Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429361›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A case study on the early stage of Pinus nigra invasion and its impact on species composition and pattern in Pannonic sand grassland.

László Bakacsy, Ágnes Szepesi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

László BakacsyDepartment of Plant Biology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, Szeged, 6726, Hungary. bakacsy@gmail.com.
Ágnes SzepesiDepartment of Plant Biology, Institute of Biology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, Szeged, 6726, Hungary.

Funding

University of Szeged Open Access Fund 6474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Alien woody species are successful invaders, frequently used for afforestation in regions like semi-arid lands. Shrubs and trees create important microhabitats in arid areas. Understorey vegetation in these habitats has unique species composition and coexistence. However, the impact of solitary woody species on understorey vegetation is less understood. This study evaluated the effect of native (Juniperus communis) and invasive solitary conifers (Pinus nigra) on surrounding vegetation, where individuals were relatively isolated (referred to as solitary conifers). The field study conducted in Pannonic dry sand grassland in 2018 recorded plant and lichen species presence around six selected solitary conifers. Composition and pattern of understorey vegetation were assessed using 26 m belt transects with 520 units of 5 cm × 5 cm contiguous microquadrats. Compositional diversity (CD) and the number of realized species combinations (NRC) were calculated from the circular transects. Results showed native conifer J. communis created more complex, organized microhabitats compared to alien P. nigra. CD and NRC values were significantly higher under native conifers than invasive ones (p = 0.045 and p = 0.026, respectively). Native species also had more species with a homogeneous pattern than the alien species. Alien conifers negatively affected understorey vegetation composition and pattern: some species exhibited significant gaps and clusters of occurrences along the transects under P. nigra. Based on our study, the removal of invasive woody species is necessary to sustain habitat diversity.

Indexed as

PinusTracheophytaEcosystemGrasslandHumansIntroduced SpeciesPlantsSandSand

Identifiers

PMID38429361
PMCPMC10907687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.