 (0.70) 2.4 (6.3) 19 0.90 (0.36 - 1)
5° - 0° N 310 0.08 (0.56) 0.7 (1.5) 23 0.22 (0.04 - 0.36)
0° - 5° S 1155 0.03 (0.97) 2.1 (4.8) 314 0.09 (0.01 - 1)
5° - 10° S 165 0.09 (0.71) 0.3 (0.6) 31 0.13 (0.01 - 1)
10° - 15° S 647 0.05 (0.72) 1.5 (3.6) 35 1 (1)
15° - 20° S - - - 0 -
20° - 25° S 151 0.16 (0.74) 1.1 (2.6) 47 1 (1)
25° - 30° S 53 0.13 (0.79) 0.04 (0.08) 22 0.88 (0.24 - 6)

Results

The 491 plots were distributed along a 4138 km latitudinal gradient, encompassing a wide range of climates (Fig 3). Elevation ranges decreased from tropical to subtropical latitudes depending on the treeline location (Fig 3A). Mean annual air temperature and rainfall were positively correlated (r = 0.46, p < 0.001) (Fig 3B). As expected, mean annual temperature decreased with elevation (r = -0.95, p < 0.001) but did not vary with latitude (r = -0.06, p = 0.31) (Fig 3C). However, seasonal thermal amplitude increased with distance from the equator (r = -0.93, p < 0.001). Rainfall tended to decrease with elevation (r = -0.38, p < 0.001) and decreased towards higher latitudes (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Distribution of Andean Forest Network plots along climatic gradients.

Fig 3

Distribution of the Andean Forest Network plots along (A) spatial, and (B) climate gradients; and (C) mean annual temperature (inverted scale), and (D) annual rainfall along elevation and latitudinal gradients. Different colors refer to different countries.

We found that stem density tended to increase with elevation but decreased above 3000 m asl (S1 Appendix, Fig 4A). Stem density showed a unimodal trend with latitude, peaking at 10–15 degrees from the equator (Fig 4B). Elevation and latitude (and their quadratics terms) explained 43% of the variation in stem density, while plot size did not have a significant effect on stem density (S1 Appendix). Basal area tended to increase with elevation but peaked around 2000 m asl (Fig 4C). Basal area did not relate with latitude (Fig 4D). Plot size had a significant effect on basal area, small plots of 0.1-ha tended to present higher basal area than 1-ha plots (S1 Appendix). Combined, elevation, latitude and plot size explained 9.5% of the variation in basal area. Species richness showed a unimodal trend with elevation, peaking at 1000 m asl (Fig 4E) and decreasing with latitude being higher in the tropics (Fig 4F). Plot size also had a significant effect on species richness such that richness increased with the area sampled. Elevation, latitude and plot size together explained 70% of the variation in species richness. Taking into account the effect of plot size, we fitted a model only with 1-ha plots (n = 109) that showed, on average, higher species richness in tropical forest plots (Intercept = 68 tree species ha-1, above 15° S) than in subtropical forest plots of Argentina (Intercept = 27 tree species ha-1, between 22°-27° S) (Fig 4G, S1 Appendix).

Fig 4. Structural trends of Andean Forest Network plots along elevation and latitudinal gradients.

Fig 4

(A-B) Stem density, (C-D) basal area, and (E-G) species richness along Andean Forest Network plots in the elevation and latitudinal (expressed as distance in degrees to equator) gradient, respectively. Plots are differentiated by size with a gray gradient from 0.1-ha (60 plots), 0.24-ha (7 plots), 0.36-ha (49 plots), ~0.5-ha (6 of 0.40-ha and 1 of 0.48-ha) to 1-ha (109 plots of 1-ha, 2 of 0.96-ha, and 1 plot of 6-ha). Solid lines are significant (i.e. p < 0.001).

Considering all plots (n = 491), we registered a total of 97,054 tree stems’ ≥ 10 cm DBH, of which 90% (86,964) were identified to species level belonging to 2341 species, 584 genera and 133 botanical families (S2 Appendix), while 1095 remained unidentified as morphospecies of which 1019 remain to genera, 41 to family level, and 35 were not determined. Considering identified species (n = 2341), the richest genera were Miconia (105 species), followed by Inga (54 species) and Ocotea (52 species); while the richest family was Fabaceae (177 species), followed by Melastomataceae (169 species), Rubiaceae (154) and Lauraceae (152 species). Only one species, Myrsine coriacea (Sw.) R.Br. ex Roem. & Schult, was shared among all data plots.

The study plots tended to group along two NMDS dimensions based on their species composition (Fig 5). Elevation and latitude correlated well with both NMDS axes (Axis 1: elevation r = 0.80, and latitude r = 0.45; Axis 2: elevation r = 0.51, and latitude r = -0.31). Subtropical mountain forest plots between 22°-27° S (Argentina) segregated from tropical forest plots along Axis 1 and were associated with species such as Sambucus peruviana, Podocarpus parlatorei, Juglans australis, Allophylus edulis and Calycophyllum multiflorum. Tropical premontane forest plots (< 1500 m asl) associated with Solanum ochrophyllum, Clarisia biflora and Heliocarpus americanus, while Nectandra subbullata and Piper obliquum related to tropical lower montane forest plots (i.e. 1500 to 2700 m asl). Licaria applanata, Cornus peruviana, Podocarpus oleifolius, Myrcianthes rhopaloides, Hedyosmum scabrum, Hesperomeles ferruginea and Myrsine dependens were associated with tropical upper forest plots (i.e. 2700 to 3500 m asl) while Polylepis pauta grouped with plots above upper forest line (>3500 m asl).

Fig 5. Compositional trends of Andean Forest Network plots along elevation and latitudinal gradients.

Fig 5

Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination diagram of Andean Forest Network plots based on tree species abundance. Different plots colors refer to different latitudes. Contours lines every 500 m asl are plotted. Species with highest abundance and frequency along NMDS 1 were plotted. Species code: Samper, Sambucus peruviana; Podpar, Podocarpus parlatorei; Jugaus, Juglans australis; Alledu, Allophylus edulis; Calmul, Calycophyllum multiflorum; Soloch, Solanum ochrophyllum; Helame, Helicarpus americanus; Clabif, Clarisia biflora; Ingoer, Inga oerstediana; Necsub, Nectandra subbullata; Pipobl, Piper obliquum; Licapp, Licaria applanata; Schhum, Schefflera humboldtiana; Corper, Cornus peruviana; Axilan, Axinaea lanceolata; Podole, Podocarpus oleifolius; Myrrho, Myrcianthes rhopaloides; Hesfer, Hesperomeles ferruginea; Hedsca, Hedyosmum scabrum; Myrdep, Myrsine dependens; Polpau, Polylepis pauta.

Bray-Curtis distance (i.e., floristic similarity) across all Andean plots was on average 4% (the lower the value the less similarity among plots). Latitudinal bands between 10° N and 15° S (i.e. tropical montane forest plots) showed mean values between 3 to 9% in floristic similarity while in latitudinal bands below 20° S (i.e. subtropical montane forest plots), floristic similarity presented mean values of 13 and 16% (Table 2). These latitudinal bands explained 30.7% of floristic similarity variation among latitudinal bands (i.e., tropical vs. subtropical forest plots) while geographical and elevational distance between plots explained only 2% of floristic similarity decay within latitudinal bands (Fig 6A and 6B; S3 Appendix). Together, geographical distance and elevational difference between pairs of plots within and among latitudinal bands explained 32.8%.

Fig 6. Floristic similarity of Andean Forest Network plots within latitudinal bands.

Fig 6

Bray-Curtis distance (i.e. floristic similarity) between pairs of plots of the Andean Forest Network as function of geographical distance (A), and elevation difference (B) within latitudinal bands.

Discussion and conclusions

The 491 forest plots considered in this study covered broad range of latitudes, elevations and environmental conditions. As a general pattern, temperature and rainfall decreased with elevation, implying that forest plots located at lower elevations were subject to warmer and wetter conditions. While this pattern is well established for temperature, it was different from what Urrutia et al. [5] reported for the Andes where rainfall did not co-vary linearly with elevation. In the latitudinal gradient, rainfall increased towards the equator while mean temperature did not show a clear pattern but seasonal thermal amplitude was higher with increasing latitude (i.e. further from the equator) [64].

