Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

Henry J Ndangalasi; Cristina Martínez-Garza; Tesakiah C A Harjo; Clayton A Pedigo; Rebecca J Wilson; Norbert J Cordeiro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250859

. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0250859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250859

Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

Henry J Ndangalasi ¹, Cristina Martínez-Garza ², Tesakiah C A Harjo ³, Clayton A Pedigo ³, Rebecca J Wilson ³, Norbert J Cordeiro ^3,^4,^*

Editor: Christian Vincenot⁵

PMCID: PMC8101954 PMID: 33956837

Abstract

Natural regeneration is less expensive than tree planting, but determining what species will arrive and establish to serve as templates for tropical forest restoration remains poorly investigated in eastern Africa. This study summarises seedling recruitment under 29 isolated legacy trees (14 trees comprised of three exotic species and 15 trees comprised of seven native species) in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Among the findings were that pioneer recruits were very abundant whereas non-pioneers were disproportionately fewer. Importantly, 98% of all recruits were animal-dispersed. The size of legacy trees, driven mostly by the exotic Grevillea robusta, and to some extent, the native Milicia excelsa, explained abundance of recruits. The distribution of bird-dispersed recruits suggested that some bird species use all types of legacy trees equally in this fragmented landscape. In contrast, the distribution of bat-dispersed recruits provided strong evidence that seedling composition differed under native versus exotic legacy trees likely due to fruit bats showing more preference for native legacy trees. Native, as compared to exotic legacy trees, had almost two times more non-pioneer recruits, with Ficus and Milicia excelsa driving this trend. Implications of our findings regarding restoration in the tropics are numerous for the movement of native animal-dispersed tree species in fragmented and disturbed tropical forests surrounded by farmland. Isolated native trees that bear fleshy fruits can attract more frugivores, resulting not only in high recruitment under them, but depending on the dispersal mode of the legacy trees, also different suites of recruited species. When selecting tree species for plantings, to maximize visitation by different dispersal agents and to enhance seedling recruit diversity, bat-dispersed Milicia excelsa and Ficus species are recommended.

Introduction

Tropical forests have been modified by human disturbance for centuries, but in the Anthropocene era, habitat loss and fragmentation have escalated to the point that once extensive forests are now dissected landscapes. In the Eastern Afromontane biodiversity hotspot of eastern Africa, habitat fragmentation and loss are considered among the two greatest threats to biodiversity [1]. For example, the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania, are one of the most species and endemic rich sites in this biodiversity hotspot, but extensive tracts of forest were deforested and converted to tea plantations during the British colonial administration when tea was introduced from India as a cash crop [2]. The post-colonial period has added further threats to the forest in the East Usambaras, including subsistence agriculture which has encroached into the protected and unprotected forest [2]. Deforestation and forest fragmentation has resulted in declining abundances, and some cases, local extinctions of species, such as for birds [2]. It has also contributed to diminished mutualisms between animal seed dispersers and their dependent plants [3]. Establishing planted restoration corridors linking key forest fragments with the continuous forest [4], a conservation strategy with strong evidence of success [5], has been advocated to mitigate or forestall this biodiversity collapse. However, in eastern Africa, experimental forest restoration is scant to non-existent, and knowledge is limited on the restoration process and potential tree species to plant.

Ecological restoration seeks to recover the attributes, function, and conditions of damaged ecosystems [6] but in permanent agricultural landscapes, full recovery is not possible. In such cases, forest landscape restoration is suggested to create an equilibrium of natural and productive areas [7]. To successfully develop restoration treatments and prioritize areas to restore worldwide, the need to measure the potential for natural regeneration is recommended for the entire landscape [8]. In this context, tea plantations may remain productive, and some areas of the plantation can be used for conservation of tree species or be converted to planted restoration corridors that would favour the movement of animals and the plants they transport across the landscape [9]. Minimal restoration intervention [10, 11] or unassisted forest regeneration [12] is suggested when a high potential for natural regeneration is identified, which reduces restoration costs [13]. Therefore, potential for natural regeneration in tea plantations surrounded by natural forest could be evaluated to further identify areas for restoration actions or to develop a template of native tree species likely to recruit naturally in restoration corridors. Developing such a recruitment template requires an understanding of interactions among the tree species that can be dispersed, their dispersal vectors, and the landscape characteristics.

Successful arrival and establishment of trees in restored sites depends on barriers associated with dispersal and establishment limitations. Seed dispersal is a key phase in plant regeneration processes and serves as a recruitment template [14]. Dispersal limitation refers to the failure of a seed to reach a site, while establishment limitation reflects the failure of arriving seeds to germinate, survive and grow [15, 16]. Seeds are often transported at different distances away from parent trees, depending on the dispersal vector: for example, wind-dispersed seeds may sometimes move long distances in open areas [17]. Seeds dispersed by animals will move different distances depending on the animal taxon moving them. For example, small birds generally distribute seeds short distances, whereas mammals and medium-sized birds disperse seeds at longer distances [18]. Also, in agricultural landscapes, higher levels of dispersal limitation have been found for animal than for wind-dispersed rainforest tree species [16, 19]. More generally, seed dispersal is expected to decrease with distance from vegetation border [19, 20], but given that many animals may not move frequently outside the forest [21–23], more seeds dispersed by wind are expected to arrive into open habitats.

Life history attributes of tree species contribute to seed dispersal and recruitment in degraded areas. Pioneer tree species, usually characterized by small seeds, tend to move easily by wind or by the many animals they attract [24, 25]. These pioneers are fast-growing species and are often the first to colonize open fields adjacent to forest [26, 27], and the edges of continuous forest or small forest fragments [28]. On the other hand, non-pioneer tree species generally have larger seeds which are usually dispersed by few specialist animals [29], and are transported at comparatively shorter distances than their pioneer counterparts [30]. In degraded areas, non-pioneer species have higher dispersal limitation than pioneer species, and all but a few pioneer species show high establishment limitation [16]. Seedling establishment in abandoned agricultural areas is also limited by resource competition and microclimate conditions [31]. Improved environmental conditions under isolated trees or shrubs in such fields may increase tree recruitment [32, 33], but given higher dispersal limitation for non-pioneer as compared to pioneer species, more of the latter are expected to successfully arrive and establish under isolated trees outside the forest.

In most tropical agricultural landscapes adjacent to forest, some native forest trees are retained, or sometimes, exotic trees are planted to provide shade for various crops. This is true of the tea plantations in eastern Africa as well as those in south-east Asia, where native remnant trees and exotic trees planted during the colonial period, and in some cases thereafter, serve the purpose of providing shade to the tea [34, 35]. These isolated trees often function as recruitment foci for the recovery and regeneration of native forest tree species. For example, in farmland adjacent to forest in western Kenya, fleshy-fruited exotic guava Psidium guavaja (Myrtaceae) trees attracted frugivorous birds, leading to higher seed rain and seedling establishment under them [36]. In Mexico, isolated trees in human-made pastures enhanced the arrival and establishment of native tree species [37, 38]. A topic of much deliberation in recent years is the use of exotic tree species to favour forest regeneration [11, 39–41]. In some environments, it is possible that trees with fleshy fruits may act as recruitment foci to attract forest seed-dispersing animals to degraded areas [42], and thus increase the seed rain of native forest trees.

Here, we evaluate richness and abundance of recruits under native and exotic legacy trees in tea plantations in East Usambara Mts, Tanzania. We follow Jacob et al. [11] and Chetan et al. [41] in our use of the term legacy trees to refer to isolated trees which are remnants from the past. We explore which attributes of these legacy trees explain successional status and dispersal mode of the seedling recruitment community underneath them. We expect to find higher richness and abundance of pioneer trees than non-pioneer trees dispersed by animals under legacy trees closer to natural forest given dispersal and establishment limitations. Recent reviews indicate that the potential for natural regeneration is higher closer to native vegetation remnants, on steep slopes, adjacent to protected areas, and far from heavily populated areas [43, 44]. Furthermore, flying animals may be attracted to legacy trees due to their fleshy fruits or because of tree height and canopy cover [35, 45]. They may also use these trees as stepping stones to rest as they move through these dissected landscapes. As such flying animals use these legacy trees, they have the potential to disperse many seeds, and in some cases of multiple species, increasing the establishment of forest tree species under them. We expect different recruitment composition among legacy trees based on tree size, availability of fleshy fruits, distance to the nearest forest, and whether they are native or exotic trees. Measuring richness and abundance of recruits under native and exotic legacy trees will help pinpoint key species that are dispersed and therefore have high recruitment potential. Furthermore, by considering aspects of the landscape context for seedling recruitment of native tree species, this study can provide a baseline framework from which to plan forest restoration in this region.

Methods

Study area

The East Usambara Mountains are part of the globally biodiverse Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania and Kenya. Forest cover in the southern part of the East Usambaras starts at about 250 m and is continuous to 1100 m above sea level. Annual rainfall averages 2000 mm per year. While precipitation is largely seasonal, falling from late March to May and again from October to November, additional orographic rainfall occurs in other months due to the proximity to the Indian Ocean [46]. The exception is January and February, which are the hottest months. The average temperature is approximately 24°C.

At elevations of about 900 to 1100 m on the plateau, there are two large tea plantations that were established during the colonial period [2], leading to much of the primary submontane forest to have been destroyed and fragmented. Remaining forest in the south to central part of the East Usambaras is now protected as the 8360 ha Amani Nature Reserve. Numerous forest fragments of varying sizes occur within the tea plantations, most originating from when the plantations were first established. Consistent presence of cloud forest at higher elevations maintains a wet forest type, with several dominant tree species occurring throughout the submontane forest of Amani Nature Reserve and surrounding forest fragments. These include at least four emergent species: Newtonia buchananii (Fabaceae), Maranthes goetzeniana (Chrysobalanaceae), Pouteria adolf-friedricii (Sapotaceae), and Parinari excelsa (Chrysobalanaceae); numerous canopy and midstorey trees such as Cephalosphaera usambarensis (Myristicaceae), Isoberlinia schefflerii (Fabaceae), Macaranga capensis (Euphorbiaceae), Greenwayodendron suaveolens (Annonaceae), Leptonychia usambarensis (Sterculiaceae), Myrianthus holstii (Cecropiaceae), Allanblackia stuhlmannii (Clusiaceae), Sorindeia madagascariensis (Anacardiaceae), Synsepalum cerasiferum (Sapotaceae), Anisophyllea obtusifolia (Anisophylleaceae), and Strombosia scheffleri (Olacaceae); and an exotic, invasive gap- and edge-specialist, Maesopsis eminii (Rhamnaceae), which is also a dominant canopy species in the forest [46].

