Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40284076›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Impact of Land-Use Change on Vascular Epiphytes: A Review.

Thorsten Krömer, Helena J R Einzmann, Glenda Mendieta-Leiva, Gerhard Zotz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. PhytoKeys · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

Thorsten KrömerCentro de Investigaciones Tropicales, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa 91000, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-1398-8172
Helena J R EinzmannInstitute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Functional Ecology, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4856-3967
Glenda Mendieta-LeivaFaculty of Biology, Philipps University of Marburg, D-35037 Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0156-4153
Gerhard ZotzInstitute of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Functional Ecology, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6823-2268

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-caused habitat conversion, degradation, and climate change threaten global biodiversity, particularly in tropical forests where vascular epiphytes-non-parasitic plants growing on other plants-may be especially vulnerable. Epiphytes play vital ecological roles, in nutrient cycling and by providing habitat, but are disproportionately affected by land-use changes due to their reliance on host trees and specific microclimatic conditions. While tree species in secondary forests recover relatively quickly, epiphyte recolonization is slower, especially in humid montane regions, where species richness may decline by up to 96% compared to primary or old-growth forests. A review of nearly 300 pertinent studies has revealed a geographic bias toward the Neotropics, with limited research from tropical Asia, Africa, and temperate regions. The studies can be grouped into four main areas: 1. trade, use and conservation, 2. ecological effects of climate and land-use change, 3. diversity in human-modified habitats, and 4. responses to disturbance. In agricultural and timber plantations, particularly those using exotic species like pine and eucalyptus, epiphyte diversity is significantly reduced. In contrast, most native tree species and shade-grown agroforestry systems support higher species richness. Traditional polycultures with dense canopy cover maintain up to 88% of epiphyte diversity, while intensive management practices, such as epiphyte removal in coffee and cacao plantations, cause substantial biodiversity losses. Conservation strategies should prioritize preserving old-growth forests, maintaining forest fragments, and minimizing intensive land management. Active restoration, including the translocation of fallen epiphytes and planting vegetation nuclei, is more effective than passive approaches. Future research should include long-term monitoring to understand epiphyte dynamics and assess the broader impacts of epiphyte loss on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

Indexed as

deforestationdisturbed forestsfragmentationhuman disturbanceisolated remnant treesliterature searchsecondary forestsselective loggingtree plantationsurban vegetation

Identifiers

PMID40284076
PMCPMC12030193

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.