Both stem density and basal area were related with the gradients covered by our dataset. However, patterns of stem density were more consistent with elevation and latitude than for basal area. Forest plots with higher stem density (and basal area) were located at higher elevations (> 2000 m asl) and towards the equator. Stem density tended to peaked at 10-15° latitude (e.g. plots of Colombia). The observed increase in the mean values of structural variables with elevation has not been frequently reported; on the contrary, some authors reported the opposite pattern of decreasing density [32], basal area or productivity with elevation [30, 33]. Probably, there are other variables masked in our study, such as the latitudinal gradient (because the highest densest plots are in the tropics) or maybe some local climate associated to topographic conditions (i.e. wetter or drier slopes, soil properties). In addition land use change history may influence tree density as well in the case of secondary forests, i.e. if associated with tree invasive species [65]. Furthermore, the use of small plots (i.e. 0.1-ha) which represent about 12% of plots in AFN, tended to overestimate basal area in comparison to larger plots (mean basal area per hectare 33.9± 1.9 for 0.1-ha plots; and 26.5± 0.7 for 1-ha plots). Moreover, the basal area of these small plots presented the opposite pattern to the general trend, i.e. decreasing basal area with elevation, being consistent with other studies that use small plots [30, 33]. A stronger edge effect and differences in disturbance intensities (disturbed vs. mature forests) as well as majestic forest effect could be expected in these small plots. In addition, smaller plots (e.g. between 0.01 and 0.05-ha), which were discarded from our main analyses, showed a very large variability and dispersion when scaled to 1-ha (e.g. 0.01 ha plot with 1 stem would extrapolated to 100 stems ha-1, and in a 0.04-ha plot with 35 trees extrapolated value of basal area would be as high as 131.2 m2 ha-1). Overall, plots ~ 0.5-ha or larger may be preferred for describing patterns at regional scales.

The greater species richness at lower latitudes compared to the higher latitudes has been widely studied. Explanations for this pattern include the Janzen and Connell conspecific density dependent hypothesis which maintain diversity in plant communities by reducing survival rates of conspecific seedlings located close to reproductive adults or in areas of high conspecific density [66], the narrow environmental niche [67], the recruitment limitation hypothesis [68]. Also, the tropical niche conservatism hypothesis may explain the observed pattern where species diversity and biogeographic processes are driven by historical climate where the stable, wet, warm and a-seasonal tropical climate promote high diversity [69, 70, 71] and narrower niches (i.e. the latitudinal gradient hypothesis) [64, 72].

Subtropical forest plots (i.e., plots in Argentina) clearly segregated from the rest of the tropical forest plots based on species composition, although the elevation gradient was also important, particularly in tropical plots. In terms of floristic similarity (i.e., beta diversity or species turnover) tropical forest plots showed between 3% to 9% of species shared implying high species turnover among their plots within latitudinal bands, while subtropical plots shared more species, between 13% and 16%, implying lower species turnover among plots associated with low diversity of tree species. The high species turnover found in the tropics was reported by several authors and attributed to the combination of climatic variables [73], to multiple coexistence mechanisms [74], and to the high biotic interaction found at these lower latitudes [75] as well as high habitat heterogeneity driven by ample environmental gradients [43, 76].

As well, tropical forest plots separated by larger geographical distances (km) may be less similar due the presence of intermontane valleys and the influence of different floristic regions. This pattern (i.e. less floristic similarity or high species turnover found in the tropics) has also been reported for Andean high alpine vegetation [77]. As the variation explained among latitudinal bands in this regional context was very prominent, geographical and elevational distances between forest plots seemed to be relatively less important. Considering the elevation gradient of the Andes, our study suggests a mid-elevation peak in species diversity for both tropics and subtropics which respond to the mid domain effect hypotheses [78] related to mountain topographic constraints as a result of low temperatures although the mechanisms involved are not clear [36]. Our findings may imply that forests located in tropical and towards mid elevations sections of the Andes have the potential to accumulate more biomass, and consequently sequestrate more carbon, than forests located away from the equator or towards lower elevations. Conservation efforts may be particularly important within this forests.

The creation of the Andean Forest Network has served as an important platform for communication where researchers were able to discuss the use and interpretation of forest plot information in a context of global environmental change. The Andean Forest Network expects to continue expanding its collaborative work across the region adding forest plots along the Andes. Some of the key issues that emerged from its functioning includes: 1) strengthening the institutional arrangements within the Andean Forest Network, and between it and other actors interested in conducting research in Andean forests; 2) implementing mechanisms to promote the long-term sustainability of the Network and the monitoring activities of its members. This will require identifying funding opportunities within the region and abroad, from diverse sources such as climate funding, grants for field research, public funding for science, among others. Also, the compilation and management of the large database includes the need of: 1) improving species identifications and, when possible, standardizing morphospecies along plots; 2) developing a “decentralized” database or an online platform to share data quickly and easily with the least possible errors; 3) strengthening the on-site collection of climate data from meteorological stations; 4) filling current geographical gaps (for example, Bolivian montane dry forest or central Peruvian yungas) and encouraging institutions/researchers to contribute with their forests plot data to the Network, increasing the area covered per country and promoting re-measurement of the installed plots; 5) promoting the implementation of other modules available in protocols (e.g. carbon stocks, species functional traits) [47] and other useful complementary measurements (e.g. dendrometer bands) in all the permanent forest plots of the Network; 6) detecting situations that are locally important; 7) promoting comparative research for monitoring the impacts of anthropogenic activities across the region, including the dynamics of invasive species (i.e. the case of Ligustrum lucidum in Argentina) [79], or primary/secondary succession as a result of volcanism, forest fires, hurricanes, or land use change (abandonment of agricultural and livestock lands); 8) exploring in detail the association between changes in permanent plots and changes in remotely sensed descriptors of functioning (e.g., NDVI) [80], promoting joint research to develop high resolution models of climate change for the Andean region, and descriptions of land use change [12].

Overall, this study is one of the first attempts to integrate forest structure and composition in the Andes showing clear patterns along its elevation and latitudinal gradients. In this sense, the AFP Network constitutes an important initiative to fill geographical gaps in regions such as the tropical and subtropical Andes.

.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Andean Forest Network extended metadata.

aCountry codes are AR, Argentina; BO, Bolivia; PE, Peru; EC, Ecuador; CO, Colombia; VE, Venezuela. cPlot shape refer to R, rectangular; Q, quadrate, and I, irregular; and dimensions refer to length (L) and width (W); dMean annual rainfall and temperature derived from Chelsa, eTime since last disturbance at plot establishment. Number of stems and basal area were extrapolated to 1-ha. *Number of stems, basal area and species richness were estimated for individual’s ≥ 10 cm DBH for comparison.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Generalized linear models.

Summary of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for stem density, basal area and species richness considering elevation, latitude and plot size as explanatory variables. SE = Standard error. VE = Variance explained ((Null Deviance—Residual Deviance)/Null Deviance x 100). (*) Only 1-ha plots were included in the model considering Tropical and Subtropical Andes.

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Abundance of tree species per country.

Abundance of tree species per country, considering individuals ≥10 cm DBH listed by botanical family. Species and family names were actualized with TROPICOS in September 2019 (http://www.tropicos.org).aCountry codes are AR, Argentina; BO, Bolivia; PE, Peru; EC, Ecuador; CO, Colombia; and VE, Venezuela.

(DOCX)

S3 Appendix. Linear mixed-effects model.

Summary of Linear Mixed-effects Model (LMM) for Bray Curtis distance between pairs of forest plots, varying intercept by latitudinal bands every 5°. Final model fitted by REML. SD = Standard deviation, VE = Variance explained (i.e. marginal and conditional R2).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank all the people involved in the installation and monitoring of plots along the Andean Forest Network, and to the different institutions and financiers in different countries who made the field work possible. We also thank all the taxonomic experts, students and local guides that were involved in the collection of the field data and in the identification of plant specimens. We also thank Parque Sierra de San Javier, Administración de Parques Nacionales and private owners in Argentina for facilitating the establishment and monitoring of permanent plots, the Instituto Nacional de Parques in Venezuela for facilitating establishment of permanent plots in the Sierra Nevada National Park. We thank Andrea Izquierdo, Javier Foguet and Silvia Pacheco for their contribution with climatic data and collaboration with the map of Fig 2.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

FC, MP received funding from Andean Forest Program implemented by the Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN) and Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, and funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Additional funding came from the EcoAndes Project conducted by CONDESAN and United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment), funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF; Cooperation Agreement No. 4750). AM, CB, LRM received funding for PICT-O 2014-0059 Project, FONCYT, Argentina. FC received funding from Universidad de las Américas for covering the publication fee and make this research open access.