Sampling

Within the tea plantations are various native legacy tree species (Figs 1 and 2), and at least two exotic tree species: Grevillea robusta and Albizia sp. Both of these exotics were planted in East African tea plantations as shade trees [34]. Over the last 20 years, two of us (NJC and HJN) observed native tree species recruiting under these legacy trees. The presence of large-seeded species on occasion, as well as observations of the high diversity of seedling recruits, provided the impetus to quantitatively evaluate the role that legacy trees could have towards future restoration efforts.

In May 2014, just after the heavy rainy season, we targeted isolated, legacy trees that occurred in the tea plantations north of Amani Nature Reserve, in the area of Monga (Figs 1 and 2). We selected 15 trees, six exotics and nine natives (Table 1). In May 2018, we selected 14 new trees in the Mbomole-Derema area (Figs 1 and 2), and these included eight exotics and six natives (Table 1). For each focal tree, we measured the distance from the trunk to the crown edge at each of the cardinal positions to obtain the crown area (Table 1). Other measurements taken were the diameter at breast height (DBH) for the girths, and the heights of the legacy trees. Heights were measured with a Bushnell Sport 850 Rangefinder. We used the same rangefinder to measure the distance of the focal legacy tree to the nearest reproductive conspecific, and when none was found within the vicinity, we used the distance to the nearest forest fragment as a conservative estimate (see S1 Table). We searched the forest fragment for conspecifics of the species of recruits to be certain of their presence there.

Table 1. General characteristics of the 29 legacy trees, including seed dispersal mode, year sampled, height, DBH and crown area in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Legacy species	Height (m)	DBH (cm)	Crown area (m²)	Dispersal mode	Code name
Exotic
Albizia sp	16	101	599.37	abiotic α	Alsp
Albizia odoratissima φ	13	66.8	130.7	abiotic α	Alod
Grevillea robusta	7	71	80.12	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta	27	71.6	136.85	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta	22	116.3	167.99	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta	29	118.4	186.87	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta	22	104.6	221.01	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	18	71	121.74	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	16	58.3	58.56	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	16	95.5	155.04	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	17	71.9	194.83	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	22	114.6	206.12	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	15	74.2	103.24	abiotic α	Grro
Grevillea robusta φ	17	55.7	93.31	abiotic α	Grro
Native
Anisophylea obtusifolia	18	86.1	112.16	animal ^*^Ϯ ^∞^†	Anob
Anthocleista grandflora	13	116	175.54	animal ^Ϯ	Angr
Ficus thonningi	18	118.9	225.65	animal^*^Ϯ ^∞^‡	Fith
Ficus sansibarica	12	133.1	200.43	animal^*^Ϯ ^∞^‡	Fisa
Parinari excelsa	32	115	129.99	animal ^*^Ϯ ^∞^†	Paex
Parinari excelsa	26	143.3	632.36	animal ^*^Ϯ ^∞^†	Paex
Parinari excelsa	31	128.8	332.48	animal ^*^Ϯ ^∞^†	Paex
Parinari excelsa	21	115.4	285.02	animal ^*^Ϯ ^∞^†	Paex
Pouteria adolf-friedricii	23	93.3	27.11	animal ^Ϯ ^∞^‡	Poad
Milicia excelsa φ	20	118	284.28	animal ^Ϯ	Miex
Milicia excelsa φ	21	134.3	194.83	animal ^Ϯ	Miex
Milicia excelsa φ	15	71.6	82.52	animal ^Ϯ	Miex
Milicia excelsa φ	17	78	151.09	animal ^Ϯ	Miex
Milicia excelsa φ	12	55.5	98.96	animal ^Ϯ	Miex
Milicia excelsa φ	24	137	326.85	animal ^Ϯ	Miex

Open in a new tab

Year sampled: no symbol = 2014; φ = 2018

Abiotic: α = ballistic and/or wind

Animal dispersal

* = bird

Ϯ = bat

∞ = primate

‡ = African palm civet Nandinia binotata

† = African giant rat Cricetomys gambianus

To sample the seedling and sapling recruits, we marked a circle of a fixed radius of 5 m around the trunk of each legacy tree. We divided this circle into wedges to make it easier to sample all recruits. This was also necessary because we often had to move away the tea bushes to locate seedlings and sapling. Recruits were classified as seedlings if they had leaves that had freshly emerged from drying up cotyledons, whereas saplings were < 1 m in height. Larger saplings are often removed by the tea workers on an annual basis and we can therefore assume that recruits are generally not older than one-year old. We identified and counted all the recruits under the legacy trees. Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH), Amani Nature Reserve, and the East Usambara Tea Company.

Data analysis

Fourteen recruits that were not identified to species were excluded from analyses. Conspecific seedling recruits under legacy trees, which would have most likely arisen from fallen, un-dispersed seeds from parent trees, were also excluded from the analyses. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was run to ordinate six variables of 29 isolated trees (Table 2). The use of PCA to integrate attributes of legacy trees into two axes allows to reduce the number of correlations, as these axes can then be used to predict richness and abundance of recruits under isolated trees with regressions. Additionally, recruits were categorized by successional status (pioneer vs non-pioneers) and one analysis included recruits of species dispersed by animals. Non-pioneer species are basically shade-bearers or late-successional species. The PCA was performed in STATISTICA 7.0 [47].

Table 2. Correlation of PCA axis 1 and 2 and richness and abundance of seedling recruits under 29 isolated trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania.

Variable/ axis	PCA Axis 1	PCA Axis 2
Richness	-0.2	-0.3
Abundance	0.35	-0.42^*
Richness–dispersed by animals	-0.23	-0.23
Abundance–dispersed by animals	0.35	-0.41^*
Richness–pioneers	-0.02	-0.1
Abundance–pioneers	0.37^*	-0.39
Richness–non-pioneers	-0.37	-0.43^*
Abundance–non-pioneers	-0.23	-0.41^*

Open in a new tab

(* = p < 0.05).

To analyse composition of recruits under native and exotic trees, we performed non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analyses [48]. The species similarity metric used was Pearson correlations with recruit abundance under each legacy tree, and the stress value in the NMDS was used to determine the ordination fitness [49]. The number of NMDS dimensions was decided based on the lowest stress value (the lower the stress value, the better the fit) and the more meaningful solution; d-hat stress values are reported [47]. We first conducted an NMDS on the abundance of all recruit species under the legacy trees. We then classified the recruit species into six main dispersal modes following [50] and Cordeiro & Ndangalasi (unpublished data): (1) bird-primate-bat, (2) bat, (3) bird, (4) rodent, (5) wind and (6) ballistic dispersal.

Results

Species richness, abundance, and guilds of recruits

Of a total of 2800 seedling recruits, there were 38 and 47 species represented under exotic and native legacy trees, respectively (S2 Table). Fourteen recruits (0.5%) were not included in analyses of dispersal mode of recruits because they were unidentified to species level and therefore of unknown dispersal mode or successional status. The majority of seedling recruits were dispersed by animals (2738 seedlings; 98.2%), whereas the remainder were abiotically dispersed (48 seedlings of five species dispersed by wind, gravity or ballistically; 1.7%). When evaluating patterns of recruitment based on successional status, a very high number of pioneers (2784 recruits of 28 species) was observed, and relatively few non-pioneers (202 recruits represented by 22 species). Fourteen recruits were unidentified to species, whereas for two identified species, the successional status was not known. It is noteworthy that an exotic, invasive pioneer tree species, Maesopsis eminii (Rhamnaceae), dispersed by animals, accounted for 30.1% of all recruits, with 676 recruits under native legacy trees (45.1 ± 18.6, mean ± SE per tree) and 167 recruits under 12 of 14 exotic legacy trees (13.9 ± 3.5 per tree).

An examination of the mean number of recruited species under exotic and native legacy trees was 9.1 ± 1.1 (SE) and 11.1 ± 1.1, respectively, whereas the mean number of recruits was almost comparable between the two legacy tree types: 98.3 ± 27.2 for exotic and 94.9 ± 19. 6 for native trees (Table 3). Generally, mean richness and abundance were similar for categories related to seed dispersal mode and successional status, including animal-dispersed, pioneer and non-pioneer recruits (Table 3). The most species and recruits were found under Grevillea robusta, the two Ficus species, and Milicia excelsa (Table 3). Native legacy tree species, such as Milicia excelsa and Ficus species more specifically, accounted for almost two times more non-pioneer species and recruits (Table 3).

Table 3. Mean number (±SE) of species (Richness) and abundance (Abund; number of recruits) of seedling recruits under exotic and native legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Legacy Tree	Richness total	Abund total	Richness A-disp	Abund A-disp	Richness pioneer	Abund pioneer	Richness non-pio	Abund non-pio
Exotic
Albizia (2)	7.5±2.5	48.0±8.5	6.0±2.1	46.5±8.1	5.5±2.5	44±7.1	1.5±0.4	3.5±1.8
Grevillea (12)	10.3±1.2	106.7±31.1	9.5±1.0	106.7±32	7.5±0.7	101.3±30.3	2.2±0.5	4.7±1.2
Native
Ficus (2)	12±2.8	101.5±19.4	12.0±2.8	101±19.1	7.5±1.1	86.0±14.8	4.5±1.8	15.5±4.6
Parinari (4)	10.0±1.6	39.3±9.3	9.0±1.1	37.0±9.6	7.0±0.6	35.0±9.3	2.81.1	3.50.8
Milicia (6)	12.8±1.8	134.3±37.1	11.7±1.9	130.3±36.0	7.7±1.1	122.0±37.0	4.7±0.6	11.8±3.0
Other sp. (3)	8.3±1.7	86.0±36.2	8.0±1.4	85.7±35.9	5.3±1.2	78.3±36.4	2.7±0.3	7.3±1.9
Exotic (14)	9.9±1.1	98.3±27.2	9.0±1.0	98.1±28.0	7.2±0.7	93.1±26.5	2.1±0.4	4.5±1.0
Native (15)	11.1±1.1	94.9±19.6	10.3±1.0	92.6±19.1	7.0±0.6	85.3±19.1	3.7±0.5	9.2±1.8

Open in a new tab

Notes: Legacy tree species grouped by genus (refer to Table 1 for full species name) and by exotic versus native.

