<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2020.1010041</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-103836</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Natural Regeneration of Marker Species of the Tropical Dense Humid Ecosystems in the Loukaya Peri-Urban Forest, Brazzaville-Congo
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Victor</surname><given-names>Kimpouni</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jean</surname><given-names>de Dieu Nzila</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Oracle</surname><given-names>Clément Tondo Bafouiri Ntsoni</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ghislain</surname><given-names>Bileri-Bakala</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Josérald</surname><given-names>Chaîph Mamboueni</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Charmes</surname><given-names>Maïdet Massamba-Makanda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Institut National de Recherche Forestière (IRF), Brazzaville, Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>école Normale Supérieure, Université Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville, Congo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>29</day><month>10</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue>10</issue><fpage>664</fpage><lpage>687</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>16,</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2020</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>27,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2020</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>30,</day>	<month>October</month>	<year>2020</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The study aimed at evaluating the natural regeneration of some characteristic species in the Loukaya peri-urban forest was carried out in Brazzaville, over three surveys of one hectare each. The botanical inventory of the 23 species monitored covers the subjects of 2 ≤ d
  <sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm and d
  <sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm. The study shows 1255 individuals of which 68.27% are 2 ≤ d
  <sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm. While being tropophilic and mesophilic, this ecosystem is pauciflorous and paucispecific. The phytoecological data show that this formation, which is a link in the African dense humid forest, presents values far below those known elsewhere; while being faithful to the forests of the Cataractes Plateau. As for the rate of natural regeneration, this index is greater than or equal to 100 for 69.56% of the taxa. Sarcochores and heliophytes are the taxa that best support this natural regeneration. This high rate of regeneration would be correlated with the high level of anthropization, whose large canopy gaps are accompanied by a flow of light conducive to the installation of seedlings.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Congo</kwd><kwd> Biodiversity Index</kwd><kwd> Peri-Urban Forest</kwd><kwd> Phytoecology</kwd><kwd> Natural Regeneration</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The management of urban and peri-urban forest ecosystems has always been one of the major problems of municipal authorities in Africa in general and in Congo in particular [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref1">1</xref>]. Forests provide communities with several tangible and intangible assets known as ecosystem goods and services [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref6">6</xref>]. This range of products represents a source of socio-cultural and economic goods (handicrafts, food, water, fuelwood, service and timber, traditional medicine, agricultural land...), and much more subtle ecological and environmental functions that enhance life, such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, maintenance of air quality... [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref7">7</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref12">12</xref>]. The exploitation of goods that are part of supply services (handicrafts, food, fuelwood, timber for services and labor, traditional medicine), which is most often unsustainable, leads to the depletion of resources and the progressive, even irreversible, impoverishment of ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref13">13</xref>].</p><p>The expansion of the city of Brazzaville in recent years, under demographic pressure and anarchic urbanization, has resulted in the integration of formerly suburban territories into the urban fabric [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref14">14</xref>]. This operation leads to the degradation and sometimes disappearance of peri-urban ecosystems, notwithstanding the direct (physiological, socio-cultural, economic, aesthetic, scientific, educational) and indirect (climatic, environmental) benefits resulting from their maintenance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref16">16</xref>]. Anthropic action, which is devastating for forest ecosystems, affects the extent of the original area, the floristic composition and impacts the 3 degrees of biodiversity (α, β, γ). The forest islands resulting from the degradation of the Patte d’Oie in Brazzaville, the peri-urban forest of Djoumouna whose area declined by 49.41% between 1998 and 2017 and the disappearance of the Tsi&#233;m&#233;, Glaciaire, Corniche and Ravine forests in Chad are a perfect illustration of this [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref19">19</xref>].</p><p>Tropical forest ecosystems are recognized as sufficiently resilient to regenerate after disturbance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref20">20</xref>]. Only sustained and/or prolonged logging, causing a break in forest succession, would be likely to divert the dynamics of its trajectory towards the establishment of secondary formations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref21">21</xref>]. Their resilience capacity is such that they are capable of recovering an architectural structure very close to the primary forest only a few years after agricultural land is set aside, beyond the fact that the floristic parameters are other than the original ones [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref9">9</xref>].</p><p>In view of the socio-cultural, economic and environmental importance of urban and peri-urban forests, several studies are being carried out on these ecosystems, without delving into the issues of natural regeneration and the dynamics of reconstitution. The themes treated preferentially are ethnobotany [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref24">24</xref>] and quantitative ecology stricto sensu [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref18">18</xref>]. The objective of this study is to highlight the state of natural regeneration of urban and peri-urban forests, through the monitoring of some species’ characteristic of the Loukaya woody formation.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Presentation of the Study Area</title><p>The peri-urban forest of the Loukaya River is located south-west of Brazzaville between 4˚21'21.6&quot; - 4˚21'36&quot; south latitude and between 15˚6'21.6&quot; - 15˚6'32.4&quot; east longitude (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Evolving in a densely populated area, the Loukaya Forest is bounded to the north by the village Makana 1, to the northeast by Nganga-Lingolo about 4.90 km from the tollgate, to the east by the village Djoumouna, to the south by the village Bissinza, to the southwest by the village Bouanissa, and to the west by the village Makana 2.</p><p>The climate of the locality is Bas-Congolese of the Sudano-Guinean type [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref26">26</xref>] whose specificities are: an average annual temperature of about 25˚C, a low annual thermal amplitude of 5˚C to 6˚C (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>); average annual rainfall of 1200 to 1400 mm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref27">27</xref>]. The rains that punctuate the alternation of the seasons begin very weakly at the end of September and settle from October to May, with a very marked slowdown from January to February. The hottest and wettest months are usually March, April and November. On the other hand, the months of June to September are the driest, while July and August are the coolest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref28">28</xref>]. Relative humidity, always above 70%, is vital for the flora, especially in the dry season. The annual hygrometric amplitude is low and the daily average varies from 33% in the rainy season to 46% in the dry season [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref28">28</xref>]. Evaporation varies in the opposite direction of atmospheric humidity (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>) and presents a relative minimum in June and an absolute maximum in August and September [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref27">27</xref>]. In relation to the seasons, the relative minimum occurs at the turn of the rainy and dry seasons, while the absolute maximum is observed in the last phase of the dry season. In sum, evaporation is moderately low and stable in the rainy season follows the opposite trend of rainfall in January - February; and rises sharply in the dry season.</p><p>According to Denis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref25">25</xref>], the geological substratum is composed of sedimentary formations of Cenozoic (Tertiary) age, of sandstone nature that form the</p><p>Inkisi sandstone series. According to the authors, this bedrock either is from the Upper Kalahari or is the result of in situ alteration of the schistose sandstone system. This system is composed of two superimposed sets, namely 1) the upper layers known as sandy siltstones, which constitute a large set of ochre-coloured aeolian sandy siltstones that occupy the upper parts of the plateaux. These highly mobile silts have given rise to major reworking, both in situ and by dragging into the valleys; 2) the lower layers known as polymorphic sandstones, which are represented by soft, yellow, white or pink sandstones, with fine and regular grain, without marked stratification.</p><p>The soils belong to the class of highly desaturated ferrallitic yellow psamite soils on Bat&#233;k&#233;s sandstones of plateau slopes and hills, as well as hydromorphic soils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref25">25</xref>]. From the physical and chemical point of view, highly desaturated ferrallitic soils are acidic soils (pH &lt; 5.5), with a low sum of exchangeable bases (1 meq/100g) and a low saturation rate (less than 20%) of the absorbent complex.</p><p>The vegetation in the study area is a forest-savanna mosaic [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref30">30</xref>]. Forests are established on various topographical positions, hilltops, mainly where there are sandy overburden, slopes, valleys, and often swampy shallows. The forest in the valley bottoms takes the form of narrow galleries and is generally much degraded. In addition to these formations, larger massifs, located along the Congo River, generate ombrophilous Gilbertiodendron dewevrei or more often mesophilic semi-caducifolia formations.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Materials</title><p>The plant material consists of the trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm of the selected species and their regenerative cohort of diameter between 2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm, at 20 cm from the ground. The selected individuals in the regenerative cohort are at least 30 cm in height because below this value the survival of individuals is very random [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref31">31</xref>]. The selection of regeneration species is based on the fact that they are characteristic of the dense tropical rainforests of Central Africa. The taxonomic ordination adopted is APG IV [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref32">32</xref>] and the nomenclature followed is that of Lebrun and Stork [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref33">33</xref>]. The parameters monitored are types of diaspora and affinity to light.</p><p>The types of diasporas recognized follow the classification of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref34">34</xref>] taken up by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref35">35</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref36">36</xref>]:</p><p>&#173; Ballochores (Ballo): diaspores expelled by the plant itself;</p><p>&#173; Barochores (Baro): non-fleshy, heavy diasporas;</p><p>&#173; Pterochores (Ptero): diasporas with aliform appendages;</p><p>&#173; Sarcochores (Sarco): diasporas totally or partially fleshy.</p><p>The type of affinity to light described by Lebrun [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref35">35</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref37">37</xref>] and taken up by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref36">36</xref>] reveals the groups of:</p><p>&#173; heliophytes (Heliophytes), plants that enjoy full sunlight. In this group, one finds mainly plants from well-lit grassy groups, trees and lianas from the upper tree dome;</p><p>&#173; hemi-heliophytes (Hemi-Helio), plants of the intermediate strata of the forests, trees of the dome which regenerate in undergrowth and can live for a certain time in diffuse light. These plants receive on average 50% to 75% of the total illumination [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref38">38</xref>];</p><p>&#173; hemi-sciaphytes (Hemi-Scia), plants of the forest undergrowth that still receive 5 to 50% of relative illumination [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref38">38</xref>];</p><p>&#173; sciaphytes (Scia), plants of the lower and humigenous strata of forests in general. The illumination received is limited to 1% to 5% of the total light [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref38">38</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Sampling Device</title><p>The research system is based on three adjacent surveys of 1 ha, each unit consisting of 25 plots of 400 m<sup>2</sup> (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Methods of Study</title><p>For dense tropical rainforests, several methods are used to study natural regeneration. For this study, the full floristic inventory coupling the count of all individuals of selected species from the regenerative cohort (2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm) to trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm is carried out over the entire study area [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref39">39</xref>]. This method, which provides a better understanding of the notion of natural regeneration, has the advantage of making data reliable and modelling.</p><sec id="s2_4_1"><title>2.4.1. Floristic Inventory</title><p>Plot by plot and systematically, all individuals of 2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref40">40</xref>] and d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref41">41</xref>] of the monitored species are identified, counted and measured. The diameter of the individuals of the regenerative cohort was measured with the caliper, while the d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm were measured with a metric tape measure. The height of the woody trees was measured with 1) a 1.50 m wooden ruler and a 5 m folding tape measure for small trees and 2) at the vertex for large trees. The height data of the individuals allow an appreciation of the vertical structure of the stand, especially of the selected species. The vertical stratification is based on the biological typology of Raunkiaer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref42">42</xref>] adapted to tropical forests by Lebrun [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref37">37</xref>]. The classification adopted for the Loukaya forest is in line with work carried out in the region [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref43">43</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref44">44</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref45">45</xref>] and whose strata are defined as follows.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4_2"><title>2.4.2. Expression of Results</title><p>1) The species scarcity index [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref46">46</xref>]:</p><p>R i = [ 1 − n i N ] &#215; 100 (1)</p><p>with ni = the number of plots where the species is encountered and N = the total number of plots inventoried.</p><p>Species with a depletion index of less than 80% are considered preferential, very frequent and abundant in the study areas. Those whose rarefaction index is higher than 80% are said to be rare and therefore highly endangered in the locality.</p><p>2) The similarity coefficients of Jaccard (S) and S&#248;rensen (K) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref47">47</xref>]. The Jaccard and S&#248;rensen similarity coefficients are distinguished by the fact that Jaccard gives the same value to presence as to absence, while S&#248;rensen gives a double advantage to presence. In the latter case, presence is more informative than absence.</p><p>S ( % ) = C A + B − C &#215; 100 (2)</p><p>K ( % ) = 2 C A + B &#215; 100 (3)</p><p>where “A” is the number of species in the 1<sup>st</sup> survey; “B” the number of species in the 2<sup>nd</sup> survey; and “C” the number of species common to both surveys.</p><p>3) Diaspora types, light affinity and structural parameters are expressed as raw and weighted spectra, according to the two formulas given as examples:</p><p>S B ( % ) = A B &#215; 100 (4)</p><p>where “A” is the species number by diasporas type; and “B” the total species number</p><p>S P ( % ) = A B &#215; 100 (5)</p><p>where “A” is the trees number by diaporas type; and “B” the total trees number.</p><p>4) Density is the number of woody individuals per hectare;</p><p>D = A B (6)</p><p>where “A” is the total trees number (or taxa) per plot; and “B” the total plot area (ha)</p><p>5) Woody frequency (F);</p><p>F = A B &#215; 100 (7)</p><p>where “A” is the plots number where taxon is recorded; and “B” the total plots number</p><p>6) The basal area (m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup>) indicates the spatial areas occupied by all trunk sections;</p><p>S = ∑ ​ π D i 2 4 (8)</p><p>7) The natural regeneration rate (NR), according to the Rothe scale [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref48">48</xref>] and taken up by Ramananjatovo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref31">31</xref>], is used to judge the regeneration capacity of a species or a habitat.</p><p>T R = A B &#215; 100 (9)</p><p>where “A” is the regeneration individuals number; and “B” the other individuals’ regeneration number. Regeneration is: difficult if TR &lt; 100%; good for 100 ≤ TR &lt; 1000%; very good when TR ≥ 1000%.</p><p>8) The dispersion index (I) is the ratio of the variance to the mean of the counts. This index provides information on the type of spatial distribution of the units counted. A dispersion: regular for a value significantly less than 1; random for an index equal or close to 1; and aggregated in other cases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref49">49</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref50">50</xref>].</p><p>I = S 2 / X &#175; (10)</p><p>The values of the dispersion index (I) were subjected to the chi-square test (χ<sup>2</sup>) for α = 5%, in order to verify if they are significantly different from 1 (random dispersion).</p><p>χ 2 ( d f = Q − 1 ) = ( Q − 1 ) S 2 / X &#175; (11)</p><p>with Q the number of plots, S 2 and X &#175; respectively the variance and the mean of the number of trees per subplot.</p><p>The statistical processing was done with “R, Past and Excel software”. The results are subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) using R software. The mean values of the results of the biodiversity indices and structural parameters will be compared and their significant differences will be evaluated at the probability threshold p &lt; 0.05.</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Taxonomic and Floristic Data</title><p>The inventory shows 23 species corresponding to 21 genera grouped in 13 families (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). As for the number of individuals counted, it should be noted that it amounts to 1255 of which 31.71% are trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm. The regenerative cohort 2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm makes up 1/3 of the count. The mean number of individuals per species is 37.26 &#177; 6.05 for a range of 2 to 137 plants per species (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). With more than 100 plants, Pentaclethra eetveldeana and Petersianthus macrocarpus account for 28.35% of the population. These taxa are followed by Carapa procera and Pentaclethra macrophylla with a number of plants ranging from 60 to 100, i.e. 19.03% of the total. Finally, with at least 20 plants, Syzygium brazzavillense, Synsepalum dulcificum, Maranthes glabra, Pycnanthus angolensis, Millettia laurentii, Bosqueiopsis gilletii, Millettia eetveldeana, Ongokea gore and Anisophyllea meniaudi form the third group, accounting for 43.17% of the population. The least represented group of species, less than 20 plants, covers 9.45% of the inventory and consists of Xylopia acutiflora, Dialium pachyphyllum, Allablanckia floribunda, Tetraberlinia sp., Symphonia globulifera, Pterocarpus soyauxii, Albizia ferruginea, Celtis mildbraedii, Anonidium mannii and Paramacrolobium coeruleum.</p><table-wrap-group id="1"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Structural parameters of taxa involved in the regenerative study</title></caption><table-wrap id="1_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Taxa</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Plants of 2 ≤ d<sup>0,20</sup>&lt; 10 cm</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TR (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >RI (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Dispersion index</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TD</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Light affinity</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plot 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plot 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plot 3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Density (ind. ha<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Freq. (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ST (m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trees number</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Density (ind. ha<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ST (m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >I</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >χ<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eff. (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anisophylleaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anisophyllea meniaudi Aubr&#233;v. &amp; Pellegr.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >400</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.390</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.860</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hemi-H&#233;lio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anonidium mannii (Oliv.) Engl. &amp; Diels</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hemi-Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Xylopia acutiflora (Dunal) A. Rich.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >320</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.527</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hemi-Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cannabaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Celtis mildbraedii Engl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.354</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.225</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chrysobalanaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maranthes glabra (Oliv.) Prance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >510</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.868</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.256</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clusiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Allanblackia floribunda Oliv.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.353</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.109</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Symphonia globulifera L. f.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.167</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.333</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >141</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >332</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >231</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia ferruginea (Guill. &amp; Perr.) Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baro</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dialium pachyphyllum Harms</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >233</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.733</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.267</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.900</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Millettia eetveldeana (Micheli) Hauman</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.322</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >245.844</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ballo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Millettia laurentii De Wild.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >209</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.822</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.809</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.750</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ballo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Paramacrolobium coeruleum (Taub.) J. L&#233;onard</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.107</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.929</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ballo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentaclethra eetveldeana De Wild. &amp; T. Durand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >137</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.652</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >122.282</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ballo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentaclethra macrophylla Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >193</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.167</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.367</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ballo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pterocarpus soyauxii Taub.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.528</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.056</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ptero</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="1_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Tetraberlinia sp</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >6</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >5</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >12</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >-</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >90.67</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0.452</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >33.476</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >57</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ballo</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lecythidaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Petersianthus macrocarpus (P. Beauv.) Liben</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.469</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108.720</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ptero</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Meliaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Carapa procera DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >573</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.454</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107.568</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bosqueiopsis gilletii De Wild. &amp; T. Durand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.501</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myristicaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pycnanthus angolensis (Welw.) Warb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >392</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.999</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.957</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.250</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrtaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Syzygium brazzavillense Aubr&#233;v. &amp; Pellegr.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.967</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.533</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.250</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Olacaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ongokea gore (Hua) Pierre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.343</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.361</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.995</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Helio</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sapotaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Synsepalum dulcificum (Schumach. &amp; Thonn.) Daniell</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1767</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.497</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110.804</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarco</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hemi-Scia</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >295</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >323</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >239</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >857</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >285.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >398</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >132.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moyenne &#177; ES</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >285.67 &#177; 24.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49 &#177; 0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >132.67 &#177; 8.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.96 &#177; 0.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Summary of taxonomic and floristic data</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Survey</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Taxa</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Individuals number</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Families</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Genera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Species</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plot<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >295</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plot<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >323</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >150</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plot<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >239</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >857</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >398</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Average &#177; ES</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.67 &#177; 0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.67 &#177; 0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.67 &#177; 0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >285.67 &#177; 24.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >132.67 &#177; 8.97</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Structure Parameters</title><sec id="s3_2_1"><title>3.2.1. Floral Density</title><p>Floral density Trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm have an average density of 132.67 &#177; 8.97 individuals ha<sup>−1</sup>. This density is supported by 4 taxa (Pentaclethra eetveldeaena, Pentaclethra macrophylla, Petersianthus macrocarpus, Millettia eetveldeana) whose number of trees per unit area is in the range 11 - 39. As for the regenerative cohort (2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm) the mean density is 285.67 &#177; 24.69 individuals ha<sup>−1</sup>. Notwithstanding the variations observed in the surveys, the dominant taxa in this category are Pentaclethra eetveldeaena, Petersianthus macrocarpus, Carapa procera, Pentaclethra macrophylla. Maranthes glabra, Millettia eetveldeana, Millettia laurentii, Bosqueiopsis gilletii, Pycnanthus angolensis, Syzygium brazzavillensis, Synsepalum dulcificum. These species have an average of 11 to 45 individuals ha<sup>−1</sup> (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The mean number of individuals does not vary significantly (p-value = 0.1818 for the ANOVA test) between surveys. The mean absolute densities of the surveys, for all diameter classes (regenerative cohort and large-diameter trees combined), do not vary significantly (p-value = 0.1706 for the ANOVA test). This observation is synonymous with a random distribution of individuals within the woody formation.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_2"><title>3.2.2. Frequency of Taxa</title><p>Considering the sampling units, the frequency of the regenerative cohort (2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm) varies from 0.01 to 0.71%, or an average of 0.26 &#177; 0.04 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). 82.61% of the species are present in all 3 surveys; 13.04% restricted to 1/3 of the surveys; and finally 4.35% restricted to 2/3 of the surveys. The distribution of taxa shows floristic heterogeneity.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_3"><title>3.2.3. Basal Surface Area of Taxa</title><p>The average basal area of the trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm is 5.96 &#177; 0.67 m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup>, for a range between 4.63 and 6.79 m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup>. The regenerative cohort (2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm) has a mean basal area of 0.49 &#177; 0.06 m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup>, for a range of values from 0.39 to 0.61 m<sup>2</sup>∙ha<sup>−1</sup> (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Mean basal area values showed a significant difference for regeneration individuals (p-value = 0.04299 for the ANOVA test) between surveys 2 and 3 for which the Student test gave a p-value = 0.044. However, the differences are not significant between the mean basal area values for large diameter individuals (p-value = 0.4835 for the ANOVA test) within the surveys. The mean basal area values do not differ significantly (p-value = 0.2357 for the ANOVA test) within the surveys for all diameter classes.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_4"><title>3.2.4. Vertical Stratification of the Regenerative Cohort</title><p>Most of the individuals surveyed belong to stratum II, regardless of the survey (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>). This observation is also valid for the ecosystem as a whole, with 59.76% of the individuals surveyed. The Kruskal-Wallis test does not reveal any significant differences between the median height values of the three surveys (p-value = 0.9853). However, highly significant differences were observed between the height values in the different strata (p-value &lt; 2.2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>). This observation is supported by the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney test with p-value &lt; 0.05 (Megaphanerophytes - Mesophanerophytes = 3.1 &#215; 10<sup>−13</sup>; Megaphanerophytes - Microphanerophytes = 2.7 &#215; 10<sup>−13</sup>; Megaphanerophytes - Nanophanerophytes = 2.3 &#215; 10<sup>−10</sup>; Mesophanerophytes - Microphanerophytes &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Mesophanerophytes - Nanophanerophytes &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>; Microphanerophytes - Nanophanerophytes &lt; 2 &#215; 10<sup>−16</sup>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_5"><title>3.2.5. Diameter Structure of Taxa</title><p>Dendrometric data from trees of d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm show an inverted “L” or “J” shaped curve, indicating consistent recruitment between diameter classes (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>(a) and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>(b)). Notwithstanding this overall effect, specific monitoring of the taxa in the study revealed erratic curves (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>). This observation is evidence of their poor natural regeneration. The mean values of the diameters of regeneration individuals within the surveys do not show significant differences (p-value = 0.09187 for the ANOVA test). The median values of the diameters of the individuals within the surveys do not show significant differences from one survey to another (p-value = 0.4545 for the Kruskal-Wallis test). This data would reflect a similar evolution of the flower-bulb considered within the three surveys constituting the study area.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Regenerative Cohort Height-Diameter Relationship</title><p>A positive correlation was noted between the height and diameter of individuals monitored in the Loukaya peri-urban forest, regardless of the inventory level (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>). The Spearman’s coefficient (“rho”) being, in all cases, higher than the Pearson’s coefficient (“r”), reflects a monotonous and non-linear relationship. This observation reveals that the diameter of individuals increases concomitantly with height, but not proportionally. This phenomenon could be a consequence of accidents occurring during their growth stages. These include 1) anthropogenic actions and natural accidents such as windfalls; 2) the diversity of growth rates of the species considered, as well as their distribution pattern within the study area.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Phytodiversity Index</title><sec id="s3_4_1"><title>3.4.1. Species Depletion Index</title><p>Of the 23 species monitored for regeneration (2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm), 52.17% have a</p><p>species rarity index (RI) of less than 80%. These taxa with RI values ranging from 29.33% to 78.67% are abundant and include Maranthes glabra, Millettia laurentii, Pentaclethra eetveldeana, Pentaclethra macrophylla, Pycnanthus angolensis, Petersianthus macrocarpum, Carapa procera. However, the remaining 47.83% have an IR between 80% and 98.67% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Rare taxa in this category include Paramacrolobium coeruleum, Anonidium mannii, Pterocarpus soyauxii, Tetraberlinia sp., Allablanckia floribunda, Celtis mildbraedii, Dialium pachyphyllum, Symphonia globulifera.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4_2"><title>3.4.2. Coefficients of Floristic Similarity</title><p>Regardless of the similarity coefficient (Jaccard or S&#248;rensen), the floristic composition is very homogeneous between the surveys. Jaccard’s similarity coefficient is on average 87.67 &#177; 1.67, compared to 93.67 &#177; 0.67 for S&#248;rensen. The differences are not significant between surveys (p-value = 0.6853 for the ANOVA test).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4_3"><title>3.4.3. Natural Regeneration Rate</title><p>At the scale of the study, the natural regeneration rate is 215.33%. In contrast, in surveys 1, 2 and 3, the respective rates are 245.83%; 215.33% and 178.36%, from the specific level (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The observation of the rate of natural regeneration declines for 3 taxa groups. The first group, with TR &gt; 1000%, consists of 13.04% of species with very good natural regeneration (Ongokea gore, Synsepalum dulcificum and Syzygium brazzavillense); the second, with 56.52% of the inventory and a rate of 100 ≤ TR &lt; 1000%, consists of species with good natural regeneration (Carapa procera, Maranthes glabra, Albizia ferruginea, Anisophyllea meniaudi, Pycnanthus angolensis, Xylopia acutiflora, Petersianthus macrocarpus, Dialium pachyphyllum, Millettia laurentii, Pterocarpus soyauxii, Pentaclethra macrophylla, Bosqueiopsis gilletii and Pentaclethra eetveldeana); and finally, the last group, with 30.44% of taxa and a TR rate &lt; 100%, includes all species with poor natural regeneration (Millettia eetveldeana, Allablanckia floribunda, Paramacrolobium coeruleum, Celtis mildbraedii, Tetraberlinia sp., Symphonia globulifera and Anonidium mannii).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4_4"><title>3.4.4. Taxa Dispersion Index</title><p>The dispersion index (I) applied to the 23 species (i.e. 1255 individuals) in the study area reveals that 22% of species corresponding to 625 trees show significant gregarious dispersion (χ<sup>2</sup>; p value &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Pentaclethra macrophylla alone gathering 117 individuals, or 4% of the floristic richness of the phytocenosis, presents a non-significant gregarious dispersion (χ<sup>2</sup>; p-value &gt; 0.05). Uniform dispersal is found in 57% of species (265 individuals) of the phytocenosis. However, this hyperdispersion remains non-significant in view of the results of the Chi-square test (χ<sup>2</sup>; p value &gt; 0.05). This study area covers 17% of species with a non-significant random dispersion (χ<sup>2</sup>; p value &gt; 0.05) whose density is evaluated at 248 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Diaspora Types and Affinity in the Light of Taxa</title><p>Sarcochores are preponderant with 60.87% of the species, corresponding to a proportion of 50.53% of individuals (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>(a) and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>(b)). Ballochores</p><p>come in the second position with 26.09% of the species and 35.82% of the individuals. This observation made at the scale of the study is also valid when considering the surveys, where sarcochores remain dominant ahead of horehounds.</p><p>In relation to light affinity, 82.61% of the species surveyed are heliophilic, i.e. 89.39% of individuals (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>(a)). The hemi-heliophilic plants have a specific proportion of 13.04%, while hemi-sciaphiles are ahead of them in terms of individuals with 6.18% of the individuals recorded (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">Figure 9</xref>(b)).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Analysis of Phytodiversity</title><p>Like all the intra-urban and peri-urban forests in Brazzaville (Patte d’Oie and Djoumouna Forests) whose phytodiversity data are almost under control, the Loukaya woodland formation is no exception. Mesophilic and tropophilic in type, the Loukaya forest is a very diverse and concomitantly tree-poor formation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref51">51</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref52">52</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref53">53</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref54">54</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref55">55</xref>]. This state is the tangible result of anthropogenic effects that severely impact all levels of biodiversity (α, β, γ). These woody formations, although they are part of the dense tropical rainforests, without being compared to the neotropical and palaeotropical forest ecosystems of South-East Asia, are very atypical in terms of specific and floristic richness [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref52">52</xref>]. These structural parameters would be dependent on pedoclimatic determinism, in general. These indices establish the link of their belonging to the physiographic area of the Cataractes district [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref51">51</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref52">52</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref53">53</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref54">54</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref56">56</xref>].</p><p>The passage from one diameter class to another induces a decrease in density following the conquest of space, which is not extensible [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref57">57</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref58">58</xref>]. Thus, high mortality of juvenile individuals (2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm) is observed under the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors (descent of peaks, trampling, irregularity of rainfall, grazing) as mentioned in several works [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref59">59</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref60">60</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref61">61</xref>]. As a result of the high mortality rate among the regenerative cohort, Baraloto [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref57">57</xref>] points out that barely 1% of seedlings (germinated seeds) reach adulthood in tropical forests. Notwithstanding the natural events that affect natural regeneration in the forest, the share associated with humans would be preponderant in this ecosystem. The disturbance in the recruitment of taxa within</p><p>diameter classes (d<sup>1.30</sup> ≥ 10 cm), which is at the origin of the erratic curves for each of the species monitored, is irrefutable proof of recurrent anthropogenic interventions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref51">51</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref52">52</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref53">53</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref54">54</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref55">55</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref62">62</xref>]. The corollaries of this ever-increasing and continuous anthropogenic pressure have a lasting impact on the natural regeneration of these taxa and concomitantly that of the entire ecosystem.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Status of Natural Regeneration</title><p>The natural regeneration of a forest is supported by the ratio of seedlings to large trees in the stand [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref63">63</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref64">64</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref65">65</xref>]. As such, natural regeneration is the basis for understanding the dynamics of woody vegetation, integrating the process of diametric recruitment, juvenile mortality, developmental stages and ecosystem survival [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref62">62</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref66">66</xref>]. Under the dependence of several factors (light intensity, humidity, nature of the substrate, biological characteristics), natural regeneration would be a phenomenon sensitive to the variation of environmental parameters [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref67">67</xref>]. Correlatively, the modification of the parameters of the Loukaya ecosystem, following the various anthropic actions of the local residents, would explain some of the results of this study, particularly the mortality of young plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref1">1</xref>].</p><p>The Loukaya forest, which is much secondarised, looks like an ecosystem in full recovery, taking into account the high rate of young plants of heliophilic species (Ongokea gore and Syzygium brazzavillense). These stages of forest recovery are generally marked by a massive presence of pioneer heliophilic species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref68">68</xref>]. A high level of anthropisation affects the physiognomy of the forest facies through the opening of the gaps. The corollaries are a variation in the flow of light reaching the ground, directly or through the heat, it brings generally considered as a determining factor in the renewal of forest stands [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref69">69</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref70">70</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref71">71</xref>]. This parameter would explain the high rate of seedlings in the study area; confirmed by a regeneration index greater than 100%; synonymous with good regeneration on the Rothe scale [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref48">48</xref>].</p><p>Also, it should be noted that the type of diaspora and the mode of dissemination effectively intervene in the process of densification of regenerants. The dominance of sarcochores in the Lukaya forest induces high densities of regenerants subject to predation and high mortality due to intraspecific competition at the base of the productive trees [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref57">57</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref59">59</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref72">72</xref>] who reports that in tropical forests confirms this hypothesis, only 1% of the individuals at the base of the productive trees reach maturity.</p><p>Although the natural regeneration index is satisfactory, the absence of individuals in certain diameter classes indicates that the process is subject to disturbances whose primary origin is human activity. Peri-urban forests are excellent places for supplying the surrounding populations with daily basic needs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref73">73</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref74">74</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref75">75</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Spatial Structure and Dispersion of Diasporas</title><p>The spatial distribution of a species results from the interaction of biotic and abiotic factors, and as long as resources are not too limiting [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref76">76</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref77">77</xref>]. Under these conditions, dissemination becomes the main spatial limitation and therefore determines the probability of recruitment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref78">78</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref79">79</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref80">80</xref>]. As the Loukaya peri-urban forest is dominated by sarcochorous species, endozoochory is the main mode of spread. Human practices in peri-urban ecosystems, including hunting, are factors limiting spread, due to pressure on wildlife. Thus, the observed aggregate distribution of individuals of 2 ≤ d<sup>0.20</sup> &lt; 10 cm would be the result of the limitation of dispersal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref76">76</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref80">80</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref81">81</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref82">82</xref>].</p><p>Anthropogenic activities in this ecosystem (hunting and cutting of trees and small woods) have a direct impact on biodiversity in general and indirectly on the dispersion of diasporas, especially sarcochores. These diasporas, which cannot ensure long-distance dispersal without animal involvement, give an aggregated spatial structure to the taxa of the regenerative cohort. Gaps or even windfalls are appropriate environments for the development of this phenomenon, as they provide optimal conditions for germination and growth of individuals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref83">83</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref84">84</xref>]. Windfalls and open gaps resulting from natural and/or artificial events are important niches for regeneration [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref85">85</xref>].</p><p>Finally, it should be noted that the aggregate structure of the regenerative cohort evolves towards a random structure over time. Since the vital area is not extensible, recruitment within diameter classes affects densities, in the sense of regression. Indeed, the larger the trees, the lower their density [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref62">62</xref>]. This evolution of structure would be the result of the mortality dependence mechanism of the individuals, which often corresponds to the transition from the young to the adult stage following intraspecific competition and that of water and mineral resources [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.103836-ref86">86</xref>].</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The peri-urban forest of Loukaya is subject to an exceptional level of anthropic pressure, which negatively affects biodiversity in all three dimensions. In this tropophilic and mesophilic ecosystem, anthropic activities would be the cause of the poor generation of the woody population, especially sarcochorous taxa. The flora-fauna association in tropical forests is fundamental to their dynamics. In the peri-urban forest of Loukaya, as everywhere else, natural regeneration is strongly influenced by several parameters, notably the mode of dispersal and the various biotic and abiotic factors. The distribution of the regenerative cohort is dependent on the dispersal power of the taxa. These dispersal mechanisms determine the structure and fate of the stands. The absence of the agents of dissemination is at the origin of the aggregative structure of the regenerants, the corollaries of which are a high level of inter- and intra-species competition for available soil resources. The high frequency of regenerants coupled with their exceptionally high rate in windfalls and gaps are clear indications of the intensity and quantity of light reaching the undergrowth. Thus, light remains one of the essential elements in the development of the regenerating cohort.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We are grateful to the people of the BISINDZA village for their unfailing availability and enthusiasm for environmental issues, particularly the sustainable management of forest ecosystems.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Kimpouni, V., de Dieu Nzila, J., Ntsoni, O.C.T.B., Bileri-Bakala, G., Mamboueni, J.C. and Massamba-Makanda, C.M. (2020) Natural Regeneration of Marker Species of the Tropical Dense Humid Ecosystems in the Loukaya Peri-Urban Forest, Brazzaville-Congo. Open Journal of Ecology, 10, 664-687. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2020.1010041</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.103836-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koubouana, F., Ifo, S.A., Mayitoukou, L. and Ndinga, E. (2016) Diversité floristique et dynamique de reconstitution de la forêt du parc zoologique sous plantation à Eucalyptus à Brazzaville; Congo. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 10, 609-619. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v10i2.13</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P.A., Mooney, H.A., Postel, S., Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D. and Woodwell, G.M. (1997) Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology (Ecological Society of America), 2, 1-16.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barnaud, C., Corbera, E., Muradian, R., Salliou, N., Sirami, C., Vialatte, A., Choisis, J.-P., Dendoncker, N., Mathevet, R., Moreau, C., Reyes-García, V., Boada, M., Deconchat, M., Cibien, C., Garnier, S., Maneja, R. and Antona, M. (2018) Ecosystem Services, Social Interdependencies, and Collective Action: A Conceptual Framework. Ecology and Society, 23, 15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09848-230115</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Serpantié, G., Méral, P. and Bidaud, C. (2012) Des bienfaits de la nature aux services écosystémiques. http://vertigo.revues.org/12924</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Raquez, P. and Dendoncker, N. (2013) Dossier scientifique sur les services rendus par les écosystèmes en Wallonie, en vue de la préparation du rapport analytique 2012-2013 sur l’état de l’environnement wallon. Université de Namur-Département de Géographie.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Coutts, C. and Hahn, M. (2015) Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 9768-9798. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120809768</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MEA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kassi N’Dja, J. and Decocq, G. (2007) Régénération de la forêt dense semi-décidue dans les stades post-culturaux en forêt classée de Sanaimbo (C&amp;#244;te-d’Ivoire). Acta Botanica Gallica, 154, 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.2007.10516072</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kassi N’Dja, J., Ake-Assi, E. and Tiebre, M.S. (2010) Biodiversité végétale et vitesse de la régénération de la forêt classée de Sanaimbo (C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire). Sciences &amp; Nature, 7, 195-206. https://doi.org/10.4314/scinat.v7i2.59963</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V., Mbou, P., Gakosso, G. and Motom, M. (2013) Biodiversité floristique du sous-bois et régénération naturelle de la forêt de la Patte d’Oie de Brazzaville, Congo. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7, 1255-1270. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v7i3.31</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adingra, O.M.M.A., Kassi N’Dja, J. and Yongo, O.D. (2014) Analyse systématique et phytogéographique de la forêt classée de la Bamo (C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire). Journal of Animal &amp; Plant Sciences, 23, 3626-3636. http://www.m.elewa.org/JAPS</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Madzella-Mbiemo, I.M. (2018) Biens et services écosystémiques associés à la forêt péri-urbaine de la Djoumouna. Mémoire de master, ENS, UMNG.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Agbangla, M.M., Aoudji, A.K.N., Akouehou, G.S., Gbetoho, J.A., Sanon, K., Ayina, O., de Chanière, C. and Ganglo, J.C. (2015) Caractéristiques structurales et écologiques des populations d’espèces commerciales: une base pour la sylviculture dans les peuplements forestiers de Niaouli (Sud-Benin). Tropicultura, 33, 238-252.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">PEEDU (2016) Schéma Directeur d’Urbanisme de la ville de Brazzaville. KEIOS Development Consulting, Brazzaville.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">FAO (2001) Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry: Case Studies on Developing Countries. FAO, Rome.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V., Mbou, P., Apani, E. and Motom, M. (2014) étude floristique des &amp;#238;lots forestiers naturels de la Patte d’Oie de Brazzaville, Congo. Acta Botanica Gallica, 155, 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.2013.870048</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gakosso, G. (2009) Diversité floristique et potentialité régénérative des &amp;#238;lots forestiers naturels de la Patte d’Oie. Mémoire de CAPES, ENS, UMNG.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Massamba-Makanda, C.-M. (2017) Phytodiversité et paramètres structuraux de la forêt péri-urbaine de la Djoumouna, Brazzaville (Congo). Mémoire de Master, Université Marien Ngouabi.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kiongo-Mbingou, F.A. (2018) Influence de la couverture pédologique sur la composition floristique de la forêt périurbaine de la Djoumouna, Brazzaville (Congo). Mémoire de Master d’Aptitude au Professorat de l’Enseignement Secondaire (MAPES) Sc. Nat., U.M.NG.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Puig, H. (2001) La forêt tropicale humide. Belin, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Poinsier</surname><given-names> J.-L. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1947</year>)<article-title>Le parasolier: Essence de reboisement pour la forêt secondaire</article-title><source> Bois et Forêts des Tropiques</source><volume> 3</volume>,<fpage> 31</fpage>-<lpage>34</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Loumoua, R.F.C. (2014) Etude quantitative de la forêt à Pentaclethra eetveldeana De Wild &amp; Th. Durand de Mayitoukou (Sous-préfecture de Goma-Tsé-Tsé, Département du Pool). Mémoire d’Ingénieur de Développement Rural, UMNG.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miabangana, E.S. and Lubini Ayingweu, C. (2015) Analyse floristique et phytogéographique de la végétation de l’&amp;#238;le Loufézou à Brazzaville (République du Congo). Revue Internationale de Géologie, de Géographie et d’écologie Tropicales, 39, 55-66.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Miabangana, E.S., Lubini Ayingweu, C. and Malaisse, F. (2016) Analyse floristique et phytogéographique de la forêt de la Djoumouna (République du Congo). Revue Internationale de Géologie, de Géographie et d’écologie Tropicales, 40, 175-190.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Denis, B. (1974) Carte pédologique Brazzaville-Kinkala. Notice explicative n° 52. République du Congo à 1/200.000. Centre ORSTOM de Brazzaville, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vennetier, P. (1966) Géographie du Congo-Brazzaville. Centre d’enseignement supérieur de Brazzaville, Gauthier-Villars-Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Samba, G. (2020) Le climat du Congo Brazzaville. Collection études africaines, L’Harmattan, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Samba-Kimbata, M.-J. (1978) Le climat Bas congolais. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Dijon, Dijon.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Descoings, B. (1969) Esquisse phytogéographique du Congo. Bondy, ORSTOM, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Descoings</surname><given-names> B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1975</year>)<article-title>Les grandes régions naturelles du Congo</article-title><source> Candollea</source><volume> 30</volume>,<fpage> 91</fpage>-<lpage>120</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ramananjatovo, R. (2013) Etude structurale et écologique de la régénération naturelle de la flore dans deux zones à différents degrés de perturbation dans la Réserve Spéciale de Bezà Mahafaly. Mémoire d’ingénieur, Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d’Antananarivo.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">APG IV (2016) An Updated of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group Classifications for Orders and Families of Flowering Plants: APG IV. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 181, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12385</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lebrun, J.-P. and Stork, A.L. (1991-2015) Enumeration of Flowering Plants in Tropical Africa and Tropical African Flowering Plants: Ecology and Distribution. The Conservatory and Botanical Garden of the City of Geneva, Geneva, 1-10. http://www.villege.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/recherche.php?langue=en</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dansereau, P. and Lems, K. (1957) The Grading Dispersal Types in Plant Communities and Their Ecological Significance. Contrib. Inst. Bot. Univ. Montréal, n° 71, 1-52.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lebrun, J. (1960) Etudes sur la flore et la végétation des champs de lave au nord du lac Kivu (Congo Belge). Institut des parcs nationaux du Congo belge, Mission J. Lebrun (1937-1938), Fascicule 2. Bruxelles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Moutsamboté, J.-M. (2012) Etude écologique, phytogéographique et phytosociologique du centre et du nord Congo-Brazzaville (Plateaux, Cuvette, Likouala et Sangha). Thèse d’Etat, Université Marien Ngouabi, Brazzaville.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lebrun, J. (1947) La végétation de la plaine alluviale au sud du lac Edouard. Institut des parcs nationaux du Congo belge, Mission J. Lebrun (1937-1938), Fascicule 1, Bruxelles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">évrard, C. (1968) Recherches écologiques sur le peuplement forestier des sols hydromorphes de la cuvette congolaise. Publication de l’Institut national pour l’étude agronomique du Congo belge, Bruxelles, Série Scientifique 110, Bruxelles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kompanyi Amissi, M. (2013) Etude comparative de la Régénération de Gilbertiodendron dewevrei (De Wild.) J. Léonard dans la Forêt de l’Ituri et celle des Environs de Kisangani. Travail de fin d’Etudes de Licence, Faculté des Sciences, Université de Kisangani.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tiokeng, B., Mapongmetsem, P.-M., Nguetsop V.F. and Tacham, W.N. (2015) Biodiversité floristique et régénération naturelle sur les Hautes Terre de Lebialem (Ouest Cameroun). International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 9, 56-68. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v9i1.6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dallmeier, F. (1992) Long-Term Monitoring of Biological Diversity in Tropical Forest Areas, Methods for Establishment and Inventory of Permanent Plots. MAB Digest 11, UNESCO, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Raunkiaer, C. (1934) The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography. Clarendon Press, Oxford.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Makany, L. (1976) Végétation des plateaux Téké (Congo). Collection Travaux Université de Brazzaville. Université de Brazzaville, Brazzaville.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Senterre, B. (2005) Recherches méthodologiques pour la typologie de la végétation et la phytogéographie des forêts denses d’Afrique tropicale. Thèse de doctorat, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles. https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.2005.10515499</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kouob Bégné, S. (2009) Les forêts matures de terre ferme du sud-est Cameroun. Thèse de doctorat, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/210222/15/32796094-7b11-40ce-820a-d28c24522172.txt</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Géhu, J.M. and Géhu, J. (1980) Essai d’objectivation de l’évaluation biologique des milieux naturels. Exemples littoraux. In: Géhu, J.M., Ed., Séminaire de phytosociologie appliquée, Amicale francophone de phytosociologie, 75-94.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magurran, A.M. (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rothe</surname><given-names> P.L. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1964</year>)<article-title>Régénération naturelle en forêt tropicale: Le Dipterocarpusdyeri (Dau) sur le versant cambodgien du golfe du Siam</article-title><source> Bois et Forêt des Tropiques</source><volume> 8</volume>,<fpage> 386</fpage>-<lpage>397</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bariteau, M. (1992) Régénération naturelle de la forêt tropicale humide de Guyane: étude de la répartition spatiale de Qualea rosea Aublet, Eperua falcata Aublet et Symphonia globulifera Linnaeus f. Annales des sciences forestières, 49, 359-382. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19920405</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nanga Mebenga, R.L. (2009) Distribution spatiale des semis de Pericopsis elata (Harms) Van Meeuwen dans la concession forestière de Green Valley inc. à Ouesso (Est-Cameroun). Diplome d‘Etudes approfondies. Univ. Douala, Cameroun.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V., Mbou, P., Gakosso, G. and Motom, M. (2013) Biodiversité floristique du sous-bois et régénération naturelle de la forêt de la Patte d’Oie de Brazzaville, Congo. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7, 1255-1270. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v7i3.31</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V., Lenga-Sacadura, M.-Y., Mamboueni, J.C. and Nsika Mikoko, E. (2018) Phytodiversité et pharmacopée traditionnelle de la communauté Kaamba de Madingou (Bouenza-Congo). European Scientific Journal, 14, 191-220. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n3p191</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V., Mamboueni, J.C., Mboussy Tsoungould, F.G. and Nsika Mikoko, E. (2019) Ethnobotanical and Phytotherapeutic Study from Kouni Community of the Sub-Prefecture of Kayes (Bouenza-Congo). Heliyon, 5, e02007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V., Apani, E. and Motom, M. (2012) Caractéristiques écologiques et composition de la flore ligneuse de la région de Mindouli (Congo). Journal de Botanique, Société Botanique de France, 57, 37-47.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kimpouni</surname><given-names> V. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2008</year>)<article-title>Premières données sur la diversité floristique de la forêt d’Aubeville (Congo-Brazzaville)</article-title><source> Systematics and Geography of Plants</source><volume> 78</volume>,<fpage> 47</fpage>-<lpage>62</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kimpouni, V. and Motom, M. (2012) Empirisme et exploitation traditionnelle de la flore par les populations riveraines du lac Cayo (Congo-Brazzaville). Annales de l’Université Marien N’gouabi, 12-13, 83-100.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baraloto, C. (2003) Régénération forestière naturelle: De la graine à la jeune tige. Revue Forestière Fran&amp;#231;aise (numéro spécial), 55, 179-187. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/5770</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pascal, J.-P. (2003) Notions sur les structures et dynamiques des forêts tropicales humides. Revue Forestière Fran&amp;#231;aise (numéro special), 55, 118-142. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/5765</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Janzen, D.H. (1970) Herbivores and the Number of Tree Species in Tropical Forests. The American Naturalist, 104, 501-528. https://doi.org/10.1086/282687</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ashton, P.S., Guillaumet, J.-L. and Lawton, R.M. (1983) La forêt naturelle: Biologie, régénération et croissance des arbres. In: Fournier, F. and Sasson, A., Ecosystèmes forestiers tropicaux d’Afrique, ORSTOM/UNESCO, Paris, 162-197.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Frontier, S., Pichod-Viale, D., Leprêtre, A., Davoult D. and Luczak, C. (2008) Ecosystèmes: Structure, fonctionnement, évolution. Dunod, 4th Edition, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Peters, C.M. (1997) Exploitation soutenue des produits forestiers autre que le bois en forêt Tropicale humide: Manuel d’initiation écologique. BSP, Washington DC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngansop, T.M. (2013) Potentiel de régénération naturelle de quelques espèces de Produits forestiers Non Ligneux majeurs de la périphérie Nord du parc national de Boumba-Bek, Sud-Est Cameroun. Mémoire de Master, Université de Yaoundé I.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngom, D., Fall, T., Sarr, O., Diatta, S. and Akpo, L.E. (2013) Caractéristiques écologiques du peuplement ligneux de la réserve de biosphère du Ferlo (Nord Sénégal). Journal of Applied Biosciences, 65, 5008-5023. http://www.m.elewa.org https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v65i0.89644</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngodo Melingui, J.B., Angoni, H., Claude, P.A. and Kono, L. (2017) Potentiel de régénération naturelle de quelques Produits Forestiers Non Ligneux prioritaires dans le bassin de production d’Akom II (Sud Cameroun). World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 4, 214-224. http://www.wwjmrd.com</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Traoré, S.A. (1997) Analyse de la flore et de la végétation de la zone de Simenti (Parc National du Niokolo Koba), Sénégal oriental. Thèse de 3&lt;sup&gt;e&lt;/sup&gt; cycle. FST/UCAD (Sénégal).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Puig, H., Forget P.-M. and Sist, P. (1989) Dissémination et régénération de quelques arbres en forêt tropicale guyanaise. Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France (Actualités Botaniques), 136, 119-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01811789.1989.10826964</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lubini, A. (1997) La végétation de la réserve de la biosphère de Luki. Opera Botanica Belgica, Bruxelles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bischoff, N. (1987) Sylviculture en montagne. Guide pour la création et le traitement des forêts de montagne. Office fédéral des forêts et de la protection du paysage, Berne.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dupuy, J.M. and Chazdon, R.L. (2006) Effects of Vegetation Cover on Seedling and Sapling Dynamics in Secondary Tropical Wet Forests in Costa Rica. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22, 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467405002890</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yongo</surname><given-names> O.D.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Kassi</surname><given-names> N’dja</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> J.</surname><given-names> Tiebre</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> M.S. and de Foucault</surname><given-names> B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2013</year>)<article-title>Régénération naturelle des espèces ligneuses dans la forêt de Ngotto (République Centrafricaine)</article-title><source> Agronomie Africaine</source><volume> 25</volume>,<fpage> 105</fpage>-<lpage>111</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Connel, J.H. (1971) On the Role of Natural Enemies in Preventing Competitive Exclusion in Some Marine Animals and in Forest Tree. In: den Boer, P.J. and Gradwell, G., éds., Dynamics of Populations, Pudoc, Wageningen, 298-312.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mpassi, P. (2007) Contribution à l’inventaire floristique et ethnobotanique des plantes utiles de Kimbédi. Mémoire CAPES, ENS, UMNG, Brazzaville.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Guedje, N.M. and Fankap, R. (2001) Utilisations traditionnelles de Garcinia lucida et Garcinia kola (Clusiaceae) au Cameroun. Systematics and Geography of Plants, 71, 747-758. https://doi.org/10.2307/3668714</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shackleton, S., Chinyimba, A., Hebinck, P., Shackleton, C. and Kaoma, H. (2015) Multiple Benefits and Values of Trees in Urban Landscapes in Two Towns in Northern South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Seidler, T.G. and Plotkin, J.B. (2006) Seed Dispersal and Spatial Pattern in Tropical Trees. PLoS Biology, 4, e344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040344</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sádlo, J., Chytry, M., Pergl, J. and Py&amp;#353;ek, P. (2018) Plant Dispersal Strategies: A New Classification Based on the Multiple Dispersal Modes of Individual Species. Preslia, 90, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.23855/preslia.2018.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Quinn, J.F. and Dunham, A.E. (1983) On Hypothesis Testing in Ecology and Evolution. American Naturalist, 122, 602-617. https://doi.org/10.1086/284161</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hubbell, S.P., Foster, S.R.B., O’Brien, T., Harms, K.E., Condit, R., Wechsler, B., Wright, S.J. and Loo de Lao, S. (1999) Light-Gap Disturbances, Recruitment Limitation and Tree Diversity in a Neotropical Forest. Science, 283, 554-557. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5401.554</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Condit, R., Ashton, P.S., Baker, P., Bunyavejchewin, S., Gunatilleke, S., Gunatilleke, N., Hubbell, S.P., Foster, R.B., Itoh, A., LaFrankie, J.V., Lee, H.S., Losos, E., Manokaran, N., Sukumar, R. and Yamakura, T. (2000) Spatial Patterns in the Distribution of Common and Rare Tropical Tree Species: A Test from Large Plots in Six Different Forests. Science, 288, 1414-1418. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.288.5470.1414</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pyke, C.R., Condit, R., Aguilar, S. and Lao, S. (2001) Floristic Composition across a Climatic Gradient in a Neotropical Low-Land Forest. Journal of Vegetation Science, 12, 553-566. https://doi.org/10.2307/3237007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Flores, O. (2005) Déterminisme de la régénération chez quinze espèces d’arbres tropicaux en forêt guyanaise: Les effets de l’environnement et de la limitation par la dispersion. Thèse. Université de Montpellier II.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Habiyaremye</surname><given-names> F.X. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1993</year>)<article-title>Analyse phytosociologique des forêts primaires de la crête Za&amp;#239;re-Nil au Rwanda</article-title><source> Belgian Journal of Botany</source><volume> 126</volume>,<fpage> 100</fpage>-<lpage>134</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schnitzer, S.A. and Carson, W.P. (2001) Treefall Gaps and the Maintenance of Species Diversity in a Tropical Forest. Ecology, 82, 913-919. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[0913:TGATMO]2.0.CO;2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Puerta-Pi&amp;#241;ero, C., Muller-Landau, H.C., Calderón, O. and Wright, S.J. (2013) Seed Arrival in Tropical Forest Treefall Gaps. Ecology, 94, 1552-1562. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-1012.1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.103836-ref86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bagchi, R., Henrys, P.A., Brown, P.E., Burslem, D.F.R.P., Diggle, P., Gunatilleke, C.V.S., Gunatilleke, I.A.U.N., Kassim, A.R., Law, R., Noor, S. and Valencia, R.L. (2011) Spatial Patterns Reveal Negative Density Dependence and Habitat Associations in Tropical Trees. Ecology, 92, 1723-1729. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0335.1</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>