Restoring South African subtropical succulent thicket using

Alastair J Potts, Duncan Liddell, Catherine E Clarke, Nicholas C Galuszynski

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Alastair J PottsDepartment of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, Eastern Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-0919-7279

Duncan LiddellDepartment of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Catherine E ClarkeDepartment of Soil Science, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa.

Nicholas C GaluszynskiDepartment of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, Eastern Cape, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-4595-3721

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Localised variation in soil properties can play an important role in shaping vegetation structure and plant community composition. However, in degraded ecosystems, these vegetation patterns may not be apparent due to the homogenization of local plant communities. Thus, defining restoration targets may prove challenging. By comparing the root development of Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa. Taxon: Methods: Soil was collected from the top 20 cm at three sites within a degraded succulent thicket landscape (two with historically closed canopies, and one with a historically open woody canopy). A total of 196 Results: Significant differences in root dry weight were detected (all tests: F Conclusion: Local variation in soil properties plays an important role in the regeneration dynamics and restoration of succulent thicket vegetation. Calcareous soils likely supported an open canopy vegetation with relatively low

Indexed as

Plant RootsSoilBiomassEcosystemSouth AfricaSoilAlbany subtropical thicketDegraded landscapesEcological restorationEdaphic filtersPortulacaria afraRoot developmentSoil-plant interactionsSucculent thicket restoration.Vegetation structure

Identifiers

PMID40511379

DOI10.7717/peerj.19303

PMCPMC12161136

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.