Recruits are grouped into three categories (animal-dispersed [A-disp], pioneer and non-pioneer [non-pio]) as a function of the genus of legacy tree species to identify preliminary trends in recruitment potential. Native legacy trees categorized as “Other sp.” include Anisophyllea obtusifolia, Anthocleista grandiflora and Pouteria adolf-friedricii.

Six traits of the 28 isolated, legacy trees were evaluated for the two sampled years (Table 1). In the PCA analysis of six attributes of the legacy trees, the first two axes explained 65.33% of the variation in legacy trees attributes (Fig 3). The PCA axis 1 was correlated to decreasing DBH, whereas axis 2 was correlated to increasing distance from forest and dispersal vector (Figs 3 and 4). More specifically, the PCA shows that the exotic tree, Grevillea robusta (Proteaceae), occurred at longer distances from the nearest forest fragments or continuous forest compared to the native tree, Milicia excelsa (Moraceae) (Fig 4). These two legacy trees clearly separated from the cluster based on their seed dispersal mode and girth (DBH). Grevillea robusta is dispersed by wind and Milicia excelsa by bats, and whereas both species showed a similar variation in DBH size, Milicia excelsa was smaller on average, with all other legacy tree species occurring in between.

Fig 4 — Exotic trees are shown in blue font and natives in two types of green font, the khaki green emphasizing *Milicia excelsa*. Abbreviations for tree species names are in Table 1.

PCA axis 1 was positively correlated to the abundance of pioneer recruits (Fig 5, Table 2). PCA axis 2 was negatively correlated to the abundance of all recruits (Fig 6, Table 2), abundance of recruits dispersed by animals (Fig 7) and abundance of non-pioneer recruits (Fig 8; Table 2). The abundance of pioneer recruits appears to be driven by the average large girth of Grevillea robusta trees (Fig 5). Therefore, repeating this PCA without Grevillea robusta produced a slighter higher R² but the relationship was not significant (R² = 0.15, p = 0.11). For the PCA on the abundance of all recruits (Fig 6) and only animal-dispersed recruits (Fig 7) under legacy trees, the farther away from the nearest forest fragment or the edge of continuous forest leads to fewer recruits. This is supported by ordination of attributes of legacy trees (Fig 5) in which Grevillea robusta is farthest from the nearest forest. Furthermore, Milicia excelsa, the native legacy tree species dispersed by bats (Fig 5), has the highest abundances of all recruits on average (Fig 6) as well as animal-dispersed recruits (Fig 7). The correlation for the abundance of non-pioneer recruits matches those for all recruits and pioneer recruits, with distance from nearest forest source and dispersal vector explaining the highest variation (Table 2). However, abundance of non-pioneer recruits is expectedly very low, being about 10 times less than for pioneer recruits (Fig 8).

Fig 6 — Value of R², regression line, and equation are shown. Abbreviations for tree species names are in Table 1.

Fig 7 — Value of R², regression line, and equation are shown. Abbreviations for tree species names are in Table 1.

Fig 8 — Value of R², regression line, and equation are shown. Abbreviations for tree species names are in Table 1.

Community composition of seedling recruits

The Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination of the recruited species classified by dispersal mode was meaningful with two dimensions (stress = 0.14). Recruit composition was highly homogeneous under the six bat-dispersed Milicia excelsa legacy trees. Recruit composition under the 11 legacy trees of the exotic Grevillea robusta was highly heterogeneous, overlapping with recruit composition under other legacy trees (Fig 9). For those recruit species dispersed by birds only, the NMDS showed overlapping compositions of species (Fig 10; stress = 0.11) under all legacy trees. For those recruit species dispersed by birds, primates, or bats, four primary groupings emerged (Fig 11). The exotic legacy tree, Grevillea robusta in the upper left, separated from the native Milicia excelsa in the upper right, and Parinari excelsa in the lower left, whereas all other native legacy tree species clustered together in the middle (Fig 11; stress = 0.13). Noteworthy here is that seven legacy trees did not have recruits dispersed by birds, primates, or bats (i.e. four Grevillea robusta, and one each of Albizia sp., Parinari excelsa and Milicia excelsa).

Fig 9 — Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis for abundance of recruits under 29 native (green), native *Milicia excelsa* (red) and exotic (blue) legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania. Abbreviations for tree species are in Table 1.

Fig 10 — Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis for abundance of recruit species dispersed by bird under the native (green, multiple species), native *Milicia excelsa* (red) and exotic (blue) legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania. Abbreviations for tree species names are in Table 1.

Fig 11 — Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis for abundance of recruit species dispersed by birds-primates-bats under the native (green, multiple species), native *Milicia excelsa* (red) and exotic (blue) legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania. Abbreviations for tree species names are in Table 1.

Discussion

Isolated trees in monocultures, mixed agroforestry, or abandoned pastures adjacent to forest in the tropics act as recruitment foci for native forest trees. Our study on the recruitment of tree seedlings under 29 legacy trees in a tea plantation confirmed results from other studies that isolated trees act as recruitment foci [e.g. 35, 51–54]. Importantly, we found that quite a high number of up to 54 or, at a minimum 50 species (excluding four unidentified), were represented among the 2800 recruited seedlings. The tea plantation surrounds forest fragments and borders sections of continuous forest and the guilds of forest species that recruit under the legacy trees in these plantations provide a useful template to understand the implications for future forest restoration in this region. Given the limited research on tropical forest restoration in eastern Africa, as compared to Central and South America [16, 20, 27, 31, 37, 55, 56], the results from our study add to the handful from Uganda [11, 49, 57, 58] and western Kenya [36] that help to identify native tree species successional pathways or potential pathways towards future restoration efforts.

Patterns of seedling recruitment

Seedling recruitment occurs when seeds of trees can overcome barriers to seed dispersal. For wind-dispersed species, dispersal limitation is influenced by wind action [17]. On the other hand, for animal-dispersed species, seed or fruit size, fruit type, and fruit crop size are among the factors that affect the fortunes of seed arrival into open areas [e.g. 42, 65]. Distance from source sites to recruitment foci, such as isolated legacy trees, may also play a major role in the types and the numbers of seeds that initiate the recruitment template. In our study, legacy trees like the exotic Grevillea robusta and the native Milicia excelsa that were generally farther from and nearer to forest on average, respectively, tended to have the highest recruitment. Larger girth size was a strong predictor of increased seedling recruitment, as was found for larger Ficus trees that showed higher recruitment potential in a modified landscape in Assam, India [54]. Certainly, increased recruitment under large trees was dominated by the exotic Grevillea robusta, but the native bat-dispersed legacy tree species, Milicia excelsa, was equally important. In the case of Milicia excelsa, this could be explained by being closer to forest on average as well as by attracting frugivorous bats more so than the wind-dispersed Grevillea robusta (see below).

Distance from the nearest forest source is a common limitation for seed dispersal and recruitment in more open, agricultural, or successional landscapes [30, 41, 42, 59]. It was therefore of interest that abiotically-dispersed and non-pioneer species were poorly represented under legacy trees. Working in the Philippines, Ingle [19] found that wind-dispersed seeds occurred at 15 times higher densities in successional habitats adjacent to forest than seeds dispersed by bats and birds. While we did not sample seeds, the recruits of wind- and other abiotically-dispersed forest species were <2% of all recruits, results that were different from Ingle [19] and yet somewhat comparable to studies elsewhere in the tropics [e.g. 59]. In Puerto Rican pastures, seeds of two wind-dispersed species were not found in seed traps beyond 8 m from the forest edge [59], suggesting strong dispersal limitation. Also, in human-made pastures in Mexico, dispersal limitation (failure of seeds to reach a site) ranged from 56 to 99% for five wind dispersed species arriving into restoration settings > 90 m from the closest secondary forest [16]. In the East Usambaras, wind-dispersed Newtonia buchananii are common emergent trees whose 5–11 cm long, papery diaspores have been observed being blown >50 m beyond the forest edge (HJN, NJC, pers. obs.). Therefore, to only find single seedlings under three legacy trees could be better explained by high seed establishment limitation following arrival under these isolated trees. For Newtonia buchananii, dispersal and establishment limitation needs to be evaluated to better understand the factors that limit the distribution and abundance of recruits under legacy trees. In contrast, another wind-dispersed species, the exotic Cedrela odorata (Meliaceae), was found in small numbers under seven legacy trees. Most of the legacy trees were Milicia excelsa, which were closest to a small number of Cedrela trees that were the likely source of these recruits. Based on evidence of spacing of these Cedrela trees, it seems likely that these were planted at the forest edge. However, successful dispersal by wind occurs more frequently in open areas [17] and therefore, in these tea plantations, wind dispersed species may (i) be limited in movement compared to open pastures or early successional environments, or (ii) arrive in numbers, but as has been noted in the Philippines [19] and Mexico [10], may not recruit successfully.

Dispersal by animals and successional status strongly predicted seedling recruitment under legacy trees in East Usambara tea plantations. Pioneer, animal-dispersed species formed the majority of recruits (2738 of 2784 recruits, 28 species), whereas non-pioneer species (202 recruits, 22 species) were poorly represented under legacy trees (Table 3; S2 Table). That the seed rain or seedling recruitment under isolated trees is dominated by mostly animal-dispersed pioneer tree species in successional and agricultural matrix habitats near forest in the tropics is commonly reported [e.g. 20, 41, 53]. Pioneer trees dispersed by frugivores are often small-seeded and attract numerous dispersers, increasing their potential to be broadcasted widely and thereby colonize farmland and successional habitats near forest [24, 60, 61]. In the absence of isolated trees, such as in the study in Puerto Rico [59], dispersal limitation is severe, but where isolated trees are present, recruitment potential is greatly increased [11, 37]. In the East Usambaras, the legacy trees we sampled were scattered in tea plantations that were enveloped by or bordering forest in this dissected and fragmented landscape, where volant frugivorous animals are frequently seen stopping over either to feed and/or rest intermittently as they move from one forest to another (NJC, HJN, unpublished data). As shown in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico [53], isolated trees in abandoned pastures in a similarly dissected landscape to the East Usambaras, attracted frugivorous bats and birds which were responsible for almost 89% of the seed rain. Similarly, in mixed agriculture abutting Kakamega forest in western Kenya, planted exotic fruit trees Psidium guavaja were shown to attract numerous frugivorous birds, including forest dwellers, which may have explained the dominance (82%) of animal-dispersed recruits under these trees [36]. In fact, in isolated, native Ficus thoningii trees in mixed agriculture adjacent to Kakamega forest, up to 70 frugivorous bird species visited, 30 of which were forest dependent [61]. While we present strong evidence of the influence of birds and bats in seedling recruitment under legacy trees in the East Usambara tea plantations, seed trap studies separating collections by day and night [e.g.19, 53] would help quantify the contributions that each dispersal vector makes in this process, especially over the long term.

A common recruitment pattern under isolated trees in agricultural and early successional fields adjacent to forest is that pioneers dominate over non-pioneers in the early phases of succession. As earlier stated, our results add to this trend, and notably, three native pioneer species dispersed primarily by birds, Bridelia micrantha (837 recruits), Macaranga capensis (538 recruits) and Shirakiopsis elliptica (123 recruits) accounted for 54.7% of all pioneer recruits, and were found under almost all legacy trees. A fourth species, Maesopsis eminii, an exotic pioneer that is presently a dominant canopy species in the forest and overall landscape, was found under almost all legacy trees with approximately three times more recruits on average under native than exotic legacy trees (Table 3). Specifically, 67.5% of Maesopsis eminii recruits were found under bat-dispersed Milicia excelsa legacy trees. Maesopsis eminii is dispersed by primates, birds, and bats in this landscape [50, 62]. Of these three dispersers, primates are less likely to traverse into the tea plantations (see below), making large birds and bats capable of carrying or swallowing the ~2 cm long diaspores, the primary long-distance dispersal vectors. It is likely these same volant animals are responsible for the transportation of the disproportionately fewer non-pioneers to these legacy trees.

Fleshy fruits with large seeds tend to be eaten by big animals [63]. When these are frugivores, such as the bigger Pteropodid fruit bats and hornbills of the East Usambaras, their larger gape-sizes and/or unique fruit handling abilities facilitates seed dispersal of large diaspores (e.g. for birds: [64]; birds and bats: [50, 63]). Non-pioneers are late successionals, generally characterized by large seeds [e.g. 65], and those that are animal-dispersed are limited by which frugivores are available to disperse their seeds. Of the 202 seedlings of 22 species of non-pioneers, almost two times more recruits were found under native than exotic legacy trees. Some notable non-pioneer recruit species with seed sizes >2–3 cm long [50], include Cephalosphaera usambarensis, Maranthes goetzeniana, Parinari excelsa and Strombosia scheffleri. Dispersal limitation of large-seeded tree species into open fields and agricultural matrix is not uncommon [16, 42, 66], and in the dissected and fragmented East Usambara landscape, may be explained by the few medium-sized dispersers like hornbills and fruit-bats that forage or rest in legacy trees. Only two frugivorous primates occur consistently in the submontane plateau, and both of these, the Blue monkey (Cercopithecus mitis) and Thick-tailed galago (Otolemur crassicaudatus), have rarely been observed in legacy trees or even within the tea plantations (NJC, HJN, unpublished data). In the East Usambaras, elephants are long extirpated whereas bushpigs and baboons occur at very low densities, thus limiting the numbers and types of potential seed dispersers of large-seeded non-pioneer tree species. This is very much unlike in Kibale National Park, Uganda, where Jacob et al. [11] provide evidence that the fruit-eating megafauna like elephants and chimpanzees move from forest into the agricultural matrix and deposit large seeded non-pioneers under planted exotic avocado and mango legacy trees. Therefore, even if hornbills [62] or fruit bats can move large seeds long distances in the study area, such as up to 320.5 m away from the nearest source tree in farmland for the bat-dispersed Cephalosphaera usambarensis [50], the low number of non-pioneer recruits is suggestive that these are uncommon events.

Recruitment composition and overall implications for restoration

Seedling recruitment composition differed among legacy trees in relation to their girth size, fruit type, distance to the nearest forest or their identity as a native versus exotic legacy tree species. We found some overlapping recruit composition between exotic Grevillea robusta and native Milicia excelsa legacy trees. When animal-dispersed recruits were divided by primary dispersal mode, the results were instructive. The overlapping compositions of bird-dispersed recruits suggests that birds move out of forest and throughout the landscape, using both exotic and native legacy trees almost equally. This is apparent in the three native pioneer species, Bridelia micrantha, Macaranga capensis and Shirakiopsis elliptica, which recruited under nearly all legacy trees (Table 3). However, for recruit species dispersed by birds-primates-bats, the four primary groupings indicate that at least some avian dispersers use exotic and native legacy trees almost equally, and that fruit bats are likely most responsible for increasing heterogeneity in recruitment composition (Fig 11) [see for example 67]. This is further supported by patterns of recruitment under the 14 exotic legacy trees, where five trees (four Grevillea robusta and one Albizia sp.) did not have recruits dispersed by birds-bats-primates. On the other hand, Milicia excelsa, a bat-dispersed species, showed a distinctively different recruit composition, providing some indirect evidence that fruit bats play a major role here. Evidence for bat seed dispersal and use of natives more so than exotic legacy trees can also be surmised from the distribution of Maesopsis eminii recruits. This exotic pioneer is now a dominant canopy species in the forest and overall landscape, and was found under almost all legacy trees in numbers of <40 recruits per tree. In contrast, 67.5% of its recruits were found under bat-dispersed Milicia excelsa trees (i.e. a mean ± SE of 95.3 ± 45.7 recruits under Milicia excelsa as compared to 12.0 ± 2.2 under the remaining 23 legacy trees). Hornbills, due to their effectiveness as dispersal agents of this species [62], are likely responsible for seed dispersal across all legacy trees. However, more Maesopsis eminii recruits under bat-dispersed Milicia excelsa trees is likely facilitated when bats come to feed on these legacy trees, or, to process fruits in their dense foliage. Despite uneven sample sizes of the legacy species in this study, the emerging pattern is that native legacy trees seem to recruit different compositions of recruits than exotics. While species richness and recruit abundance was highest under Grevillea robusta, the two Ficus species, and Milicia excelsa, with this trend more apparent in large Grevillea robusta trees, it is noteworthy that Milicia excelsa and Ficus species more specifically, accounted for almost two times more non-pioneer species and recruits (Table 3). If, as shown in this and other studies, fruiting native legacy trees like Ficus [53, 54] and Milicia excelsa attract frugivores, that contribute new recruit species, including non-pioneers, this can then enhance the overall diversity in forest restoration programs in this region.

An important question in tropical forest restoration, and of much debate, is whether exotic trees should be planted as recruitment foci. Sometimes they can enhance recruitment. For example, in abandoned farmland abutting secondary forest near Kibale National Park, Uganda, Jacob et al. [11] found that fruiting exotic avocado and mango legacy trees not only maintained a unique suite of recruit species compared to areas without legacy trees, but that many recruits were shade-tolerant and dispersed by animals. Furthermore, in the tea plantations bordering forests of the Western Ghats, India, researchers found that tea plantations with Grevillea robusta legacy trees had three times more species and 3–30 times the abundance of seeds compared to plantations without this legacy species [35]. About 30% of these recruits were dispersed by birds and mammals [35]. In a subsequent study, tea plantations with Grevillea robusta accounted for 92% of the seeds arriving by animal dispersal [41]. While we show that large Grevillea robusta had high richness and abundance of recruits, given the high invasive potential of exotic species in the East Usambaras [68, 69], utilizing such species is risky. However, if restoration is permitted in parts of the tea plantation, then preserving legacy trees that are already there, like Grevillea robusta, is necessary because of its high recruitment potential.

For restoration purposes, fast growing pioneer species should be planted to favour the rapid development of a canopy. In the East Usambaras, pioneers Bridelia micrantha, Shirakiopsis elliptica and Macaranga capensis recruit in high numbers. Studies on regeneration in Kibale, Uganda, of abandoned farms show that the first two species also showed high recruitment potential (29% B. micrantha and 11% of recruits S. elliptica). When both these species were planted in a long-term restoration project in the same study area, they made up 95% of stem density at DBHs of ≥ 10 cm after 10 years and after 18 years, B. micrantha remained the most abundant (62% of all planted trees: [70]). While we have an idea of which native pioneers will be successful at developing the initial recruitment template, increasing the presence of late successional species should be concentrated on planting large-seeded non-pioneer tree species which have high dispersal limitation. Furthermore, some tree species may be added by direct seeding [see 10, 71]. When selecting tree species for plantings, as we found in this study, dispersal mode of trees should be taken into account to maximize visitation by the dispersal agents available in the landscape [29]. Among the choices, as we established earlier, would be bat-dispersed Milicia excelsa and Ficus species, the latter of which have multiple disperser types.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Minimum distance of source tree species for seedling recruits under 29 legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Distances are shown to nearest forest with the source tree. Distances in parentheses are of source tree species located closest to the sampled recruit seedlings.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.3KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Number of species and abundance of recruit species under 29 legacy trees in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.3KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

Numerous individuals have assisted us on this project, including S. Baruti, R. Bopiah, T. Challange, C. Chulos, M. Cordeiro, T. Hanrahan, A. Holloway, J. Isaay, H. Karata, M. Kijazi, P. Kimali, B. Matunda, B. Mtui, S. Peteler, H. Sengerere, and K. Wentz-Hunter. Logistical support was received from the University of Dar es Salaam (Botany Department), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Amani Parish, Tanzania Serengeti Adventure, Roosevelt University and The Field Museum.

Data Availability

Data has been uploaded to KNB and is publicly available here: https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/view/doi%3A10.5063%2FFX77T3.

Funding Statement

Material support was provided by University of Dar es Salaam (Botany Department), Roosevelt University and Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos. HJN and NJC were supported by the Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship Program. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No authors received salary from any of the funders. The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(4): 909–923. [Google Scholar]
2.Newmark WD. Conserving biodiversity in East African forests. A study of the Eastern Arc Mountains. Ecological Studies. Springer Science & Business Media; 2002. [Google Scholar]
3.Cordeiro NJ, Ndangalasi HJ, McEntee JP, Howe HF. Disperser limitation and recruitment of an endemic African tree in a fragmented landscape. Ecology. 2009; 90(4): 1030–1041. 10.1890/07-1208.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Newmark WD, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, McNeally PB, Halley JM. Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114(36): 9635–9640. 10.1073/pnas.1705834114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A, et al. Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99(20): 12923–12926. 10.1073/pnas.202242699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Society for Ecological Restoration International. SER international primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International; 2004. [Google Scholar]
7.Stanturf J, Mansourian S, Kleine M, editors. Implementing forest landscape restoration, a practitioner’s guide. Vienna, Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Special Programme for Development of Capacities; 2017. [Google Scholar]
8.Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(S1): S1–S46. [Google Scholar]
9.Vandermeer J, Carvajal R. Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat. 2001;158(3): 211–220. 10.1086/321318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Guzmán-Luna A, Martínez-Garza C. Performance of 15 tropical tree species recruited or transplanted on restoration settings. Botanical Sciences. 2016;94(4): 757–773. [Google Scholar]
11.Jacob AL, Lechowicz MJ, Chapman CA. Non‐native fruit trees facilitate colonization of native forest on abandoned farmland. Restor Ecol. 2017;25(2): 211–219. [Google Scholar]
12.Chazdon RL, Guariguata MR. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica. 2016;48(6): 716–730. [Google Scholar]
13.Clewell A, McDonald T. Relevance of natural recovery to ecological restoration. Ecological Restoration. 2009;27(2): 122–124. [Google Scholar]
14.Traveset A, Heleno R, Nogales M. The ecology of seed dispersal. In: Gallagher RS, editor, Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities. 3rd ed. Oxfordshire: CAB International. 2014. p. 62–93. [Google Scholar]
15.Muller-Landau HC, Wright SJ, Calderón O, Condit R, Hubbell SP. Interspecific variation in primary seed dispersal in a tropical forest. J Ecol. 2008;96(4):653–667. [Google Scholar]
16.de la Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C, Ayestarán-Hernández LM, Howe HF. Plant attributes that drive dispersal and establishment limitation in tropical agricultural landscapes. Forests. 2018;9: 620. 10.3390/f9100620 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Bacles CFE, Lowe AJ, Ennos RA. Effective seed dispersal across a fragmented landscape. Science. 2006;311(5761): 628–628. 10.1126/science.1121543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Jordano P, García C, Godoy JA, García-Castaño JL. Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal patterns. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2007;104(9): 3278–3282. 10.1073/pnas.0606793104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Ingle NR. Seed dispersal by wind, birds, and bats between Philippine montane rainforest and successional vegetation. Oecologia. 2003;134(2): 251–261. 10.1007/s00442-002-1081-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Martínez-Garza C, Flores-Palacios A, De La Pena-Domene M, Howe HF. Seed rain in a tropical agricultural landscape. J Trop Ecol. 2009;25(5): 541–550. [Google Scholar]
21.Wilkie DS, Finn JT. Slash-burn cultivation and mammal abundance in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Biotropica. 1990; 22(1): 90–99. [Google Scholar]
22.Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R, Meritt D Jr., Montiel S, Curiel D. Patterns of frugivore species richness and abundance in forest islands and in agricultural habitats at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Vegetatio. 1993; 107/108: 245–257. [Google Scholar]
23.Estavillo C, Pardini R, da Rocha PLB. Forest loss and the biodiversity threshold: an evaluation considering species habitat requirements and the use of matrix habitats. PloS one. 2013;8(12); e82369. 10.1371/journal.pone.0082369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R, Vazquez-Yanes C. Observations on fruiting and dispersers of Cecropia obtusifolia at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biotropica.1984;16(4): 315–318. [Google Scholar]
25.Reid JL, Holl KD, Zahawi RA. Seed dispersal limitations shift over time in tropical forest restoration. Ecol Appl. 2015;25(4): 1072–1082. 10.1890/14-1399.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Finegan B. Pattern and process in neotropical secondary rain forests: the first 100 years of succession. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996;11(3): 119–124. 10.1016/0169-5347(96)81090-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Chazdon RL, Finegan B, Capers RS, Salgado-Negret B, Casanoves F, Boukili V, et al. Composition and dynamics of functional groups of trees during tropical forest succession in northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica. 2010;42(1): 31–40. [Google Scholar]
28.Laurance WF, Nascimento HEM, Laurance SG, Andrade AC, Fearnside PM, Ribeiro JE, et al. Rain forest fragmentation and the proliferation of successional trees. Ecology. 2006;87(2): 469–482. 10.1890/05-0064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Howe HF. Making dispersal syndromes and networks useful in tropical conservation and restoration. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2016;6: 152–78. [Google Scholar]
30.Martínez-Garza C, González-Montagut R. Seed rain from forest fragments into tropical pastures in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Plant Ecol. 1999;145(2): 255–265. [Google Scholar]
31.Holl KD. Tropical moist forest restoration. In: Perrow MR, Davy AJ, editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 539–558. [Google Scholar]
32.Vieira ICG, Uhl C, Nepstad D. The role of the shrub Cordia multispicata Cham. as a ‘succession facilitator’ in an abandoned pasture, Paragominas, Amazonia. Vegetatio. 1994;115: 91–99. [Google Scholar]
33.García‐Orth X, Martínez‐Ramos M. Isolated trees and grass removal improve performance of transplanted Trema micrantha (L.) Blume (Ulmaceae) saplings in tropical pastures. Restor Ecol. 2011;19(1): 24–34. [Google Scholar]
34.McCulloch JSG, Pereira HC, Kerfoot O, Goodchild NA. Effect of shade trees on tea yields. Agricultural Meteorology. 1965; 2(6): 385–399. [Google Scholar]
35.Chetana HC, Ganesh T. Importance of shade trees (Grevillea robusta) in the dispersal of forest tree species in managed tea plantations of southern Western Ghats, India. J Trop Ecol. 2012;28(2): 187–197. [Google Scholar]
36.Berens DG, Farwig N, Schaab G, Böhning‐Gaese K. Exotic guavas are foci of forest regeneration in Kenyan farmland. Biotropica. 2008;40(1): 104–112. [Google Scholar]
37.Guevara S, Meave J, Moreno‐Casasola P, Laborde J. Floristic composition and structure of vegetation under isolated trees in neotropical pastures. J Veg Sci. 1992;3(5): 655–664. [Google Scholar]
38.Cadavid-Florez L, Laborde J, McLean DJ. Isolated trees and small woody patches greatly contribute to connectivity in highly fragmented tropical landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2020;196: 103745. [Google Scholar]
39.Parrotta JA. Influence of overstory composition on understory colonization by native species in plantations on a degraded tropical site. J Veg Sci. 1995;6(5): 627–636. [Google Scholar]
40.Lugo AE. The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness on degraded lands with tree monocultures. For Ecol Manage. 1997;99(1–2): 9–19. [Google Scholar]
41.Chetan HC, Ganesan R, Ganesh T. Seed and seedling establishment in abandoned tea plantations role of ecological and edaphic factors, southern Western Ghats, India. Trop Ecol. 2019;60: 566–580. [Google Scholar]
42.Wunderle JM. The role of animal seed dispersal in accelerating native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. For Ecol Manage. 1997;99: 223–235. [Google Scholar]
43.Borda-Niño M, Meli P, Brancalion PHS. Drivers of tropical forest cover increase: A systematic review. Land Degrad Dev. 2020;31(11): 1366–1379. [Google Scholar]
44.Crouzeilles R, Maurenza D, Prieto PV, Barros FS, Jakovac C, Ferreira MS, et al. Associations between socio‐environmental factors and landscape‐scale biodiversity recovery in naturally regenerating tropical and subtropical forests. Conserv Lett. 2020;15: e12768. [Google Scholar]
45.Herrera JM, García D. The role of remnant trees in seed dispersal through the matrix: being alone is not always so sad. Biol Conserv. 2009;142(1): 149–158. [Google Scholar]
46.Hamilton, Bensted-Smith R, editors. Forest conservation in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1989. [Google Scholar]
47.StatSoft Inc. Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft; 2012. [Google Scholar]
48.Gauch HG Jr., Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
49.McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, Oregon, MjM software design; 2002. [Google Scholar]
50.Seltzer CE, Ndangalasi HJ, Cordeiro NJ. Seed dispersal in the dark: shedding light on the role of fruit bats in Africa. Biotropica. 2013;45(4): 450–456. [Google Scholar]
51.Duncan RS, Chapman CA. Seed dispersal and potential forest succession in abandoned agriculture in tropical Africa. Ecol Appl. 1999;9(3): 998–1008. [Google Scholar]
52.Toh I, Gillespie M, Lamb D. The role of isolated trees in facilitating tree seedling recruitment at a degraded sub‐tropical rainforest site. Restor Ecol. 1999;7(3): 288–297. [Google Scholar]
53.Galindo‐González J, Guevara S, Sosa VJ. Bat and bird‐generated seed rains at isolated trees in pastures in a tropical rainforest. Conserv Biol. 2000; 14(6): 1693–1703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Cottee‐Jones HEW, Bajpai O, Chaudhary LB, Whittaker RJ. The importance of Ficus (Moraceae) trees for tropical forest restoration. Biotropica. 2016; 48(3): 413–419. [Google Scholar]
55.Aide TM, Cavelier J. Barriers to lowland tropical forest restoration in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Restor Ecol. 1994;2(4): 219–229. [Google Scholar]
56.Griscom HP, Ashton MS. Restoration of dry tropical forests in Central America: a review of pattern and process. For Ecol Manage. 2011; 261(10); 1564–1579. [Google Scholar]
57.Omeja PA, Chapman CA, Obua J, Lwanga JS, Jacob AL, Wanyama F, et al. Intensive tree planting facilitates tropical forest biodiversity and biomass accumulation in Kibale National Park, Uganda. For Ecol and Manage. 2011;261(3): 703–709. [Google Scholar]
58.Piiroinen T, Nyeko P, Roininen H. Natural establishment of indigenous trees under planted nuclei: a study from a clear-felled pine plantation in an Afrotropical rain forest. For Ecol Manage. 2015; 345: 21–28. [Google Scholar]
59.Cubiña A, Aide TM. The effect of distance from forest edge on seed rain and soil seed bank in a tropical pasture. Biotropica. 2001;33(2): 260–267. [Google Scholar]
60.Tabarelli M, Peres CA. Abiotic and vertebrate seed dispersal in the Brazilian Atlantic forest: implications for forest regeneration. Biol Conserv. 2002;106(2): 165–176. [Google Scholar]
61.Eshiamwata GW, Berens DG, Bleher B, Dean WRJ, Böhning-Gaese K. Bird assemblages in isolated Ficus trees in Kenyan farmland. J Trop Ecol. 2006;22(6): 723–726. [Google Scholar]
62.Cordeiro NJ, Patrick DAG, Munisi B, Gupta V. Role of dispersal in the invasion of an exotic tree in an East African submontane forest. J Trop Ecol. 2004; 20(4): 449–457. [Google Scholar]
63.Chen SC, Moles A T. A mammoth mouthful? A test of the idea that larger animals ingest larger seeds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24(11): 1269–1280. [Google Scholar]
64.Wheelwright NT. Fruit‐size, gape width, and the diets of fruit‐eating birds. Ecology. 1985;66: 808–818. [Google Scholar]
65.Costa JBP, Melo FPL, Santos BA, Tabarelli M. Reduced availability of large seeds constrains Atlantic forest regeneration. Acta Oecologica. 2012;39: 61–66. [Google Scholar]
66.de la Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C. Integrating density into dispersal and establishment limitation equations in tropical forests. Forests. 2018;9(9): 570. 10.3390/f909057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
67.de la Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C, Palmas-Pérez S, Rivas-Alonso E, Howe HF. Roles of birds and bats in early tropical-forest restoration. PloS one. 2014;9(8): e104656. 10.1371/journal.pone.0104656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Dawson W, Burslem DFRP, Hulme PE. Factors explaining alien plant invasion success in a tropical ecosystem differ at each stage of invasion. J Ecol. 2009;97(4): 657–665. [Google Scholar]
69.Hulme PE, Burslem DFRP, Dawson W, Edward E, Richard J, Trevelyan R. Aliens in the Arc: Are invasive trees a threat to the montane forests of East Africa? In: Foxcroft LC, Pysek P, Richardson DM, Genovesi P, editors. Plant invasions in protected areas. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. pp. 145–165. [Google Scholar]
70.Wheeler CE, Omeja PA, Chapman CA, Glipin M, Tumwesigye C, Lewis SL. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity following 18 years of active tropical forest restoration. For Ecol Manage. 2016;373: 44–55. [Google Scholar]
71.Cole RJ, Holl KD, Keene CL, Zahawi RA. Direct seeding of late-successional trees to restore tropical montane forest. For Ecol Manage. 2011;261(10): 1590–1597. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250859.r001

Decision Letter 0

Christian Vincenot

16 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-38976

Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cordeiro,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Christian Vincenot, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, congratulations on this interesting study. Both reviewers and I would hope to see your work published soon. However, I agree with reviewer 2 on the need to improve the overall quality of the manuscript, which would require many clarifications. I look forward to receiving your revised paper.

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"X"

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"X"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. We note that Figure 1 includes an image of a participant in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

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: A nice study showing the role of isolated trees as the dispersal foci by various animals. Would be indeed very interesting to assess the seed rain during the day (birds) and at night (bats) and the recruitment success of the seeds. It is also possible that many more seed species are brought to the sites but fail to germinate (e.g. due to unsuitable conditions)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is interesting and has the potential to substantially inform restoration effort in the study region. I do think the impact of the research can be enhanced with some additional revisions, primarily to improve clarity and readability of the manuscript. I have indicated any typos I found and indicated many areas that would benefit from some sort of revision. None of the changes are major, but the number of areas that would benefit from revision is substantial.

**********

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: No

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Seedling Recruitement Manuscript - Review Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0250859. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250859.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

9 Apr 2021

Please find all our responses and clarifications denoted below by asterisks

Additional Editor Comments:

***Response: We have edited the manuscript following the very constructive and careful criticisms of reviewer 2. We consider all the changes made add more clarity to this paper. If at all possible, would you be so kind as to privately inform this reviewer that the quality of the critique and suggestions made were outstanding and greatly improved this Mss. It was also gratifying to receive a positive comment about a large section of the Discussion.

***Response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their kind, positive remarks. It is absolutely possible that more seed species could arrive under legacy trees and fail to germinate. However, the point of this paper is to develop a recruitment template for future restoration in the area, so know what seedling species have established is critical towards this goal. We hope to have a MSc or PhD student follow through with seed traps in the future.

***Response: We are most grateful for all the heavy criticism, but also providing suggestions on how to handle some of the revisions. We revised every single recommendation and feel that the manuscript has improved markedly.

________________________________________

PONE-D-20-38976

Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

The manuscript is a very interesting investigation into passive tree recruitment under legacy trees in a tea plantation. An understanding of how legacy tree type (native or exotic) influences recruitment and the roles of dispersal mechanism and successional status on recruitment has the potential to inform conservation efforts and focus restoration activities in the area. The data analyses are appropriate in my opinion and I did not notice any flaws in logic. After some revisions, I believe the manuscript would be considered relevant, informative, and useful to many readers of Forest Ecology and Management.

***Response: Many thanks.

Comments:

The manuscript would benefit substantially if revised extensively for clarity. The writing style is cumbersome at times and creates needless complexity given the topic and analyses. The cumbersome style is not present in all portions of the manuscript, but in general it makes the manuscript challenging to read. I will not indicate every sentence that I consider likely to benefit from rewording for clarity, but I will try to point out some areas that the authors should consider revising.

***Response: Unless a clarification was needed, we have handled all the changes suggested below.

Line 22 – less extensive might be a better word choice than cheaper

Line 25 – comprised of rather than represented by

Line 28 – 98% of what recruits? Pioneer or non-pioneer or all recruits?

Line 31 – bat-dispersed rather than seed dispersal by bats

Line 32 – changes in comparison to what

Line 34 – toward seems to imply direction, in regards to might be more appropriate

Line 35 – vast usually implies space, a different word might be more appropriate

Line 36 – the sentence that begins with “in terms of isolated….” Needs to be reworded for clarity

Line 40 – what type of animal diversity are you referring to?

Line 47 – extra “the” in the sentence that should be deleted

Line 53 – The sentence that begins “Forest fragmentation in this range…..” need to be reworded

Line 57 – inevitable implies that conservation efforts are a waste of time

Line 63 – The sentence beginning with “International” needs to be reworded for clarity

Line 71 – evaluated seems more appropriate than measured

Line 72 – This last statement might need to be qualified with an acknowledgement that passive recruitment and the template is dependent on landscape characteristics

***Response: A good point.

Line 74 – limitation or limitations?

Line 89 – animals and delete “species or taxa”

Line 91 – delete even

Line 95 – replace while with and

Line 100 – If isolated trees improve environmental conditions and increase tree recruitment why would you expect more pioneers than non-pioneers? I understand the logic, but the writing sounds as if you are arguing opposite points. Reword or just reorganize paragraph for clarity.

***Response: We clarified this further.

Line 102 – retained rather than “left”

Line 105 – delete may

Line 109 – delete “also” and “the middle of”

Line 112 – change “might be useful to” to may

Line 117 – We follow Jacobs et al. and Chetana et al. in our use of the term legacy trees to refer to isolated trees which are remnants from the past.

Line 121 – limitations

Line 121 – indicate rather than show

Line 124 – delete “exotic or native”

Lines 123-126 – reword for clarity

Line 129 – based on tree size….

Line 132-134 – reword for clarity and/or readability

Line 142 – above sea level rather than abbreviating

Line 142 – why is mm the unit used rather than alternative cm

***Response: We prefer the unit mm because that is the international standard.

Line 143 - you mention seasonal rainfall, then persistent rainfall most of the year

Line 146 – no need for the decimal if you already indicate approximate

Line 148 – tea plantations don’t cause the destruction and fragmentation, they are the impetus for those changes but not the mechanism for the changes

Line 150 – reorganize sentence. Protected as the 8360 ha Amani Nature Reserve

Line 168 – plantations

Line 168 – What is “(e.g. 34)” I don’t know what this

Line 187 – how were tree heights measured

Line 189 – delete closest

Line 190 – can this sentence be worked in with the previous sentence. As is, it seems a little out of place and an afterthought

Line 196 – reword. “where the leaves were freshly..” with leaves freshly emerged from

Lines 193 – 199 – paragraph does not flow and should be reorganized

Line 251 – I think it is beneficial to include a brief justification for and/or establishment as appropriate for analytical methods with citations when possible. It is also appropriate to provide readers with a very general guidance on statistical outputs from methods and how they should be interpreted very broadly

***Response: A good point. We have made the recommended changes.

Line 252 – a number would be more beneficial than “few”

Line 254 – change “not included in” to excluded from

Line 257 – delete also

Line 262 – delete also

Line 294 – Fourteen recruits (0.5%) were …

Line 297 – (2738 seedlings; X%), whereas the remainder were abiotically…..

Line 301 – clarity was compromised throughout the manuscript when semicolons were used. I think revision of all these sentences and splitting into multiple sentences is typically warranted. Brevity should not trump clarity and readability in my opinion.

***Response: We have removed numerous semi-colons and split these sentences. We agree that readability has improved markedly.

Line 305 – delete all

Lines 312-315 – reword and possibly split into multiple sentences. Delete “and of great interest”

Line 326 – change “pin-point” to something more appropriate. Possibly to identify preliminary trends

Line 326 – delete “for”

Line 326 – change grouped to categorized, delete these, reword

Lines 329-349 – align by decimal point or similar method

***Response: We made all format changes to tables.

Line 351 – Delete “for the PCA” and reword

Line 367 – possibly change longer distance away to farther

Line 369 – change where possibly to in which or similar

Line 442- comma after agroforestry and whenever you have a list of 3

Lines 443- 447 – reword this long sentence for clarity

Line 448 – delete exotic and native

Line 457 – reword first sentence. Likely split into 2 sentence and clarify what you are trying to say in last part of the sentence.

Line 468 – factored? Clarify what you mean by factored in this sentence

Line 472 – comma after agricultural

Line 481 – clarify or reword the 56-99% dispersal limitation phrase

Line 482 – 487 – long cumbersome sentence that should be reworded and split into multiple sentences for clarity

Line 489 – what does the phrase “apparently planted source trees”

Lines 494-559 – really well written section of the manuscript

***Response: Thank you so much!

Line 513 – consider changing high 82% to “explained the dominance (82%) of animal-dispersed

Line 524 – replace formed with accounted for 54.7%

Line 525 – replace across with under or associated with or similar

Line 527 – replace just about with approximately three times more recruits…

Line 528 – replace its with M. eminii

Line 536 – reword this first sentence. Replace like with such as and reword for clarity

Line 563 – replace given with based on in relation to

Line 563 – does size relate to seed size or tree height or dbh?

Line 568 – the phrase “were very telling” seems to conversational so consider rewording

Line 570 – delete an example of where. This is apparent in the three

Line 573 – Is it a given that birds use exotic and native trees equally OR do some birds use them equally (those the disperse certain tree seeds) and others exhibit preferences (those that disperse fruits from the birds+bats+primates category). I don’t know enough about the trees being considered, the categories you placed trees into, or the areas you work. However, it seems like a potential overreach based on just what you report to assume all birds are using exotic and native legacy trees almost equally. You provide some evidence and reasoning in the paragraph below but I am not sure you are not making inferences beyond your data or the data presented.

***Response: An excellent point. We do not think it was intentional to state that all birds use exotic and native trees equally. We altered the wording to avoid this overstatement.

Line 580-582 – This sentence is a little unclear regarding the numbers mentioned and also what you want the reader to take from the sentence. Maybe indicate the average number under M. excelsa rather than or in addition to the percentage to allow for a better comparison.

***Response: We added the mean number of Maesopsis eminii recruits as suggested.

Line 592 – delete will

Line 593 – delete will

Line 593-594 – reword “have the capacity to increase the potential to enhance”

Line 600 – missing something here. Maybe “not” is a typo and should be “to”

Line 603 – missing something legacy trees three times more??

Lines 606-607 – reword this sentence, the last part after the comma is awkward

Line 612 – is there a more appropriate term than necessarily encourage – possibly without risk or risk of ecological consequences

Line 615-617 – this sentence almost argues that there is little to no value of planting pioneer species as a restoration method. If the goal is restoration in these plantation, it might be better to phrase this in terms of restoration activities that might be favored over planting. For restoration purposes, reducing competition or eliminating the practice of annual seedling removal under legacy trees may be sufficient for pioneer species given that pioneers arrive and recruit passively.

Line 625 – insert species after successional

FIGURES – abundance is misspelled in several locations within the figures. Either on the axes or elsewhere.

***Response: We made all the changes.

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250859.r003

Decision Letter 1

Christian Vincenot

15 Apr 2021

Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

PONE-D-20-38976R1

Dear Dr. Cordeiro,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Christian Vincenot, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please make sure to thoroughly check the manuscript for typos or other minor mistakes (also in the references) and, if present, address them when provided with the proof. Please note that PLOS does NOT perform quality check (incl. typo/refs check) on manuscripts, so this is entirely the responsibility of authors.

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250859.r004

Acceptance letter

Christian Vincenot

23 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-38976R1

Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

Dear Dr. Cordeiro:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Christian Vincenot

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. Minimum distance of source tree species for seedling recruits under 29 legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Distances are shown to nearest forest with the source tree. Distances in parentheses are of source tree species located closest to the sampled recruit seedlings.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.3KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Number of species and abundance of recruit species under 29 legacy trees in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.3KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Seedling Recruitement Manuscript - Review Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

Data has been uploaded to KNB and is publicly available here: https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/view/doi%3A10.5063%2FFX77T3.