References

  • 1.Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GA, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403: 853–858. 10.1038/35002501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rahbek C, Borregaard MK, Antonelli A, Colwell RK, Holt B, Nogues-Bravo D, et al. Building mountain biodiversity: Geological and evolutionary processes. Science. 2019;365: 1114–1119. 10.1126/science.aax0151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Joppa LN, Roberts DL, Myers N, Pimm SL. Biodiversity hotspots house most undiscovered plant species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108: 13171–13176. 10.1073/pnas.1109389108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jarvis A, Mulligan M. The climate of cloud forests. Hydrol Process. 2011; 25: 327–343. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Urrutia R, Vuille M. Climate change projections for the tropical Andes using a regional climate model: Temperature and precipitation simulations for the end of the 21st century. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2009;114: 2D 10.1029/2008JD011021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vuille M, Bradley R. Mean temperature trends and their vertical structure in the tropical Andes. Geophys Res Lett. 2000;27: 3885–3888. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R. Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature. 2000;404: 990–992. 10.1038/35010105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Peña MA, Feeley KJ, Duque A. Effects of endogenous and exogenous processes on aboveground biomass stocks and dynamics in Andean forests. Plant Ecol. 2018;219: 1481–1492. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Duque A, Stevenson P, Feeley K. Thermophilization of adult and juvenile tree communities in the northern tropical Andes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;7: 10744–10749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fadrique B, Báez S, Duque A, Malizia A, Blundo C, Carilla J, et al. Widespread but heterogeneous changes in the tree species composition of Andean forests under rising temperatures. Nature. 2018;564: 207–212. 10.1038/s41586-018-0715-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Feeley KJ, Silman MR. Land-use and climate change effects on population size and extinction risk of Andean plants. Glob Chang Biol. 2010;16: 3215–3222. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Aide TM, Grau HR, Graesser J, Andrade-Nuñez MJ, Aráoz E, Barros AP, et al. Woody vegetation dynamics in the tropical and subtropical Andes from 2001 to 2014: Satellite image interpretation and expert validation. Glob Chang Biol. 2019;25: 2112–2126. 10.1111/gcb.14618 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aide TM, Grau HR. Globalization migration and Latin American ecosystems. Science. 2004;305: 1915–1916. 10.1126/science.1103179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Grau HR, Aide TM. Globalization and land use transitions in Latin America. Ecology and Society. 2008;13: 16 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art16/. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Geist HJ, Lambin EF. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience. 2002;52: 143–150. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mulligan M. Modeling the tropics-wide extent and distribution of cloud forest and cloud forest loss with implications for conservation priority Tropical montane cloud forests. Science for conservation and management. 2010;740: 16–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Young KR. Andean land use and biodiversity: humanized landscapes in a time of change. Ann Mo Bot Gard.2009;96: 492–507. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Armenteras D, Rodríguez N, Retana J, Morales M. Understanding deforestation in montane and lowland forests of the Colombian Andes. Reg Environ Change. 2011;11: 693–705. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rodríguez Eraso N, Armenteras-Pascual D, Alumbreros JR. Land use and land cover change in the Colombian Andes: dynamics and future scenarios. J Land Use Sci. 2013;8: 154–174. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pacheco S, Malizia LR, Cayuelas L. Effects of climate change in subtropical forests of South America. Trop Conserv Sci. 2010;3: 423–437. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tovar C, Arnillas CA, Cuesta F, Buytaert W. Diverging Responses of Tropical Andean Biomes under Future Climate Conditions. PLoS ONE 2013;8: e63634 10.1371/journal.pone.0063634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ramirez-Villegas J, Cuesta F, Devenish C, Peralvo M, Jarvis A, Arnillas CA. Using species distributions models for designing conservation strategies of Tropical Andean biodiversity under climate change. J Nat Conserv. 2014;22: 391–404. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mathez-Stiefel SL, Peralvo M, Báez S, Rist S, Buytaert W, Cuesta F, et al. Research priorities for the conservation and sustainable governance of Andean forest landscapes. Mt Res Dev. 2017;37: 323–339. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lieberman D, Lieberman M, Peralta R, Hartshorn GS. Tropical forest structure and composition on a large-scale altitudinal gradient in Costa Rica. J.Ecol. 1996;84: 137–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vázquez GA, Givnish TJ. Altitudinal gradients in tropical forest composition structure and diversity in the Sierra de Manantlán. J Ecol. 1998;86: 999–1020. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ashton PS. Floristic zonation of tree communities on wet tropical mountains revisited Perspectives. Plant Ecol Evol. 2003;6: 87–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Clark DB, Hurtado J, Saatchi SS. Tropical rainforest structure tree growth and dynamics along a 2700-m elevational transect in Costa Rica. PLoS One. 2015;10(4): e0122905 https://doi.org/101371/journalpone0122905.> [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Fahey T, Sherman R, Tanner E. Tropical montane cloud forest: environmental drivers of vegetation structure and ecosystem function. J Trop Ecol. 2016;32: 355–367. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Girardin CAJ, Malhi Y, Aragao LEOC, Mamani M, Huaraca Huasco W, Durand L, et al. Net primary productivity allocation and cycling of carbon along a tropical forest elevational transect in the Peruvian Andes. Glob Chang Biol. 2010;16: 3176–3192. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Homeier J, Breckle SW, Günter S, Rollenbeck RT, Leuschner C. Tree diversity forest structure and productivity along altitudinal and topographical gradients in a species-rich Ecuadorian montane rain forest. Biotropica. 2010;42: 140–148. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Malizia L, Blundo C, Sánchez E. Red Subtropical de parcelas en la Alta Cuenca del río Bermejo (REDSPP). Agraria 2012;13: 106–111. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Unger M, Homeier J, Leuschner C. Effects of soil chemistry on tropical forest biomass and productivity at different elevations in the equatorial Andes. Oecologia 2012;170: 263–274. 10.1007/s00442-012-2295-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Báez S, Malizia A, Carilla J, Blundo C, Aguilar M, Aguirre N, et al. Large-Scale Patterns of Turnover and Basal Area Change in Andean Forests. PLoS One. 2015;10(5): e0126594 10.1371/journal.pone.0126594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kessler M, Grytnes JA, Halloy S, Kluge J, Krömer T, León B, et al. Gradients of Plant Diversity: Local Patterns and Processes In Herzog SK, Martínez R, Jørgensen PM, Tiessen H, editors. Climate Change and Biodiversity in the Tropical Andes. Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) and Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment; 2011. pp 204–219. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Salazar L, Homeier J, Kessler M, Abrahamczyk S, Lehnert M, Krömer T, Kluge J. Diversity patterns of ferns along elevational gradients in Andean tropical forests. Plant Ecol Divers. 2015;8: 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Krömer T, Kessler M, Robbert Gradstein S, Acebey A. Diversity patterns of vascular epiphytes along an elevational gradient in the Andes. J Biogeogr. 2005;32: 1799–1809. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wolf JH. Diversity patterns and biomass of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens along an altitudinal gradient in the northern Andes. Ann Mo Bot Gard.1993;80: 928–960. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Malizia L, Pacheco S, Blundo C, Brown AD. Caracterización altitudinal, uso y conservación de las Yungas Subtropicales de Argentina. Ecosistemas 2012, 21: 53–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hoorn CFP, Wesselingh H, ter Steege MA, Bermudez A, Mora J, Sevink I, et al. Amazonia Through Time: Andean Uplift Climate Change Landscape Evolution and Biodiversity Science. 2010;30: 927–931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Garzione CN, Hoke GD, Libarkin JC, Withers S, MacFadden B, Eiler J, et al. Rise of the Andes. Science. 2008;320: 1304–1307. 10.1126/science.1148615 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hooghiemstra H. Quaternary and upper-pliocene glaciations and forest development in the tropical andes: Evidence from a long high-resolution pollen record from the sedimentary basin of Bogotá, Colombia. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 1989;72: 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mourguiart P, Ledru MP. Last Glacial Maximum in an Andean cloud forest environment (Eastern Cordillera, Bolivia). Geology. 2003;31: 195–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gentry AH. Patterns of diversity and floristic composition in neotropical montane forests In: Churchill SP., Balslev H, Forero E, Luteyn JL, editors. Neotropical Montane Forest Biodiversity and Conservation Symposium. Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York: New York Botanical Garden; 1995. pp: 103–126. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Brown AD, Kappelle M. Introducción a los bosques nublados del neotrópico: una síntesis regional In: Kappelle M, Brown AD, editors. Bosques Nublados del Neotrópico. Santo Domingo de Heredia Costa Rica: Editorial INBio; 2001. Pp. 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Grubb PJ, Whitmore TC. A comparison on montane and lowland rain forest in Ecuador: II. The climate and its effects on the distribution and physiognomy of the forests. J Ecol. 1996;54: 303–333. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pinto E, Pérez AJ, Ulloa Ulloa C, Cuesta F. Árboles representativos de los bosques montanos del noroccidente de Pichincha Ecuador. Quito: CONDESAN; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Osinaga Acosta O, Baez S, Malizia A, Cuesta F, Carilla J. Monitoreo de diversidad vegetal y carbono en bosques andinos. Protocolo extendido Protocolo 2 - Versión 1. Quito: CONDESAN / IER-UNT / COSUDE; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pinto E, Cuesta F. Monitoreo de Biodiversidad Contenidos de Carbono Productividad y Rasgos Funcionales en Bosques Montanos Quito: CONDESAN; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Báez S, Malizia A, Carilla J, Osinaga O. Respuestas de los bosques andinos a los cambios ambientales globales. Propuestas andinas. 2016;14 Available from: http://www.bosquesandinos.org/serie-propuestas-andinas-respuestas-de-los-bosques-andinos-a-los-cambios-ambientales-globales/. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Requena Suarez D, Rozendaal DM, De Sy V, Phillips OL, Alvarez-Dávila E, Anderson-Teixeira K, et al. Estimating aboveground net biomass change for tropical and subtropical forests: refinement of IPCC default rates using forest plot data. Glob Chang Biol.2019;25: 3609–3624. 10.1111/gcb.14767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fehse J, Hofstede R, Aguirre N, Paladines C, Kooijman A, Sevink J. High altitude tropical secondary forests: a competitive carbon sink? For Ecol Manage. 2001;163: 9–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Grau HR, Hernández ME, Gutierrez J, Gasparri NI, Casavecchia MC, Flores EE, et al. A peri-urban neotropical forest transition and its consequences for environmental services. Ecology and Society. 2008;13: 35 http://wwwecologyandsocietyorg/vol13/iss1/art35/. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Peña MA, Duque A. Patterns of stocks of aboveground tree biomass dynamics and their determinants in secondary Andean forests. For Ecol Manage. 2013;302: 54–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Karger DN, Conrad O, Böhner J, Kawohl T, Kreft H, Soria-Auza RW, et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Scientific Data. 2017;4: 170–122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kruskal J, Wish M. Multidimensional Scaling. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Legendre P, Legendre L. Numerical ecology. 2nd ed Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.McCune BP, Grace JB. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Oregon: MjM Software Design; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd. ed New York: W.H. Freeman; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Barwell LJ, Isaac NJB, Kunin WE. Measuring β-diversity with species abundance data. J Anim Ecol. 2015;84: 1112–1122. 10.1111/1365-2656.12362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Laird NM, James H. Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data. Biometrics.1982;38: 963–974. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4: 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2013. http://www.R-project.org/.
  • 64.Cuesta F, Tovar C, Llambi LD, Gosling WD, Halloy S, Carilla J, et al. Thermal niche traits of high alpine plant species and communities across the tropical Andes and their vulnerability to global warming. J Biogeogr. Forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Crowther TW, Glick HB, Covey KR, + 30 authors. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature. 2015;525: 201–205. 10.1038/nature14967 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Janzen DH. Herbivores and the number of tree species in tropical forest. The Am Nat. 1970;104: 501–528. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Stevens GC. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: how so many species coexist in the tropics. Am Nat. 1989;133: 240–256. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hubbell SP, Foster RB, O’rien ST, Harms KE, Condit R, Wechsler B, et al. Light-gap disturbances recruitment limitation and tree diversity in a neotropical forest. Science. 1999;283: 554–557. 10.1126/science.283.5401.554 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Willig MR, Kaufman DM, Stevens RD. Latitudinal Gradients of Biodiversity: Pattern Process Scale and Synthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;20: 273–309. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Romdal TS, Araújo MB, Rahbek C. Life on a tropical planet. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2013;22: 344–350. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kerkhoff AJ, Moriarty PE, Weiser MD. The latitudinal species richness gradient in New World woody angiosperms is consistent with the tropical conservatism hypothesis Proc Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111: 8125–8130. 10.1073/pnas.1308932111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Polato NR, Gill BA, Shah AA, Gray MM, Casner KL, Barthelet A, et al. Narrow thermal tolerance and low dispersal drive higher speciation in tropical mountains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115: 12471–12476. 10.1073/pnas.1809326115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Giehl EL, Jarenkow JA. Niche conservatism and the differences in species richness at the transition of tropical and subtropical climates in South America. Ecography. 2012;35: 933–943. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Zhu Y,Queenborough SA, Condit R, Hubbell SP, Ma KP, Comita LS. Density-dependent survival varies with species life-history strategy in a tropical forest. Ecol Lett. 2018:21, 506–515. 10.1111/ele.12915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Schemske DW, Mittelbach GG, Cornell HV, Sobel JM Roy K. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009:40, 245–269. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kattan GH, Franco P, Rojas V, Morales G. Biological diversification in a complex region: a spatial analysis of faunistic diversity and biogeography of the Andes of Colombia. J Biogeogr. 2004;31: 1829–1839. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Cuesta F, Muriel P, Llambí LD, Halloy S, Aguirre N, Beck S, et al. Latitudinal and altitudinal patterns of plant community diversity on mountain summits across the tropical Andes. Ecography. 2017;40: 1381–1394. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Colwell RK, Lees DC. The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000;15: 70–76. 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01767-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Malizia A, Osinaga Acosta O, Powell P, Aragón R. Invasion of Ligustrum lucidum (Oleaceae) in subtropical secondary forests of NW Argentina: declining growth rates of abundant native tree species. J Veg Sci. 2017;28: 1240–1249. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Blundo C, Gasparri I, Malizia A, Clark M, Gatti G, Campanello P et al. Relationships among biomass, climate and phenology across subtropical forests of Argentina. J Trop Ecol. 2018;34: 93–107. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

RunGuo Zang

24 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-30260

Structural and compositional trends along elevation and latitude gradients of Andean forests

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs Malizia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please seriouly consider the concerns of the referees and make revisions according to their suggsetions,especially you should pay attention to comments about data availability(this is also clearly required by the journal) and the discusssions on the major results.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

Please integrate the concerns of the referees and make improvement accordingly

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General remarks:

This paper reports on trends in stem number, basal area and species diversity patterns for trees in a series of plots spanning ~4000 km of latitude and 4000 m of elevation range. The results are a useful addition to the analysis of trends in the physical and biological structure of Andean forests. In general, I found the manuscript clearly written and not over-reaching in its conclusions.

I believe that most last contribution of this manuscript would be the publication of the data upon which all the analyses were conducted. Unfortunately, it appears that this manuscript does not meet PLOS One standards of data availability. The authors state that “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”, and that “We used the Andean Forest 70 Network (Red de Bosques Andinos, www.redbosques.condesan.org/) database which, at 71 present, includes 491 forest plots (totaling 156.3 ha, ranging from 0.01 to 6 ha) representing 72 a total of 86,964 tree stems ≥ 10 cm diameter at breast height belonging to 2341 identified 73 species, 584 genera and 133 botanical families.”

This is a manuscript analyzing Andean forest tree structure and diversity. The data used are what the authors describe above, i.e. size, location and identification data on 86,964 tree stems. It appears that the data on these individual stems are not, contrary to what the authors state, presented in either the manuscript or in the Supporting Information. I followed the link to the Red de Bosques Andinos and was not able to find any of the individual stem data. I did find a link to “datos” (data in Spanish), but that led only to plot metadata, not to the actual data.

In summary, even with a diligent effort I was unable to find the data on which this manuscript is based. If somehow the stem data are in fact publicly accessible without restriction somewhere, they are not easily findable even with reasonable effort. The authors should clearly show exactly where the individual stem data can be freely accessed with no restrictions.

The authors state “The plot data that support the findings of this study are available from Andean 251 Forests Network upon reasonable request”, so it appears to me that the data are not publicly available without restriction. PLoS ONE’s data availability policy states: “PLoS journals require authors to make all data necessary to replicate their study’s findings publicly available without restriction at the time of publication.” To replicate the study’s findings requires access to the individual stem data. Unless public access without restriction is provided the manuscript is not acceptable according to PLoS ONE’s standards.

In the case of this manuscript complying with PLoS ONE’s data policy is not an onerous requirement. Stem data for 87,000 individuals is not large dataset and the data could easily be easily be included as a table in the Supporting Information. An example from PLoS One is Clark et al. 2017 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183819#sec013. In their S1 Table those authors provide individual stem data for size, location and taxonomic identity of ~80,000 individual census measurements, which is a similar-size data set. I strongly encourage the authors to include the individual stem data as a table in Supporting Information so that the exact version of the dataset that they used to generate the paper is archived with the paper. Data in a dataset of this nature are constantly and very correctly changing as errors are detected and corrected and as taxonomic concepts evolve. It would be difficult in the future to recreate these analyses unless the version of the database at the time of these analyses is published. Such publication of the freely available base data is a PLoS ONE requirement for publication, and it is also best scientific practice.

My pdf copy of the manuscript lost line numbering after line 274, so after that I use the page numbers of my pdf copy to reference comments.

It is unclear how many individuals were analyzed. The Abstract states 86,944 stems, but on page 26 a total of 97,054 stems is mentioned. It is not clear if the 86,944 applies only to the analyses involving taxonomic identity. I assume that the total 97,054 stems were used in the analyses of basal area and stem number, there is no reason to discard individuals for these analyses. In any case the sample size for each set of analyses must be clarified.

The authors are very aware of the issues of plot size and its effects on scaling to larger spatial scales. They are clear that they omitted many very small plots (<0.1 ha) from their analyses. However the analyzed plots are located in mountainous terrain, and are likely spatially biased towards rare flat areas. In addition, most (all?) of the plots were subjectively sited (not sited using a spatially random protocol) and may be subject to the “majestic forest” bias. It would be useful for the authors to provide their opinion of the effects on non-random plot placements on these results.

Other comments:

I suggested deleting lines 230-241, this section is not directly relevant to the reported research.

Table 1. Clarify if temperature and rainfall are annual averages. This table would be easier to read with vertical lines separating the variables, and “Min” and “Max” over each of those columns.

Page 22. Spell out CHELSA. Rapid variation in environmental gradients is well known in tropical mountain area. Are there any site-specific data to check the accuracy of the predicted climate with actual climate on the ground?

The whole paragraph on page 22 on climate data reads like climate was actually measured on the ground. In fact climate variables were predicted from remotely sensed data, with an unknown (or unreported) degree of uncertainty. All of these data should be labeled as “estimated” or “predicted” to make clear that actual ground-measured data are not being reported. It’s fine to report remotely sensed data, but the manuscript should be clear that is what’s being reported. Based on this manuscript there is no way to know how good these estimates are at the plot level. If the authors in fact do know the accuracy of these predictions it would be useful to report that.

Figure 3 caption, B, change “climate” to “estimated annual rainfall”. What is the reason for the inverted scale on panel B? All the other scales are linear increasing, so this exception is confusing. I suggest plotting plot B like the other variables, both variables increasing from the origin.

Figure 4. Move Elevation and Latitude to the top of each column rather than below (it’s confusing as presented since the columns are of unequal length).

Table 2. Add units to the column headings were these are missing.

Figure 4 is confusing. What is the difference between panels E and G? The text states that “Species richness decreased with latitude (Fig 4E-F)” but panel E is based on elevation, not latitude. Please clarify in the text and in the figure legend.

Consider replacing “hump-shaped elevational pattern of tree species richness” with “mid-elevation peak in species diversity”.

Reviewer #2: I liked the manuscript and the overall approach. I also enjoy reading synthesis-based analyses that are based on field-plot data. I also think this particular plot network has an enormous potential for future work and research to support conservation and management of Andean forests. However, in its current form, this work requires more analytical thinking, especially to discuss the main findings and the causal mechanisms behind the patterns that were reported. See the attached file for detailed comments.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David B. Clark

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-30260_First_ReviewDec2019.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231553. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231553.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Mar 2020

March 30th, 2020

Dr. Joerg Heber, Editor-in-Chief

PLoS ONE

Dear Dr. Herber,

I am writing to submit our revised manuscript (PONE-D-19-30260) entitled Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests: results from a large-scale plot Network for consideration for publication in PLoS ONE. We are very thankful for your comments and those of the reviewers as they have allowed us to improve our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of them and addressed all of them. In this sense, we have made clear the point about data availability as well as we have improved the discussion concerning the major results. Please find below the detailed responses to each comment. Line and Page numbers referred correspond to the revised manuscript with track changes.

With best regards,

Dra. Agustina Malizia (On behalf of all authors)

Instituto de Ecología Regional (IER) (CONICET-UNT)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor Comments

Please seriously consider the concerns of the referees and make revisions according to their suggestions, especially you should pay attention to comments about data availability (this is also clearly required by the journal) and the discussions on the major results.

Response: We have paid attention to all comments made by both reviewers, incorporated all of them in the manuscript, and responded to each one in detailed. Please, see below.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly ________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes________________________________________3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in Standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes ________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

General remarks:

This paper reports on trends in stem number, basal area and species diversity patterns for trees in a series of plots spanning ~4000 km of latitude and 4000 m of elevation range. The results are a useful addition to the analysis of trends in the physical and biological structure of Andean forests. In general, I found the manuscript clearly written and not over-reaching in its conclusions.

I believe that most last contribution of this manuscript would be the publication of the data upon which all the analyses were conducted. Unfortunately, it appears that this manuscript does not meet PLOS One standards of data availability. The authors state that “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”, and that “We used the Andean Forest Network (Red de Bosques Andinos, www.redbosques.condesan.org/) database which, at present, includes 491 forest plots (totaling 156.3 ha, ranging from 0.01 to 6 ha) representing a total of 86,964 tree stems ≥ 10 cm diameter at breast height belonging to 2341 identified species, 584 genera and 133 botanical families.”

This is a manuscript analyzing Andean forest tree structure and diversity. The data used are what the authors describe above, i.e. size, location and identification data on 86,964 tree stems. It appears that the data on these individual stems are not, contrary to what the authors state, presented in either the manuscript or in the Supporting Information. I followed the link to the Red de Bosques Andinos and was not able to find any of the individual stem data. I did find a link to “datos” (data in Spanish), but that led only to plot metadata, not to the actual data.

In summary, even with a diligent effort I was unable to find the data on which this manuscript is based. If somehow the stem data are in fact publicly accessible without restriction somewhere, they are not easily findable even with reasonable effort. The authors should clearly show exactly where the individual stem data can be freely accessed with no restrictions.

Response: In Table S1 we included: i) number of stems, ii) basal area (both extrapolated to 1-ha) and iii) species richness for each of the 491 plots. Additionally, in Appendix 1 we reported the abundance of tree species per country. This information constitutes the primary input used in the analyses to describe the main structural and compositional trends across the Andean forests. Thus, we included the following text in the manuscript to make explicitly clear that the information upon which replicate the analyses is available in the supporting information: “All relevant data upon which all the presented results in this manuscript are based on is included in its Supporting Information files…”. (P13, L296-300). We also clarified that the link to Red de Bosques Andinos (https://redbosques.condesan.org/) is to check general information about the Network (P11, L230-231).

The authors state “The plot data that support the findings of this study are available from Andean Forests Network upon reasonable request”, so it appears to me that the data are not publicly available without restriction. PLoS ONE’s data availability policy states: “PLoS journals require authors to make all data necessary to replicate their study’s findings publicly available without restriction at the time of publication.” To replicate the study’s findings requires access to the individual stem data. Unless public access without restriction is provided the manuscript is not acceptable according to PLoS ONE’s standards.

Response: In order to replicate the study, the information needed is the following: i) number of stems, ii) basal area and iii) species richness for each of the 491 plots which, and as we stated previously, it is provided in the supporting files. To avoid confusion, we have deleted the sentence: “The plot data that support the findings of this study are available from Andean Forests Network upon reasonable request”.

In the case of this manuscript complying with PLoS ONE’s data policy is not an onerous requirement. Stem data for 87,000 individuals is not large dataset and the data could easily be included as a table in the Supporting Information. An example from PLoS One is Clark et al. 2017 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183819#sec013. In their S1 Table those authors provide individual stem data for size, location and taxonomic identity of ~80,000 individual census measurements, which is a similar-size data set. I strongly encourage the authors to include the individual stem data as a table in Supporting Information so that the exact version of the dataset that they used to generate the paper is archived with the paper. Data in a dataset of this nature are constantly and very correctly changing as errors are detected and corrected and as taxonomic concepts evolve. It would be difficult in the future to recreate these analyses unless the version of the database at the time of these analyses is published. Such publication of the freely available base data is a PLoS ONE requirement for publication, and it is also best scientific practice.

Response: We understand the reviewer's request; however, as explained above, the data required to replicate this research is available in the supporting information included in the manuscript. Also, the Andean Forest Network dataset belongs to the different research groups that are part of the Network. Currently, these research groups are implementing projects and research with master's and doctoral students based in part on the same information presented here. It is not our intention to hinder research initiatives that require an embargo of the data until the different research projects are complete, making the base information available.

My pdf copy of the manuscript lost line numbering after line 274, so after that I use the page numbers of my pdf copy to reference comments.

Response: We added line numbers until the end of the manuscript. Apparently, lines were missing after number 274 as the reviewer stated. We apologize for the inconveniences.

It is unclear how many individuals were analyzed. The Abstract states 86,964 stems, but on page 26 a total of 97,054 stems is mentioned. It is not clear if the 86,964 applies only to the analyses involving taxonomic identity. I assume that the total 97,054 stems were used in the analyses of basal area and stem number, there is no reason to discard individuals for these analyses. In any case the sample size for each set of analyses must be clarified.

Response: Corrected. We added a clarifying sentence: For calculations of stem density and basal area we used all stems ≥10 cm DBH (n = 97,054) while for species richness we used stems ≥10 cm identified to species level (n = 86,964) (P16, L337-339). We also clarified this in the abstract: “…representing a total of 86,964 identified stems ≥ 10 cm diameter…” (P4, L74-75).

The authors are very aware of the issues of plot size and its effects on scaling to larger spatial scales. They are clear that they omitted many very small plots (<0.1 ha) from their analyses. However the analyzed plots are located in mountainous terrain, and are likely spatially biased towards rare flat areas. In addition, most (all?) of the plots were subjectively sited (not sited using a spatially random protocol) and may be subject to the “majestic forest” bias. It would be useful for the authors to provide their opinion of the effects on non-random plot placements on these results.

Response: Forest plots may not have been located strictly at random thus is challenging to guarantee that some of them were not subject to the majestic forest bias. However, forest plots setup were based on the combination of several factors: (1) accessibility, (2) sustainable over time to ensure long term monitoring for some plots, and (3) homogeneity in terms of forest type, topography, and disturbances in order to be representative of particular forest types. We clarified this in text (P13, L275-278). In this sense, we have stated that: “The majority of the plots are placed in mature forests, but the Network also includes several older secondary forests plots, i.e. > 30 years old as a result of human activities and the associated land-use changes” (P13 279-281).

Concerning the majestic forest bias, small plots may be subjected to this effect showing higher estimated values of basal area (Phillips et al. 2002). In this sense, in the result section we have reported that “Plot size had a significant effect on basal area, small plots of 0.1-ha tended to present higher basal area than 1-ha plots (Appendix 1) (P19 L396-397). However, taking into account the three variables combined, the variance explain is less than 10%, as we have stated: “Combined, elevation, latitude and plot size explained 9.5% of the variation in basal area” (P19 L398). Finally, in the discussion section we added: “…as well as majestic forest effect could be expected in these small plots (P24 L504-505).

Phillips OL, Malhi Y, Vinceti B, Baker T, Lewis SL, Higuchi N, ... & Ferreira LV. (2002). Changes in growth of tropical forests: evaluating potential biases. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 576-587.

Other comments:

I suggested deleting lines 230-241, this section is not directly relevant to the reported research.

Response: Agreed, we deleted it.

Table 1. Clarify if temperature and rainfall are annual averages. This table would be easier to read with vertical lines separating the variables, and “Min” and “Max” over each of those columns.

Response: Done. We clarify in the legend of Table 1 (P15, L312) that we referred to total annual rainfall and mean annual temperature. Also, we added vertical lines in this table, and “min” and “max” as suggested. Additionally, in legend of Table S1 we also clarified that we referred to total annual rainfall and mean annual temperature.

Page 22. Spell out CHELSA. Rapid variation in environmental gradients is well known in tropical mountain area. Are there any site-specific data to check the accuracy of the predicted climate with actual climate on the ground?

Response: We spelled out CHELSA as “Climatologies at high resolution for the Earth’s land surface areas” (P16 L318). We were not able to corroborate the accuracy of the predicted climate with actual climate on the ground. In this sense, Andean precipitation patterns are currently not yet well described, due to the high spatio-temporal variability and low density of rain gauges, thus we expect some underestimations and overestimations in precipitation values (Urrutia and Vuille 2009; Buytaert et al. 2010). Nevertheless, we believe we have used the best available climatic information to describe general climatic patterns across Andean forest plots.

Buytaert, W., Vuille, M., Dewulf, A., Urrutia, R., Karmalkar, A. & Célleri, R. (2010) Uncertainties in climate change projections and regional downscaling in the tropical Andes: implications for water resources management. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 1247-1258

The whole paragraph on page 22 on climate data reads like climate was actually measured on the ground. In fact climate variables were predicted from remotely sensed data, with an unknown (or unreported) degree of uncertainty. All of these data should be labeled as “estimated” or “predicted” to make clear that actual ground-measured data are not being reported. It’s fine to report remotely sensed data, but the manuscript should be clear that is what’s being reported. Based on this manuscript there is no way to know how good these estimates are at the plot level. If the authors in fact do know the accuracy of these predictions it would be useful to report that.

Response: We rephrased the information within this paragraph adding the word estimated and predicted in order to make clear that it was remotely sensed data information (P16, L317-324).

Figure 3 caption, B, change “climate” to “estimated annual rainfall”. What is the reason for the inverted scale on panel B? All the other scales are linear increasing, so this exception is confusing. I suggest plotting plot B like the other variables, both variables increasing from the origin.

Response: We showed the inverted scale on Fig 3B (y axis = temperature) to emphasize illustratively the location of plots associated with elevation and temperature, i.e. higher plots are also the colder ones and are graphed in similar position in both panels (Fig 3A, B). We also clarified it (i.e. inverted scale) in the legend of Fig 3 (P19, L387).

Figure 4. Move Elevation and Latitude to the top of each column rather than below (it’s confusing as presented since the columns are of unequal length).

Response: Done. We moved Axis X (Elevation and Latitude) above to the top of each column

Table 2. Add units to the column headings were these are missing.

Response: Done. We added the symbol “#” (number) in two of the columns.

Figure 4 is confusing. What is the difference between panels E and G? The text states that “Species richness decreased with latitude (Fig 4E-F)” but panel E is based on elevation, not latitude. Please clarify in the text and in the figure legend.

Response: Done. We clarified that Fig 4F is the one that refers to latitude (P19, L399-400). Fig 4E does not distinguish between tropical and subtropical sections, while Fig 4G does distinguish between tropics and subtropics taking into account only 1ha-plots (n = 109). This is stated in text (P19, 403-406).

Consider replacing “hump-shaped elevational pattern of tree species richness” with “mid-elevation peak in species diversity”.

Response: Done. We replaced as suggested.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David B. Clark

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Reviewer #2: I liked the manuscript and the overall approach. I also enjoy reading synthesis-based analyses that are based on field-plot data. I also think this particular plot network has an enormous potential for future work and research to support conservation and management of Andean forests. However, in its current form, this work requires more analytical thinking, especially to discuss the main findings and the causal mechanisms behind the patterns that were reported. See the attached file for detailed comments.

Manuscript Review PLOS ONE (PONE-D-19-30260)

Structural and compositional trends along elevation and latitude gradients of Andean forests By Malizia et al…

General comments:

This study is based on data collected from an impressive number of research sites, between temporary and permanent forest plots, located in different parts of the Andes in South America, an important biological hotspot that has received less attention compared to lowland forests. Broadly, this paper takes advantage of the wide and complex environmental range covered by the dataset to address the questions of the combined effects of elevation and latitude on the structure and tree species composition of Andean forests. By means of generalized models, the authors found that forest density (i.e. number of trees or stems per unit of area) increased with elevation with an opposite effect from latitude. The differences in species richness found between tropical and subtropical Andes are not surprising and are aligned with previous studies. However, the degree of similarity (or dissimilarity) in terms of species diversity in these two broad regions within the Andes was an interesting finding. The authors very well highlight the immense value that this Andean plot-network (i.e. Red de Bosques Andinos) has for strengthening scientific research in the region and promote collaboration. These are not ‘novel’ questions but given the amount of data used, especially compared to an earlier study from the same group (Baez et al. 2015 PLoS ONE), I find the paper of high interest for many scientists and forest ecologists, and readers of PLoS ONE. However, in its current form this manuscript remains largely descriptive and a better explanation of the causal mechanisms behind how elevation and/or latitude drives structure and composition is missing. The implications of the results to other aspects of forest structure (e.g. carbon) or dynamics (e.g. stem turnover) could be added too. I think the paper should be improved, especially in the discussion section, before being considered for publication. I am pointing out several comments, questions, and occasionally, a few suggestions, that could help moving this paper forward.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer effort for improving the manuscript. We have incorporated all comments and addressed each one in detail below.

Typesetting and formatting:

I don’t normally pay too much attention to these aspects at this stage. However, I strongly recommend the paper by checked for type setting errors, and the written structure of some paragraphs is reviewed to help the reader. Details are offered below indicating page and line numbers. Yet, as a direct note to the authors, in the pdf version I had access to there was no line number after page 13 of the document (after Table 1), and at line 275 (Table 1), the page number starts again with 1. For this section then I will be referring my comments using these numbers while trying to point out the paragraph number and a few words in the sentence to facilitate the review process.

Response: Done. We added continuous line numbers after line 274, until the end of the manuscript.

Title:

I suggest the title to be more directly linked with the results (e.g. Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests). As I will mention later, the manuscript includes in the discussion a long portion about the value of the plot network that I am not sure if is relevant. However, if the authors decide to keep it, maybe a change in the title should also reflect this (e.g. Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests: results from a large-scale plot network).

Response: We have changed the title as suggested.

Abstract:

This section needs to be modified a bit. In particular, the reader will benefit from having more specific results being mentioned in the abstract. For example, there is an important aspect of the study related to plot size and its effects on the results that is not mentioned here.

Response: Agreed. We added a sentence to refer to plot size effect: Overall, plots ~ 0.5-ha or larger may be preferred for describing patterns at regional scales in order to avoid plot size effects (P4, L81-82).

Page 4, Lines 68 - 69: “…Here, we assessed patterns of Andean forest tree structure and diversity along ~ 4000 km of latitude and ~ 4000 m of elevation range…”. Consider changing to: “…In this study, we assessed patterns of structure and tree species diversity across a wide altitudinal and latitudinal range in Andean forests…”

Response: We changed it as suggested.

Page 4, Line 75: “…Subtropical forests have distinct composition from tropical forests...”

Consider changing to: “…Subtropical forests have distinct tree species composition compared to those in the tropical region…”

Response: We changed it as suggested.

Introduction:

Page 4, L83: “Indeed, the Tropical Andes…”. The region is already mentioned in the first sentence. Just start the line with something like “…Indeed, this region is one of the most diverse terrestrial hotspots on earth [1]…”

Response: We changed it as suggested.

Page 5, L86: “…that have not been described yet…” Change to: “…that have not yet been described…”.

Response: We changed it as suggested.

P5 L87-90: There are two different sentences, with different citations too, that mention “climate regulation”. Unify or combined these statements avoiding repetition.

Response: We combined both sentences.

P5 L92-95: Again, two sentences discuss similar aspects, specifically about social aspects (i.e. “population growth” and “economic, and cultural factors”). Consider simplifying this paragraph. Also, is not clear what “contrasting patterns of human population growth” means? Please clarify.

Response: We combined both sentences.

P5 L96: “Changes to Andean forests…” Changes in what? Forest cover? Structure? I don’t think the word “patterns” fits here. Consider something like: “…Changes in Andean forest cover includes both forest expansion, mostly frequent above 2000 masl) and deforestation that often dominates at lower elevations [12]…”

Response: We changed it as suggested.

P5 L102: “…are already undergoing…” Change to: “…experiencing an apparent shift in species composition (i.e…)”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P5 L104: Are these predicted shifts for plant species, animal species? Please clarify.

Response: Predicted shifts are for vascular plant species. We clarified it.

P6 L109-114: I am not sure if this whole paragraph fits here. Are those “knowledge gaps” related to the study? I understand the importance of collaborative research networks but the next paragraph (L116) immediately start discussing the effects of elevation on tree density. Consider removing this paragraph or in any case a connecting sentence is needed before you jump to the density portion.

Response: Knowledge gaps are related to the study. We clarified this, and rephrase the sentence adding connection to next paragraph (P6 L121-125).

P6 L121 “…subtropical section of the Andes…” Just say” “subtropical Andes…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P6 L128: “Species richness…” All species? Plants?

Response: We referred to plant species. We clarified it.

Clarify. P7 L134: “…also showed…” -- > “…also shows the…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P7 L135: “…being maximum…” -- > “…reaching a maximum at…”.

Response: We changed as suggested.

P7 L136: “…Argentina [38], decreasing…” -- > “…Argentina [38], while decreasing above…”.

Response: We changed as suggested.

P7 L138-140: I agree that long-term monitoring is needed, but the study do not use or report temporal trends so how is this relevant here? Consider moving to the conclusions.

Response: We deleted as suggested.

P7 L142: “…the main structural and diversity patterns…” -- > “…the main patterns of structure and tree species diversity in Andean forest communities…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P7 L144: Why consider species richness as a structural component?

Response: Actually, we consider species richness within diversity patterns. We clarified this.

P7 L148-150: “…This study…” This paragraph would fit better perhaps at the beginning of this section in L142. Also, is not clear what do you mean about “…at regional scales in global context...”? Perhaps just say “…This study is one of the first attempts to describe and characterize regional patterns of forest structure and diversity in the Andes across (go to L143)…”

Response: We moved the sentence to the beginning of the paragraph and changed as suggested.

Two major points here: 1) I think is important to highlight how is this study different from the Baez et al study? I understand that in the 2015 paper there was no consideration about diversity and here you use a much higher number of plots. Thus, I see the need for making this point clear; 2) I think at the end of the introduction some general hypotheses would be useful. What were the patterns expected considered earlier evidences?

Response: We added a sentence highlighting the progress of this analysis in relation to Baez et al 2015, as suggested (P8, L157-158). Also, we added a general hypothesis and two specific ones at the end of introduction section (P8, L166-172).

Materials and Methods:

P8 L155: “…Paleogene (). Subsequent…” Change to “…Paleogene (), and subsequent collisions…”. Response: We changed as suggested.

P8 L156: The reference of Hoorn et al, 2010 does not follow PLoS guidelines (i.e. []). P8 L157: “…late middle…” -- > “…late mid Miocene…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P8 L160: A citation is needed for this paragraph after “…Amazon ecosystems…”.

We added citation.

P8 L164: “…biodiversity and distribution…” -- > “…biodiversity and species distributions…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P8 L169: “…vary gradually…” how? What does the word gradually means? I think the paragraph that starts later in L180 of page 9 with “...The mountain forest ecosystem…” should be moved here in support of this initial statement. In relation to this, I liked Figure 1, but I also thinks it deserves a better explanation, either in the main text or at least as an expanded figure caption. Why these variations in forest architecture? Some lines on temperature and radiation effects would be useful.

Response: We reorganized the paragraph, including suggestions for a better understanding (P9 L191-206). Also the paragraph includes lines on temperature and radiation.

P9 L194: Consider using “is” instead of “has been” when referring to the objective of the network. Response: We changed as suggested.

P9 L196-197: Delete “the” before exchange, development, strengthening.

Response: We deleted as suggested.

P10 L205-212. This whole section and the next (L215 to 212) about the protocols can be combined, simplified and shortened.

Response: We simplified, combined and shorten both sections as suggested.

P11 L226: “…events and recorded and the DBH of marked trees are…” -- > “…events are

recorded and the DBH of marked trees is remeasured…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P11 L230-241: I understand the importance of this section and I hugely support collaboration and networking. I am trying to find sections that could be simplified to allow for more space for discussion and I think this is definitely one of those parts. This paragraph here seems out of place. It could be shortened and added to the background section, used in a new appendix to fully describe the work of the Andean network or simply removed. As mentioned earlier when reviewing the title of the paper, if the goal is to highlight the value of the network a different approach would be useful, where a more in-depth discussion about research collaboration and networking is part of the manuscript.

Response: We deleted this section as suggested by Reviewer 1.

P12 L247: Are these values in precipitation 1901 ± 903 refers to the mean and SD? Clarify.

Response: We clarified as suggested.

P12 L248: “…mature forest but the Network also includes a few older…” -- > “…mature forests but the network also includes several older…

Response: We changed as suggested.

P12 L250-252: This statement about the data being available is out of place. This should be part of the data availability statement that is one of the specific sections asked by PLoS. Also, with regards to this there are three different statements: In Data availability the authors express: Yes - all data are fully available without restriction Later, when answering the questions on where this data could be found the authors expressed “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files…”. Delete the portion in the main text and unify these statements clearly.

Response: We deleted the incorrect statement in text as suggested and clarified that: “All relevant data upon which all the presented results in this manuscript are based on is included in its Supporting Information files…” (P13, L296-300). In this sense, as mentioned before in Table S1 we included: i) number of stems, ii) basal area (both extrapolated to 1-ha) and iii) species richness for the 491 plots. Additionally, in Appendix 1 we reported the abundance of tree species per country. As stated before, this information constitutes the primary input used in the analyses to describe the main structural and compositional trends across the Andean forests. We clarified this in text (P13, L296-300).

P12 L254: Again, the values in plot size refers to mean and SD? I don’t understand 0.32 ± 0.47 ha? How is this possible?. The same observation applies to the subsequent parts where plot size is mentioned. Also, I don’t think is necessary to put ± 0 whenever the plot size remains constant in some regions/countries.

Response: We clarified that values in plot size refers to mean ± SD, and deleted ± 0.

P12 L261: “…being the longest subset…” -- > “…being the longest known subset…” Changed

P13 L270 or caption in Figure 2: Please clarify what do you mean when you say “…One (1) census refers to the establishment of a permanent plot”? I understand a one census plot as that with only one measurement, whether temporal or permanent.

Response: We deleted the phrase as it was confusing. Exactly, one census refer to one measurement, whether temporal or permanent.

L275 Table 1 (No page number! We added page number): It is not clear to me that if the range shown for plot area also corresponds to the range in basal area. That is for example: Row 1 in the table (AR). A 0.16 ha plot accounts for 78 stems and 5 m2 in BA, while the 6-ha plot is linked to 1834 stems and 189.4 m2? Why not just simply express everything in 1 ha scale? I understand the issues of extrapolation, especially from really small plots, but yet you still perform the analysis later. Please clarify.

Response: The range shown for plot area not necessary corresponds to the range in stems or basal area. In this table we prefer to show plot values, and not extrapolate to 1-ha in order to avoid the very large variability and dispersion when scaled to 1-ha (e.g. 0.01 ha plot with 1 stem would extrapolated to 100 stems ha-1, and in a 0.04-ha plot with 35 trees extrapolated value of basal area would be as high as 131.2 m2 ha-1). We discarded small plot for the analyses. We clarified this in text: “To analyze patterns in stem density, basal area and species richness, we considered those plots ≥ 0.1-ha (n = 236) where stems ≥10 cm DBH were measured. Due to high variability and dispersion when extrapolating basal area and stem density at a larger spatial scale we discarded plots of 0.01-ha, 0.04-ha, 0.05-ha and 0.08-ha (total n = 255)” (P16, L331-335). This was also stated in the discussion section (P24, L498-501).

*** Starting here there is no line number, and page number is 2 for the section where “Data analyses” subtitle is included. I’m using these numbers and will add the “p” for paragraph.

Response: We added line and page numbers.

P2 paragraph 1: “…resolution that represents the…” -- > “…resolution covering the average…” Response: We changed as suggested.

P2 p1: “…from 1 C for Ecuador…” -- > “from 1 C in Ecuador…” Same for the rest of the sentences where a similar text is used (i.e. change “for” to “in”).

Response: We changed as suggested.

Data Analyses

P2 p2: Delete “In order to…” Just simply say “To analyze…” Changed

“…(n = 236) and stems…” -- > “…(n = 236) where stems ≥ 10 cm DBH were measured. Due to high variability and dispersion when extrapolating basal area and stem density…we discarded plots of 0.01 to 0.08 ha in size (total n = 255)...”

Response: We changed as suggested.

.

Related to this part of the analytical approach, I am wondering how different are the extrapolations when you compare a 0.08 ha plot and a 0.1 one? You have discarded quite a lot of plots using this cut-off (which I am ok with) but I asked myself if maybe just 0.05 ha would have been enough?

Response: In addition to the high variability and dispersion of data when extrapolating basal area and stem density of small plots at a larger spatial scale, we chose the 0.1 cut-off point as it is a standard minimum size for plots in forestry, thus for comparisons.

Citation [55] should be placed after the (GLM) portion as this work refers to this modeling approach. Response: We changed as suggested.

“Considering the nature of the response variables…” what is that nature? Statistical distribution? Did you perform a distribution test ahead of the GLMs? Please clarify.

Response: We referred that: “We used a Quasi-Poisson distribution for stem density and species richness …, and a Gaussian distribution with log-link function for basal área”. This is clarified in text (P17, L343-3415. We deleted the phrase “Considering the nature of the response variables”…to avoid confusion.

P3 p2: Delete “In order to…” -- > “To analyze patterns of tree species composition and…, we used all data available from all plots, and from all species fully identified (2341) with stems ≥ 10 cm DBH. To describe species composition, we applied a Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling approach…”

Response: We changed it as suggested.

[…[61] using latitudinal bands as random factor…” -- > “…as a random factor…”

Response: We changed it as suggested.

P4: Include citations for all R packages used.

Response: R package used are cited in text: “All analyses were performed in R 3.4.3 [63], using AER to test overdispersion in GLM, vegan for ordination analysis, and lme4 for LMM” (P18 L372-373).

Results:

P4 p2: “… Mean annual air temperature and rainfall were positively correlated (r = 0.46, p <

0.001) (Fig 3B)…” I trust the numbers but the correlation in the figure seems to be driven by a few really wet points. Can you clarify this? Adding a trend line would be useful too. Using green and red dots here makes difficult to tease apart the countries. I suggest using an alternate color palette and perhaps different symbols for each country.

Response: We have checked the correlation and it is correct. There are some plots that have between 2000 and 3000 mm of rainfall which also have around 25 degrees of temperature, but also some other plots with 4000 and 5000 mm of rainfall that also have around 23-24 degrees. We did not include a trend line as this is a correlation and no cause-effect is expected.

P5 p1: Delete “Considering plots…” since is already mentioned in the methods. Just start with

“we found that stem density…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

With regards to this section and Figure 4, the small-sized plots seem to be creating a lot of noise in the trends. Why not testing stem density and basal area for only 1-ha plots as shown for species richness in Fig 4G? Also discussed later, are the plots with higher stem density also showing high basal area? There is a brief mention in the discussion about this relationship, but a simple bivariate plot would help. Response: We tested stem density and basal area for only 1-ha plots and found that results and tendencies were very similar. Thus we kept small plots in order to have higher number of plots.

Plots with higher stem density not necessary have higher basal area.

P6 p2: “…we registered a total of 97,054 tree stems’…” The abstract mentions 86,964 individuals (?). Also, are these all tree species? When authors say stems it might imply other life forms as palms or tree-ferns. Please clarify.

Response: The number 97,054 referred to all stems ≥10 cm while 86,964 referred to identified stems ≥ 10 cm diameter to species level. We clarified this in abstract (P4, L74-75). We addressed the entire manuscript to trees but actually we included palms and ferns.

P6 p2: “…was shared among all data sets…” -- > “…was shared among all plots…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P6 p3: “The study plots tended to segregate along…” Use a different word for segregate:

cluster, group.

Response: We used the word “group” as suggested (P20 L426-438).

P6 p3: “…Elevation and latitude correlated with both…” -- > “…correlated well with…”. Also, in Figure 5 could you explain what does each axis in the NMDS represent?

Response: We changed as suggested.

Discussion and conclusions: See in bold edits and suggestions.

An overall recommendation here is that for every sentence/statement where the authors are highlighting a specific result, having a direct reference to the particular figure or table where the reader can refer to again would be quite useful. Also, I think authors can separate the conclusions here.

P9 p1: “…it was less expected for rainfall as [5]…” Change the structure of the sentence and citation format to “…it was less expected for rainfall as Urrutia et al [5] reported for the Andes where rainfall did not covaried linearly with elevation…”. Also, this statement relates to an earlier observation about the need for some hypothesis statements. If you say “it was less expected”, what were your initial expectations?

Response: Changed as suggested. Actually, we were referring that our findings were different from those of Urrutia et al. We rephrased the statement to avoid confusion (P23, L479-481).

P9 p2: “Both stem density and basal area were related with the gradients addressed…” -- >

“Both stem density and basal area were related to the gradients covered by our dataset…”

Response: Changed as suggested.

“…patterns of stem density were more consistent with elevation and latitude than for basal area…”

Response: Changed as suggested.

Here, authors repeat some sentences from the results section. “Stem density peaked at 10-15 latitude”.

Response: We rephrased the statement and differentiate it from the result section.

“The observed increase in the mean values of the structural variables with elevation has

not…”

Response: Changed as suggested.

P10 p1: “…or maybe some local climate and topographic conditions…” This sounds vague. What other climate or topographic conditions might have influenced these results? Explain.

Response: We refer to some slopes orientation which may imply wetter or drier conditions, for example. We explained it in text as suggested (P24 L495-496).

Land-use history is briefly mentioned as a potential driver of stem density. Yet, the authors have some (limited) information on the time since disturbance for some of the plots. Why not discuss this better? Can you filter some of the results based on different disturbance periods? Very dense plots might be a reflection of recent (or not that recent) events. At least in the form of an Appendix this would add some support when contrasting such a wide range of sites and conditions.

Response: We do not have this information that is why we did not reported it. Nevertheless, we discussed that for the secondary plots considered, it may have had some influence on stem density (P24 L497-498).

P10 p1: Change “border effect” for “edge effect”. Response: Changed as suggested.

Also, briefly explain why these effects are more pronounced for small plots?. Why plots ~0.5 ha or larger might be preferred? This section discussing potential effects of plot size also needs some citations. See for example: Wagner et al. 2010 Biotropica, Volume 42 (6): 664-671 and some references therein.

Response: We added the citation as suggested.

P10 p2: I think only mentioning the main hypotheses (e.g. Janzen & Connel) is not enough here. How these hypotheses are related to the results found?

Response: We explained in text as suggested.

P11 p2: “…plots associated with low diversity of tree species…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

P11 p2: Change the reference format for Kattan et al. 2004 accordingly. P11 p3: Delete “As well…”

Response: We deleted as suggested.

P12 p1: “…are unknown…” change to -- > “ are not clear [36]”

Response: We changed as suggested.

There is quite an abrupt change from this last paragraph to the next that discuss the importance of the Andean forest plot network. What are some of the potential implications of the findings? What does it mean that some forests in the Andes have higher density than others? More carbon? Less carbon? What about diversity? Are these forests well protected? I am not asking for a detailed analysis but just a brief consideration to potential links of the results to management or conservation aspects.

Response: We added a brief consideration as suggested (P26, L543-548).

P12 p2: The enumeration used in this long paragraph is confusing. There are two sections discussing different aspects, yet, some are redundant (e.g. #4 and #8 about models). Consider rewriting.

Response: We re-wrote as suggested.

P12 p2: “…improving the number of hectares per country…” -- > “…increasing the area covered per country…”

Response: We changed as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers. Malizia et al. FINAL.docx

Decision Letter 1

RunGuo Zang

26 Mar 2020

Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests: results from a large-scale plot Network

PONE-D-19-30260R1

Dear Dr. Malizia,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

RunGuo Zang

30 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-30260R1

Elevation and latitude drives structure and tree species composition in Andean forests: results from a large-scale plot Network

Dear Dr. Malizia:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Andean Forest Network extended metadata.

    aCountry codes are AR, Argentina; BO, Bolivia; PE, Peru; EC, Ecuador; CO, Colombia; VE, Venezuela. cPlot shape refer to R, rectangular; Q, quadrate, and I, irregular; and dimensions refer to length (L) and width (W); dMean annual rainfall and temperature derived from Chelsa, eTime since last disturbance at plot establishment. Number of stems and basal area were extrapolated to 1-ha. *Number of stems, basal area and species richness were estimated for individual’s ≥ 10 cm DBH for comparison.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Appendix. Generalized linear models.

    Summary of Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for stem density, basal area and species richness considering elevation, latitude and plot size as explanatory variables. SE = Standard error. VE = Variance explained ((Null Deviance—Residual Deviance)/Null Deviance x 100). (*) Only 1-ha plots were included in the model considering Tropical and Subtropical Andes.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Appendix. Abundance of tree species per country.

    Abundance of tree species per country, considering individuals ≥10 cm DBH listed by botanical family. Species and family names were actualized with TROPICOS in September 2019 (http://www.tropicos.org).aCountry codes are AR, Argentina; BO, Bolivia; PE, Peru; EC, Ecuador; CO, Colombia; and VE, Venezuela.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Appendix. Linear mixed-effects model.

    Summary of Linear Mixed-effects Model (LMM) for Bray Curtis distance between pairs of forest plots, varying intercept by latitudinal bands every 5°. Final model fitted by REML. SD = Standard deviation, VE = Variance explained (i.e. marginal and conditional R2).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-30260_First_ReviewDec2019.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers. Malizia et al. FINAL.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES