Plant dispersal strategies in post-mining restoration areas in the Eastern Amazon

Sampaio, Fabiane Barral; Silva, Cláudia Inês da; Tadei, Rafaela; Bitencourt, Matheus Marques; Martins, Marlucia Bonifácio; Cerqueira, Roberta Macedo

doi:10.1590/1677-941X-ABB-2025-01090

person Fabiane Barral Sampaio

Data collection · first version of the manuscript · writing, read, and approved the final manuscript

school Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.

0009-0005-1788-2411

person Cláudia Inês da Silva

Data analysis · writing, read, and approved the final manuscript

school Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brazil.

0000-0003-0836-8662

person Rafaela Tadei

Data analysis · writing, read, and approved the final manuscript

schoolAlma Mater Studiorum Universita' di Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agro-alimentari, Bologna, Italy.

0000-0002-7713-6550

person Matheus Marques Bitencourt

text translation · final revision · writing, read, and approved the final manuscript

schoolInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio), Belém, PA, Brazil.

0000-0002-1767-6512

person Marlucia Bonifácio Martins

conceptualization · supervision · management of the research project · writing, read, and approved the final manuscript

schoolMuseu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, PA, Brazil.

0000-0003-4171-909X

person Roberta Macedo Cerqueira *

conceptualization · supervision · management of the research project · Data collection · first version of the manuscript · writing, read, and approved the final manuscript

schoolUniversidade Federal do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil.

0000-0002-5976-7228

person*Corresponding author:
romacer30@gmail.com

Associate Editor:

Rodrigo Fadini

Editor-in-Chief:

Thais Elias Almeida

Conflicts of Interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest (personal, scientific, commercial, political, or financial) in the submitted manuscript.

Figures (5)
Tables (1)

Thumbnail

Figure 1. Location of the Hydro mining area (Paragominas, PA), with the sampling points in red representing the natural regeneration areas (NR1-NR9) and in blue the altered primary forest areas (APF1-APF9).

Thumbnail

Figure 2. Number of plant species present in the studied environments and their respective proportions according to dispersal syndrome and type of fruit. NR = Natural Regeneration; APF = Altered Primary Forest; FLE = Fleshy fruit; DRY = Dry fruit; FLE_DRY = Fleshy and/or dry fruit; NC = Not classified.

Thumbnail

Figure 3. Spatial ordination of sampling areas across two environments, Altered Primary Forest (APF) and Natural Regeneration (NR). (A) Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity of species abundance matrix. (B) Principal Component Analysis (PCA) biplot based on summary variables, including species richness and the abundance of different dispersal syndrome types per sampling area. The PCA was based on standardized (scaled) variables using scaling = 2. Points represent the sampled areas. Black arrows show the variables of dispersal syndrome. Gray arrows indicate the “zoochory dispersal”. BIO = Biotic; ABI = Abiotic; ABI_BIO = Abiotic and biotic; MAM = Mammaliocoria; ORN = ornithochory; CHI = Chiropterochory; NC = not classified; R = richness.

Thumbnail

Figure 4. Mean difference between the proportion of plants distributed in dispersal syndrome and fruit type between Altered Primary Forest and Natural Regeneration areas. The vertical black line represents the reference value for APF for each dispersal syndrome or fruit type. Values above the black line indicate higher proportions in NR, while values below indicate higher proportions in APF. Relative abundance of the most common dispersal syndrome in the following forest layers: (A) canopy; (B) understory; (C) forest floor. Relative abundance of fruit type in the following forest layers: (D) canopy; (E) understory; (F) forest floor. * p < 0.05. ANE = Anemochory; AUT = Autochory; BAR = Barochory; ZOO = Zoochory; FLE = Fleshy fruit; DRY = Dry fruit; NC = Not classified.

Thumbnail

Figure 5. Incidence rate ratios from GLMMs showing the total abundance of species classified within each dispersal syndrome category and fruit type. Incidence Rate Ratios indicate the coefficient of reduction (red values) or increase (blue values) on abundance value using the abundance of anemochory syndrome as reference (vertical black line). (A) Altered Primary Forest; (B) Natural Regeneration. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. ANE = Anemochory; AUT = Autochory; BAR = Barochory; HYD = Hydrochory; ZOO = Zoochory; FLE = Fleshy fruit; DRY = Dry fruit; NC = Not classified.

Thumbnail

Table 1. Classification and description of the fruit types found in the study area according to the literature.

Fruit Type	Description	Author
Achene (ACH)	Small, indehiscent and dry fruit, with a single seed protected by a thin, adpressed wall.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Berry (BER)	Indehiscent, fleshy fruit with one or a few to many seeds.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Capsule (CAP)	Dry fruit, rarely fleshy, formed by a bicarpellate to multicarpellate gynoecium that opens in different ways to release the seeds.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Caryopsis (CAR)	Dry, small, indehiscent fruit with a thin wall partially fused to a single seed.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Drupe (DRU)	Fleshy and indehiscent fruit, in which the external part is more or less soft.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Schizocarp (SCH)	Dry fruit, rarely fleshy, derived from a gynoecium with two or more carpels that divide into segments (mericarps) with one or a few seeds each.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Follicle (FOL)	Dry fruit, rarely fleshy, derived from a simple carpel and which opens along a single longitudinal slit.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Legume (LEG)	Fruit derived from a single carpel that opens along two longitudinal slits.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Loment (LOM)	Dry fruit derived from a single carpel that fragments transversely into one-seeded segments.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Nut (NUT)	Dry, indehiscent, and relatively large fruit, with a thick and stony part surrounding a single seed.	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Syncarpous (SYN)	Fruit with its carpels fused to a greater or lesser degree into a single ovary.	Font Quer (2001).
Samara (SAM)	Dry, indehiscent, winged fruit, usually containing one seed (rarely two).	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Silique (SIL)	Fruit derived from a bicarpellate gynoecium, in which the two valves separate from a persistent central septum (arranged around a frame-like structure, the replum, to which the seeds are attached).	Judd (1985); Judd et al. (2009).
Pyxis (PYX)	Capsule-type fruit with dehiscence by a lid (operculum), or a common pore encircling all carpels.	Spjut, R. W. (1994).
Pseudofruit (PSE)	Structure not derived from the ovary but from other parts of the flower, referred to as an “accessory fruit”.	Souza et al. (2013).