[pone.0250859.ref001] 1.Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Rylands AB, Konstant WR, et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv Biol. 2002;16(4): 909–923. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref002] 2.Newmark WD. Conserving biodiversity in East African forests. A study of the Eastern Arc Mountains. Ecological Studies. Springer Science & Business Media; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref003] 3.Cordeiro NJ, Ndangalasi HJ, McEntee JP, Howe HF. Disperser limitation and recruitment of an endemic African tree in a fragmented landscape. Ecology. 2009; 90(4): 1030–1041. 10.1890/07-1208.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref004] 4.Newmark WD, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, McNeally PB, Halley JM. Targeted habitat restoration can reduce extinction rates in fragmented forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114(36): 9635–9640. 10.1073/pnas.1705834114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref005] 5.Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A, et al. Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99(20): 12923–12926. 10.1073/pnas.202242699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref006] 6.Society for Ecological Restoration International. SER international primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref007] 7.Stanturf J, Mansourian S, Kleine M, editors. Implementing forest landscape restoration, a practitioner’s guide. Vienna, Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Special Programme for Development of Capacities; 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref008] 8.Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor Ecol. 2019;27(S1): S1–S46. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref009] 9.Vandermeer J, Carvajal R. Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat. 2001;158(3): 211–220. 10.1086/321318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref010] 10.Guzmán-Luna A, Martínez-Garza C. Performance of 15 tropical tree species recruited or transplanted on restoration settings. Botanical Sciences. 2016;94(4): 757–773. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref011] 11.Jacob AL, Lechowicz MJ, Chapman CA. Non‐native fruit trees facilitate colonization of native forest on abandoned farmland. Restor Ecol. 2017;25(2): 211–219. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref012] 12.Chazdon RL, Guariguata MR. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica. 2016;48(6): 716–730. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref013] 13.Clewell A, McDonald T. Relevance of natural recovery to ecological restoration. Ecological Restoration. 2009;27(2): 122–124. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref014] 14.Traveset A, Heleno R, Nogales M. The ecology of seed dispersal. In: Gallagher RS, editor, Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities. 3rd ed. Oxfordshire: CAB International. 2014. p. 62–93. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref015] 15.Muller-Landau HC, Wright SJ, Calderón O, Condit R, Hubbell SP. Interspecific variation in primary seed dispersal in a tropical forest. J Ecol. 2008;96(4):653–667. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref016] 16.de la Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C, Ayestarán-Hernández LM, Howe HF. Plant attributes that drive dispersal and establishment limitation in tropical agricultural landscapes. Forests. 2018;9: 620. 10.3390/f9100620 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref017] 17.Bacles CFE, Lowe AJ, Ennos RA. Effective seed dispersal across a fragmented landscape. Science. 2006;311(5761): 628–628. 10.1126/science.1121543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref018] 18.Jordano P, García C, Godoy JA, García-Castaño JL. Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal patterns. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2007;104(9): 3278–3282. 10.1073/pnas.0606793104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref019] 19.Ingle NR. Seed dispersal by wind, birds, and bats between Philippine montane rainforest and successional vegetation. Oecologia. 2003;134(2): 251–261. 10.1007/s00442-002-1081-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref020] 20.Martínez-Garza C, Flores-Palacios A, De La Pena-Domene M, Howe HF. Seed rain in a tropical agricultural landscape. J Trop Ecol. 2009;25(5): 541–550. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref021] 21.Wilkie DS, Finn JT. Slash-burn cultivation and mammal abundance in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Biotropica. 1990; 22(1): 90–99. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref022] 22.Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R, Meritt D Jr., Montiel S, Curiel D. Patterns of frugivore species richness and abundance in forest islands and in agricultural habitats at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Vegetatio. 1993; 107/108: 245–257. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref023] 23.Estavillo C, Pardini R, da Rocha PLB. Forest loss and the biodiversity threshold: an evaluation considering species habitat requirements and the use of matrix habitats. PloS one. 2013;8(12); e82369. 10.1371/journal.pone.0082369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref024] 24.Estrada A, Coates-Estrada R, Vazquez-Yanes C. Observations on fruiting and dispersers of Cecropia obtusifolia at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Biotropica.1984;16(4): 315–318. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref025] 25.Reid JL, Holl KD, Zahawi RA. Seed dispersal limitations shift over time in tropical forest restoration. Ecol Appl. 2015;25(4): 1072–1082. 10.1890/14-1399.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref026] 26.Finegan B. Pattern and process in neotropical secondary rain forests: the first 100 years of succession. Trends Ecol Evol. 1996;11(3): 119–124. 10.1016/0169-5347(96)81090-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref027] 27.Chazdon RL, Finegan B, Capers RS, Salgado-Negret B, Casanoves F, Boukili V, et al. Composition and dynamics of functional groups of trees during tropical forest succession in northeastern Costa Rica. Biotropica. 2010;42(1): 31–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref028] 28.Laurance WF, Nascimento HEM, Laurance SG, Andrade AC, Fearnside PM, Ribeiro JE, et al. Rain forest fragmentation and the proliferation of successional trees. Ecology. 2006;87(2): 469–482. 10.1890/05-0064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref029] 29.Howe HF. Making dispersal syndromes and networks useful in tropical conservation and restoration. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2016;6: 152–78. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref030] 30.Martínez-Garza C, González-Montagut R. Seed rain from forest fragments into tropical pastures in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Plant Ecol. 1999;145(2): 255–265. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref031] 31.Holl KD. Tropical moist forest restoration. In: Perrow MR, Davy AJ, editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 539–558. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref032] 32.Vieira ICG, Uhl C, Nepstad D. The role of the shrub Cordia multispicata Cham. as a ‘succession facilitator’ in an abandoned pasture, Paragominas, Amazonia. Vegetatio. 1994;115: 91–99. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref033] 33.García‐Orth X, Martínez‐Ramos M. Isolated trees and grass removal improve performance of transplanted Trema micrantha (L.) Blume (Ulmaceae) saplings in tropical pastures. Restor Ecol. 2011;19(1): 24–34. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref034] 34.McCulloch JSG, Pereira HC, Kerfoot O, Goodchild NA. Effect of shade trees on tea yields. Agricultural Meteorology. 1965; 2(6): 385–399. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref035] 35.Chetana HC, Ganesh T. Importance of shade trees (Grevillea robusta) in the dispersal of forest tree species in managed tea plantations of southern Western Ghats, India. J Trop Ecol. 2012;28(2): 187–197. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref036] 36.Berens DG, Farwig N, Schaab G, Böhning‐Gaese K. Exotic guavas are foci of forest regeneration in Kenyan farmland. Biotropica. 2008;40(1): 104–112. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref037] 37.Guevara S, Meave J, Moreno‐Casasola P, Laborde J. Floristic composition and structure of vegetation under isolated trees in neotropical pastures. J Veg Sci. 1992;3(5): 655–664. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref038] 38.Cadavid-Florez L, Laborde J, McLean DJ. Isolated trees and small woody patches greatly contribute to connectivity in highly fragmented tropical landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2020;196: 103745. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref039] 39.Parrotta JA. Influence of overstory composition on understory colonization by native species in plantations on a degraded tropical site. J Veg Sci. 1995;6(5): 627–636. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref040] 40.Lugo AE. The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness on degraded lands with tree monocultures. For Ecol Manage. 1997;99(1–2): 9–19. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref041] 41.Chetan HC, Ganesan R, Ganesh T. Seed and seedling establishment in abandoned tea plantations role of ecological and edaphic factors, southern Western Ghats, India. Trop Ecol. 2019;60: 566–580. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref042] 42.Wunderle JM. The role of animal seed dispersal in accelerating native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands. For Ecol Manage. 1997;99: 223–235. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref043] 43.Borda-Niño M, Meli P, Brancalion PHS. Drivers of tropical forest cover increase: A systematic review. Land Degrad Dev. 2020;31(11): 1366–1379. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref044] 44.Crouzeilles R, Maurenza D, Prieto PV, Barros FS, Jakovac C, Ferreira MS, et al. Associations between socio‐environmental factors and landscape‐scale biodiversity recovery in naturally regenerating tropical and subtropical forests. Conserv Lett. 2020;15: e12768. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref045] 45.Herrera JM, García D. The role of remnant trees in seed dispersal through the matrix: being alone is not always so sad. Biol Conserv. 2009;142(1): 149–158. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref046] 46.Hamilton, Bensted-Smith R, editors. Forest conservation in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 1989. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref047] 47.StatSoft Inc. Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref048] 48.Gauch HG Jr., Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref049] 49.McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, Oregon, MjM software design; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref050] 50.Seltzer CE, Ndangalasi HJ, Cordeiro NJ. Seed dispersal in the dark: shedding light on the role of fruit bats in Africa. Biotropica. 2013;45(4): 450–456. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref051] 51.Duncan RS, Chapman CA. Seed dispersal and potential forest succession in abandoned agriculture in tropical Africa. Ecol Appl. 1999;9(3): 998–1008. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref052] 52.Toh I, Gillespie M, Lamb D. The role of isolated trees in facilitating tree seedling recruitment at a degraded sub‐tropical rainforest site. Restor Ecol. 1999;7(3): 288–297. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref053] 53.Galindo‐González J, Guevara S, Sosa VJ. Bat and bird‐generated seed rains at isolated trees in pastures in a tropical rainforest. Conserv Biol. 2000; 14(6): 1693–1703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref054] 54.Cottee‐Jones HEW, Bajpai O, Chaudhary LB, Whittaker RJ. The importance of Ficus (Moraceae) trees for tropical forest restoration. Biotropica. 2016; 48(3): 413–419. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref055] 55.Aide TM, Cavelier J. Barriers to lowland tropical forest restoration in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Restor Ecol. 1994;2(4): 219–229. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref056] 56.Griscom HP, Ashton MS. Restoration of dry tropical forests in Central America: a review of pattern and process. For Ecol Manage. 2011; 261(10); 1564–1579. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref057] 57.Omeja PA, Chapman CA, Obua J, Lwanga JS, Jacob AL, Wanyama F, et al. Intensive tree planting facilitates tropical forest biodiversity and biomass accumulation in Kibale National Park, Uganda. For Ecol and Manage. 2011;261(3): 703–709. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref058] 58.Piiroinen T, Nyeko P, Roininen H. Natural establishment of indigenous trees under planted nuclei: a study from a clear-felled pine plantation in an Afrotropical rain forest. For Ecol Manage. 2015; 345: 21–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref059] 59.Cubiña A, Aide TM. The effect of distance from forest edge on seed rain and soil seed bank in a tropical pasture. Biotropica. 2001;33(2): 260–267. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref060] 60.Tabarelli M, Peres CA. Abiotic and vertebrate seed dispersal in the Brazilian Atlantic forest: implications for forest regeneration. Biol Conserv. 2002;106(2): 165–176. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref061] 61.Eshiamwata GW, Berens DG, Bleher B, Dean WRJ, Böhning-Gaese K. Bird assemblages in isolated Ficus trees in Kenyan farmland. J Trop Ecol. 2006;22(6): 723–726. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref062] 62.Cordeiro NJ, Patrick DAG, Munisi B, Gupta V. Role of dispersal in the invasion of an exotic tree in an East African submontane forest. J Trop Ecol. 2004; 20(4): 449–457. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref063] 63.Chen SC, Moles A T. A mammoth mouthful? A test of the idea that larger animals ingest larger seeds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2015;24(11): 1269–1280. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref064] 64.Wheelwright NT. Fruit‐size, gape width, and the diets of fruit‐eating birds. Ecology. 1985;66: 808–818. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref065] 65.Costa JBP, Melo FPL, Santos BA, Tabarelli M. Reduced availability of large seeds constrains Atlantic forest regeneration. Acta Oecologica. 2012;39: 61–66. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref066] 66.de la Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C. Integrating density into dispersal and establishment limitation equations in tropical forests. Forests. 2018;9(9): 570. 10.3390/f909057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref067] 67.de la Peña-Domene M, Martínez-Garza C, Palmas-Pérez S, Rivas-Alonso E, Howe HF. Roles of birds and bats in early tropical-forest restoration. PloS one. 2014;9(8): e104656. 10.1371/journal.pone.0104656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref068] 68.Dawson W, Burslem DFRP, Hulme PE. Factors explaining alien plant invasion success in a tropical ecosystem differ at each stage of invasion. J Ecol. 2009;97(4): 657–665. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref069] 69.Hulme PE, Burslem DFRP, Dawson W, Edward E, Richard J, Trevelyan R. Aliens in the Arc: Are invasive trees a threat to the montane forests of East Africa? In: Foxcroft LC, Pysek P, Richardson DM, Genovesi P, editors. Plant invasions in protected areas. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013. pp. 145–165. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref070] 70.Wheeler CE, Omeja PA, Chapman CA, Glipin M, Tumwesigye C, Lewis SL. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity following 18 years of active tropical forest restoration. For Ecol Manage. 2016;373: 44–55. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0250859.ref071] 71.Cole RJ, Holl KD, Keene CL, Zahawi RA. Direct seeding of late-successional trees to restore tropical montane forest. For Ecol Manage. 2011;261(10): 1590–1597. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Seedling recruitment under isolated trees in a tea plantation provides a template for forest restoration in eastern Africa

Henry J Ndangalasi

Cristina Martínez-Garza

Tesakiah C A Harjo

Clayton A Pedigo

Rebecca J Wilson

Norbert J Cordeiro

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Study area

Sampling

Fig 1. Photograph of one of the large Parinari excelsa (Chrysobalanaceae) trees sampled in the tea plantation near Monga in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Fig 2. Photograph showing a cluster of Milicia excelsa (arrows) and Grevillea robusta (diamonds) legacy trees in the tea plantation near Mbomole-Derema in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Table 1. General characteristics of the 29 legacy trees, including seed dispersal mode, year sampled, height, DBH and crown area in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Data analysis

Table 2. Correlation of PCA axis 1 and 2 and richness and abundance of seedling recruits under 29 isolated trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania.

Results

Species richness, abundance, and guilds of recruits

Table 3. Mean number (±SE) of species (Richness) and abundance (Abund; number of recruits) of seedling recruits under exotic and native legacy trees in tea plantations in the East Usambara Mts, Tanzania.

Fig 3. Trait loading of PCA axes 1 and 2 of an ordination based on six attributes for 29 legacy trees in tea plantations in East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania.

Fig 4. Plot scores of the PCA axes 1 and 2 of an ordination based on six traits for 29 legacy trees in tea plantations in East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania.

Fig 5. Regression of abundance of pioneer recruits under 29 native (green) or exotic (blue) legacy trees as a function of PCA axis 1.

Fig 6. Regression of abundance of recruits under 29 native (green) or exotic (blue) legacy trees as a function of PCA axis 2.

Fig 7. Regression of abundance of recruits dispersed by animals under 29 native (green) or exotic (blue) legacy trees as a function of PCA axis 2.

Fig 8. Regression of abundance of non-pioneer recruits dispersed by animals under 29 native (green) or exotic (blue) legacy trees as a function of PCA axis 2.

Community composition of seedling recruits

Fig 9.

Fig 10.

Fig 11.

Discussion

Patterns of seedling recruitment

Recruitment composition and overall implications for restoration

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Christian Vincenot

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Christian Vincenot

Roles

Acceptance letter

Christian Vincenot

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases