ArticlePloS one2019
Forest fragmentation and impacts of intensive agriculture: Responses from different tree functional groups.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the Spatial Footprint of Agriculture-Driven Edge Effects in a Global Deforestation Hotspot.Global change biology · 2026Article
- Spatial management of poverty-biodiversity interactions in semi-arid ecosystems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agricultural landscapes are seen as areas of extreme importance for studying and developing strategies which integrate biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services with food production. The main strategies for intensifying agriculture are based on conventional agricultural practices of frequently using inputs for fertilization and correcting soil pH. Some studies show that these practices generate impacts on nearby forest fragments through soil contamination and increasing nutrient content. The objective of this study was to identify the impacts on the functional groups of sciophilous (late successional/shade-tolerant species) and heliophilous (pioneer/sun-loving) species of a tree community of 14 forest fragments near pasture areas and agricultural areas under conventional practices, raising the hypothesis that higher-fertility forest fragments adjacent to intensive agriculture modify the floristic composition of the tree community. Consequently, this study is based on the following questions: i) Do forest fragments within intensive farming environments present differences in floristic composition of species?; ii) Does the soil fertility influence the tree species composition?; iii) Which variables influence species abundance and richness in the forest fragments with different types of use around their environment? The floristic composition of fragments close to agricultural areas are more similar to each other than the composition of fragments close to pasture areas. Furthermore, the General Linear Model (GLM) results show a clear influence of the intensive farming environment on the richness and abundance of the two functional groups in the forest fragments, directly benefiting the abundance of heliophilous species, which are also benefited by the greater declivity and smaller fragment area, while the abundance of sciophytes is negatively correlated with these last two variables. The increase of calcium content is beneficial for the richness of heliophilous species, while the increase in phosphorus content influences a reduction in the richness of sciophyte species, which also strongly respond to the isolation between fragments. The results indicate a dominance trend of pioneer species in fragments with nutritionally enriched soils, providing evidence that the intense adoption of inputs in cultivated areas causes concrete impacts on the diversity of the tree community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.