<?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">NR</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Natural Resources</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2158-706X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/nr.2023.147008</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">NR-126587</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>
 
 
  Regeneration Potential of Woody Species at the Side of Secondary Roads Post-Logging of Loundoungou-Toukoulaka Forest Management Unit, Republic of the Congo
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chauvelin</surname><given-names>Douh</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>Larisa</surname><given-names>Mbouchi Malonga</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>Donatien</surname><given-names>N’zala</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>Belvina</surname><given-names>Chardène Mabengo</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>Christian</surname><given-names>Moussoumbou</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>Saint</surname><given-names>Fédriche Ndzaï</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>Félix</surname><given-names>Koubouana</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Marien N’Gouabi University, Superior National School of Agronomy and Forestry (ENSAF), Laboratory of Geomatics and Applied Tropical Ecology (LGETA), Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>National Forestry Research Institute (IRF), Department of Forest Ecology, Scientific City of Brazzaville, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>24</day><month>07</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>07</issue><fpage>102</fpage><lpage>120</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>24,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>27,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</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>
 
 
  Natural regeneration is the basis of a dynamic and demographic balance of plant populations. The objective of this study was to assess the natural regeneration potential of woody species along secondary roads post-logging abandoned since 2008 and 2018. In the two Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018), 24 regenerating sub-plots (
  i.e.
   12 sub-plots for AAC 2008 and 12 sub-plots for AAC 2018) with a unit area of 5 m &#215; 5 m were delimited with a total area of 0.06 ha (
  i.e.
   0.03 ha for each AAC). The abundance and diversity of woody species were respectively inventoried and estimated. Two estimators of the specific richness were used to estimate the floristic diversity of each Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC). The results reveal globally 88 woody species in the AAC 2008 and 241 woody species in the AAC 2018, with respective average densities of 2933 stem/ha and 8033 stem/ha. There was a very highly significant difference between the mean densities of the two AAC (Kruskal-Wallis test; H = 2.36, p-value &lt; 0.000). The results also highlight a great diversity and a relatively high abundance of woody species in the 2018 AAC compared to the 2008 AAC. Also, the spatial structuring of the sub-plots on the basis of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) demonstrates that the floristic composition of the two AAC is globally different. The study suggests silvicultural interventions and the long-term assessment of regenerating woody species along abandoned secondary roads in order to guarantee the sustainable management of their population.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Regeneration Dynamics</kwd><kwd> Woody Species</kwd><kwd> Abandoned Secondary Roads</kwd><kwd> Forest Management Unit</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The central African moist forest form the second largest expanse of tropical forest in the world after the Amazon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref2">2</xref>] . These forest massifs now facing an increase in disturbances of anthropogenic origin (logging and mining, slash-and-burn agriculture, conversion, etc.) or climatic (dryness, change of rainfall regime, increase in their interannual variability) which will continue in the next decades [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref5">5</xref>] . A significant proportion of these forests (28%) is intended for the industrial production of wood. This activity is progressively expanding in view of its economic importance and its role in the development of Central African countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>Nonetheless, the industrial exploitation of wood from a forest massif can intervene at three levels: the creation of the base camp, the construction of one road network for the evacuation of timber and the realization of logging operations (cutting and skidding) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref7">7</xref>] . The establishment of one permanent and/or non-permanent road network corresponds to the destruction of about 5.5% - 8.5% of open forest area [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref8">8</xref>] . The edges of the secondary roads a few years after harvesting of timber abound a significant density of woody species which deserves refined knowledge in order to envisage sustainable management of their population. After logging activities, the natural regeneration processes are based on three compartments: the seminal advective potential, which corresponds to the seeds deposited on the ground, this is the seed rain; the seminal edaphic potential, which corresponds to the soil seed bank and the vegetative potential, which corresponds to the seedlings bank and/or the stems of future [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>Nonetheless, if the literature exists on the soil seed bank in moist forests of Central Africa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref13">13</xref>] ; seed rain is very little explored and more specifically in Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref14">14</xref>] ; the seedlings bank and/or stems future is the least well-documented compartment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref16">16</xref>] . Consequently, it is difficult to predict the regeneration potential and resilience of post-logging secondary roadside forests in the majority of logging concessions in Republic of Congo. Furthermore, studies relating to the regeneration potential (process based on forest reconstitution) integrate little the “seedlings bank and/or stems future” component which constitutes a reservoir of woody species and reflects the floristic composition of the vegetation from a place at a given time [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>Knowledge of the floristic composition, density and diversity of woody species on the edges of post-logging secondary roads could provide precious data on the regeneration potential and/or resilience of logged forests [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>This study proposes to improve knowledge of the natural regeneration potential of woody species along post-logging secondary roads in the Loundoungou-Toukoulaka Forest Management Unit in the north of the Republic of Congo. Two following research hypotheses are formulated: 1) due to the different ages of exploitation of the two Annual Allowable Cuts (AAC), the density and floristic composition of regenerating woody species at the edges of post-logging secondary roads differ significantly; 2) the specific richness and the intra and inter AAC biological diversity of regenerating woody species vary according to the age of post-logging secondary roads.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Sites and Installation of the Sub-Plots</title><p>The study was carried out in two Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) exploited in 2008 and 2018 within the Forest Management Unit (UFA) of Loundoungou-Toukoulaka, conceded to the Congolese company Industrial of Wood (CIB/OLAM) in Republic of the Congo. The geographic coordinates of Loundoungou-Toukoulaka UFA are 02˚18' - 02˚22'N and 17˚31' - 17˚34'E (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). The area is relatively flat with average altitudes between 430 m and 530 m. It displays a bimodal distribution of seasonal precipitation. The average annual rainfall and the average temperature are 1729 mm and 25˚C respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref20">20</xref>] . Loundoungou-Toukoulaka UFA is a semi-deciduous forest, installed on clay soils of the Congolese basin [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref23">23</xref>] . It has been frequently disturbed in the past by traditional human activities (agricultural activities, hunting, etc) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref25">25</xref>] . It is composed of numerous light-demanding tree species such as Erythrophleum suaveolens (Guill. &amp; Perr.) Brenan, Celtis spp., Terminalia superba Engl. &amp; Diels, Petersianthus macrocarpus (P. Beauv.) Liben and Triplochiton scleroxylon K. Schum. Some parts of the undergrowth are invaded by lianas and giant herbaceous plants belonging to the Marantaceae and Zingiberaceae families [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref21">21</xref>] . Some timber species the most exploited within of Loundoungou-Toukoulaka UFA are: Khaya anthotheca (Welw.) C. DC., T. scleroxylon, Entandrophragma cylindricum (Sprague) Sprague, Entandrophragma utile (Dawe &amp; Sprague) Sprague, Entandrophragma angolense (Welw.) C. DC., Millettia laurentii De Wild., Nauclea diderrichii (De Wild. &amp; T. Durand) Merr., Guarea cedrata (A. Chev.) Pellegr., Autranella congolensis (De Wild.) A. Chev., E. suaveolens.</p><p>The floristic inventory was carried out in two AAC (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018), and more precisely on the edges of the three post-logging secondary roads and equidistant from 5 km. On the edge of each post-logging secondary road, four square sub-plots (i.e. two sub-plots on either side of the post-logging secondary road) of dimensions 5 m &#215; 5 m and equidistant of 30 m were installed. All the sub-plots of a post-logging secondary road were denominated “station”, i.e. 3 stations corresponding to 3 post-logging secondary roads (S1 = station 1; S2 = station 2 and S3 = station 3). Overall, 24 sub-plots (i.e. 12 sub-plots within AAC 2008 and 12 sub-plots within AAC 2018) were delimited on an area</p><p>per AAC of 0.03 ha. Within each sub-plot, the inventory was random type and focused on regenerating woody species whose diameter was between 1 cm and 14.99 cm. Regenerating woody species were measured at the collar using vernier calipers and diametric ribbons [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref27">27</xref>] . Voucher specimens were collected and regenerating woody species were identified by botanists (Isaac Dzombo and Gilbert Nsongola). We have followed the taxonomy of Geneva Herbarium Catalog (http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/chg), as well as the manual described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref28">28</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Data Analysis</title><p>To characterize regenerating woody species, the following parameters were used: absolute density, AD (100 &#215; number of individuals of a given species/sampling area) stem/ha, relative density, RD (100 &#215; number of individuals of a given species/total number of individuals of all species), relative frequency, RF (100 &#215; frequency of a species/total frequencies of all species) and the Importance Value Index (IVI) of the species calculated as the sum of RD and RF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref32">32</xref>] . To identify the indicator species of each Annual Allowable Cut, we calculated “the indicator value of the species” (IndVal), using the labdsv package implemented in the R environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref33">33</xref>] . The significant difference was set at p &lt; 0.05.</p><p>This described index is defined as follows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref34">34</xref>] :</p><p>I N D V A L = A i j &#215; B i j &#215; 100 %</p><p>A i j = N i n d i v i d u a l s   i j / N i n d i v i d u a l s   i (1)</p><p>B i j = N s i t e s   i j / N s i t e s   j ;</p><p>INDVAL = the Indicator Value of species in site group j;</p><p>A i j , is a measure of specificity (based on the abundance of species i);</p><p>N i n d i v i d u a l s   i j , is the mean number of individuals of species i in the sites of group j;</p><p>N i n d i v i d u a l s   i , is the number of individuals of species i in all groups;</p><p>B i j , is a measure of fidelity (based on incidence of species i);</p><p>N s i t e s   i j , is the number of sites in the group j where species i is present;</p><p>N s i t e s   j ,is the total number of sites in that group.</p><p>In the case of the present study, there were two groups constituted of the two Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018). The differences in woody species densities between the two AAC were tested using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Finally, the specificity of the sub-plots and/or AAC in terms of species exclusively present in each sub-plot and AAC was determined by reporting these “exclusive” species to the total number of species recorded in the sub-plot and/or AAC (% Sexcl). In terms of specific diversity, we first calculated the observed specific richness noted Sobs. But, as Sobs is very dependent on sampling effort and is considered an unreliable estimator of the total species richness [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref35">35</xref>] , we then calculated the estimated species richness using two most relevant estimators: Chao2, Schao2 (based on incidence) and Jackknife1, Sjack1 (based on abundance) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref39">39</xref>] , using the program Estimates 9.1.0 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref40">40</xref>] . These species richness estimators are defined as follows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref42">42</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref43">43</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref44">44</xref>] :</p><p>S C h a o 2 = S o b s + Q i 2 2 Q i (2)</p><p>S J a c k 1 = S o b s + [ Q 1 ( m − 1 ) m ] (3)</p><p>S<sub>obs</sub>: observed species richness;</p><p>Q<sub>1</sub>: number of species detected in a single sample (unique);</p><p>Q<sub>2</sub>: number of species detected in two samples (duplicate);</p><p>m: total number of individuals sampled.</p><p>The rarefaction curves of each AAC were derived from the observed and estimated species richness to assess the representativeness of the sampling effort. To compare the floristic composition of the two AAC, we performed a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on the abundance data of regenerating woody species (12 sub-plots per site). This analysis makes no assumptions about the data and is considered among the appropriate methods for the graphical representation of floristic ordination [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref45">45</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref46">46</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref47">47</xref>] . It was applied in the R environment, with the R package MASS [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref48">48</xref>] . Shannon’s (H') and Pielou’s Equitability (E) indices were respectively used to assess the specific diversity and the equitable distribution of future stems between the two AAC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref49">49</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref50">50</xref>] . To study the variations of the diversity indices between the two AAC, we used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a single classification criterion by combining the qualitative factor (sub-plot) and the quantitative factor (each diversity index). We then realized a non-parametric test of ANOVA commonly called Kruskall-Wallis test. Finally, we performed post-hoc pairwise multiple comparisons between the means for a probability p-value &lt; 0.05.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. The Density and Floristic Composition of Regenerating Woody Species at the Sides Post-Logging Secondary Roads</title><p>We recorded 88 woody species in AAC 2008 and 241 woody species in AAC 2018, with average densities of 2933 stem/ha and 8033 stem/ha, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). There was a very highly significant difference between the mean densities of the two AAC (Kruskal-Wallis test; H = 2.36, p-value &lt; 0.000).</p><p>In the 2008 AAC, woody species belonged to 33 species, whose the most represented are 13 species of Pterocarpus soyauxii Taub. (40%), 11 species of Tetrorchidium didymostemon (Baill.) Pax &amp; K. Hoffm (33%) and 9 species of Macaranga spinosa M&#252;ll. Arg. (27%). However, in the AAC 2018, woody species also belonged to 33 species, whose the most represented were: 99 species of Macaranga spinosa M&#252;ll. Arg. (62%), 30 species of Aoranthe cladantha (K. Schum.) (19%), 20 species of Macaranga barteri M&#252;ll. Arg. (13%) and 10 species of Croton haumaniamus J. L&#233;onard (6%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Regarding indicator species, the 2018 AAC displayed four indicator species: A. cladantha (IndVal = 0.645%; p-value = 0.004), M. barteri (IndVal = 0.50%; p-value = 0.018), M. spinosa (IndVal = 0.917%; p-value = 0.001) and Nauclea diderrichii (IndVal = 0.519%; p-value = 0.017). While the 2008 AAC did not present any indicator species (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>The observed species richness (Sobs) of the AAC 2008 is estimated at 33 woody species, while the specific richness estimators Sjack1 and Schao2 estimate 34 and 37 woody species respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). However, the observed species richness of the AAC 2018 is estimated at 33 woody species, while the Sjack1 and Schao2 estimators display 35 and 37 woody species respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Nonetheless, the Sobs curve does not clearly approach the asymptote, but</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Floristic composition and densities of regenerating woody species of the two annual allowable cuts studied (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018). AD = absolute density, RD = relative density, RF = relative frequency, IVI = species Importance Value Index, Indval = indicator value index and its p-value. Ns = not significant</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Taxon</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Family</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of stems</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >AD (n/ha)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RD (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RF (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >IVI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Indval</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AAC 2008 (33 species)</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 (Guil. &amp; Perr.) Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Mimoso&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aoranthe cladantha (K. Schum.) Somers</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bombax buonopozense P. Beauv.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malvaceae-Sterculio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Canarium schweinfurthii Engl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Burseraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.167</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clausena anisata (Willd.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rutaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cleistanthus caudatus Pax</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Phyllanthaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Discoglypremna caloneura Var. membranac&#233;e Pax</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Duboscia macrocarpa Bocq.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malvaceae-Sterculio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Entandrophragma candollei Harms</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Meliaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Erythrophleum sauveolens Brenan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Caesalpinio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.188</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Funtumia africana (Benth.) Stapf</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apocynaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gilbertiodendron dewevrei (De Wild.) J. L&#233;onard</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Caesalpinio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.062</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lepidobotrys staudtii Engl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lepidobotryaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macaranga barteri M&#252;ll. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macaranga spinosa M&#252;ll. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >300</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Margaritaria discoidea (Baill.) Webster</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Phyllanthaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrianthus arboreus P. Beauv.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urticaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nauclea diderrichii (De. Wild. &amp; T. Durand) Merr.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.009</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oncoba welwitschii Oliv.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Achacariaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pauridiantha dewevrei (De Wild. &amp; T. Durand) Bremek.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentaclethra macrophylla Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Mimoso&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Petersianthus macrocarpus (P. Beauv.) Liben</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lecythidaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Psydrax subcordata DC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pterocarpus soyauxii Taub.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Fabo&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >433.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.406</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ricinodendron heudelotii (Baill.) Pierre ex Heckel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rinorea oblongifolia (CH Wright) Marquand ex Chipp</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Violaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strombosia grandifolia hoot. F.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Olacaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tetrapleura tetraptera (Schumach. &amp; Thonn.) Taub.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Mimoso&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tetrorchidium didymostemon (Baill.) Pax &amp; K. Hoffm.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >366.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.338</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thomandersia hensii De Wild.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thomandersiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.167</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Treculia africana Decne. Var. africain</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.083</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trema orientalis (L.) Blume</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cannabaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >133.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zanthoxylum heitzii (Aubr&#233;v. &amp;. Pellegr.) P. G. Waterman</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rutaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.028</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2933.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</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" >AAC 2018 (33 species)</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 adiauthifolia (Schumach.) W. Wight</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Mimoso&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia glaberrima (Schumach. &amp; Thonn.) Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Caesalpinio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Alstonia boonei De Wild.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apocynaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Antrocaryon klaineanum Pierre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anacardiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aoranthe cladantha (K. Schum.) Somers</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.004</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Barteria fistulosa M&#226;t.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Passifloraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Blighia welwitschii (Hiern) Radlk.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sapindaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bombax buonopozense P. Beauv.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malvaceae-Sterculio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malvaceae-Bombaco&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cleistopholis patens (Benth.) Engl. &amp; Diels</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cola lateritia K. Schum.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malvaceae-Sterculio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Croton haumaniamus J. L&#233;onard</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >333.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Discoglypremna caloneura Var. membranac&#233;e Pax</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Erythrophleum sauveolens Brenan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Caesalpinio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ficus wildemaniana Warb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gilbertiodendron dewevrei (De Wild.) J. L&#233;onard</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Caesalpinio&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leptactina involucrata Hook. F.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lophira alata Banks ex CF Gaertn.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ochnaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macaranga barteri M&#252;ll. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >666.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.018</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macaranga spinosa M&#252;ll. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3300</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Musanga cecropio&#239;des R. Br. ex Tedlie</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urticaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >366.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nauclea diderrichii (De. Wild. &amp; T. Durand) Merr.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >266.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.017</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Oncoba welwitschii Oliv.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Achacariaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >300</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pauridiantha dewevrei (De Wild. &amp; T. Durand) Bremek.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Petersianthus macrocarpus (P. Beauv.) Liben</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lecythidaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pteleopsis hylodendron Mildbr.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combretaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pterocarpus soyauxii Taub.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fabaceae-Fabo&#239;deae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terminalia superba Engl. &amp; Diels.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Combretaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tetrorchidium didymostemon (Baill.) Pax &amp; K. Hoffm.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Euphorbiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trema orientalis (L.) Blume</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cannabaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Xylopia aethiopica (Dunal) A. Rich.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Xylopia hypolampa Mildbr.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zanthoxylum heitzii (Aubr&#233;v. &amp;. Pellegr.) P. G. Waterman</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rutaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >241</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8033.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</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><p>increases progressively with the increase of number of samples. Thus, the sampling effort is relatively satisfying in the two CAA studies (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p><p>Nonetheless, the floristic composition illustrated by the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) demonstrates that there is a spatial structuring of the sub-plots confirming that the regenerating woody species of the two AAC are globally different (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. The Specific Richness and the Intra and Inter Biological Diversity Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) of the Regenerating Woody Species</title><p>The species richness observed (Sobs) at the level of each station demonstrates that the AAC 2018 presents relatively high values compared to those of the AAC 2008 which seem constant in the first two stations and, higher in the last station (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The SJack1 and SChao2 estimators respectively estimate 13 and 11 species for station 1 (S1), 12 and 11 species for station 2 (S2), and finally, 25 and 21 species for station 3 (S3). However, 15 to 20 observed species were recorded in the 2018 AAC. The SJack1 and SChao2 estimators estimate 28 and 26 species for station 1 (S1), 20 and 18 species for station 2 (S2) and finally 16 and 15 species for station 3 (S3) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Moreover, 54.55 and 70% of exclusive species were recorded for the 2008 AAC. While the AAC 2018 displays 38.89 and 45% of exclusive species (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Also, the average densities illustrated in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> obviously show that AAC 2018 has a relatively higher average density with 520 &#177; 846.17 stem/ha, 457.89 &#177; 712.83 stem/ha and 422.22 &#177; 872.83 stem/ha, respectively for the station 3 (S3), station 1 (S1) and station 2 (S2). However, the 2008 AAC presents relatively low densities compared to those of the 2008 AAC with 281.82 &#177; 177.87 stem/ha, 236.36 &#177; 250.09 stem/ha and 155 &#177; 88.70 stem/ha, respectively for stations 1, 2 and 3 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Nonetheless, the values of the Shannon index vary from 2.03 to 2.83 and from 1.85 to 2.32, respectively in the stations of the two Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>On the other side, those of the Equitability of Pi&#233;lou vary from 0.85 to 0.96 and from 0.67 to 0.77, respectively in the stations of the two AAC (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Overall, the Shannon index and the Pi&#233;lou Equitability values are relatively higher in the 2008 AAC stations than in those of 2018 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Nevertheless, the analysis of the variations on the indices of diversity between stations sampled by the Kruskall-Wallis test allowed to demonstrate that there are no significant differences between the stations of each Annual Allowable Cut studied (p-value &gt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Characteristics of the regenerating sub-plots for the three stations (three secondary post-logging roads) of the two Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018). Sobs = species richness observed; Schao2 = specific richness estimated according to the approach Chao2; Sjack1 = specific richness estimated according to the approach Jackknife 1, Sexclu (%) = percentage of exclusive woody species in each station; Density = Mean (&#177;SD) of number of woody species per unit area</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Stations</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >AAC 2008</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >AAC 2018</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sobs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sexclu (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Schao2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sjack1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Average density (stem/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sobs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sexclu (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Schao2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sjack1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Average density (stem/ha)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >281.82 &#177; 177.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >457.89 &#177; 712.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >236.36 &#177; 250.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >422.22 &#177; 872.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >155 &#177; 88.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >520 &#177; 846.17</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Biological diversity of the regenerating sub-plots for the three stations (three post-logging secondary roads) of the two Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >AAC 2008</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >AAC 2018</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abundance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shannon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Equitability</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Abundance</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shannon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Equitability</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.67</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >S3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. The Density and Floristic Composition of Regenerating Woody Species at the Edges Post-Logging Secondary Roads Differ Significantly</title><p>The results of this study demonstrated average densities of 2933 stem/ha and 8033 stem/ha, respectively for the 2008 Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008) and the 2018 Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2018). The difference between mean densities was very highly significant (p-value = 0.000). This difference could be explained on the one hand, by the fact that the AAC 2008 seems older than the AAC 2018. Indeed, when a forest tends towards maturity, the canopy is relatively closed, which tends to impede the growth and development of other woody species (light-demanding species). On the other hand, as part of the silvigenetic cycle described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref51">51</xref>] , when an environment tends towards maturity, we tend to observe natural mortality of short-lived pioneer species such as Musanga cecropioides, Macaranga spp…, to leave the place to the long-lived pioneer species such as Nauclea diderrichii, Erythrophleum suaveolens [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref52">52</xref>] . Nonetheless, Musanga cecropioides and Macaranga spp are fast-growing species growing on relatively rich clay soils. These species are generally sensitive to drought. Their abundance in a given area marks their resilience to forest anthropogenic disturbances [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref32">32</xref>] . This very highly significant difference in the average densities tends to confirm the very distinct spatial distribution of regenerating sub-plots by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) observed between the individuals inventoried within the two Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008 and AAC 2018). Our results widely exceed the works of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref52">52</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref53">53</xref>] , which demonstrates an average density of 34 stem/ha in Gabon. Let us recall that the authors inventoried from a threshold of 10 cm in diameter. Such a difference could be due to the variety of methodologies adopted. Our results are also superior to the works of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref53">53</xref>] who demonstrated average densities of 2500 stem/ha and 2200 stem/ha, respectively in sub-plot 1 and sub-plot 2 in Cameroon.</p><p>Nonetheless, this study revealed four indicator species (Aorenthe cladantha, Macaranga barteri, Macaranga spinosa, Nauclea diderrichii) in the AAC 2018, which could be explained by the fact that the recently exploited forest harbors short-lived pioneer species that tend to initiate natural regeneration after disturbance [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref54">54</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref55">55</xref>] . The presence of the species N. diderrichii, which is a long-lived pioneer species would be explained by the fact that it produces fruits containing a large quantity of dormant seeds of small sizes susceptible to remain viable in the soil bank for several years [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref55">55</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref56">56</xref>] . However, the AAC 2008 did not present any indicator species. This could be explained by the fact that this latter has not yet reached the mature stage and would be possibly in a process of recolonization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref56">56</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref57">57</xref>] . Also, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref58">58</xref>] tend to confirm that in the tropical forest of Africa, zoochory is the most widespread mode of dissemination with approximately 80% to 90%. In the case of the present study, this could be justified by the fact that abandoned secondary roads would be much more attractive to the animals due to abundance of herbs as food sources, as has been demonstrated for gorillas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref59">59</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref60">60</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref61">61</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref62">62</xref>] . Recently, in central Africa, the creation of roads and skid trails by logging operations leads to changes in the structure of forest landscapes that could influence wildlife movements. For example, significantly higher the relative abundance indices (RAI) on secondary roads were observed for buffalos (Syncerus caffer), forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis), and bongos (Tragelaphus eurycerus) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref63">63</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. The Specific Richness and the Intra and Inter Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) Biological Diversity of Regenerating Woody Species Vary According to the Age of the Post-Logging Secondary Roads</title><p>This study demonstrated that the diversity of regenerating species is relatively high with 329 woody species belonging to 51 species. These results also show a very high diversity of woody species in secondary or heavily disturbed areas. Our results confirm the assumptions of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref62">62</xref>] , who confirmed that recently disturbed areas harbor a high diversity of regenerating woody species. On the other side, our results tend to confirm the works of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref16">16</xref>] who demonstrated 321 ligneous species belonging to 26 species. Such a difference could be due to the variety of methodologies adopted insofar as the latter worked on the regeneration of species at the edges of secondary roads through remote sensing, whereas in the case of the present study, we directly confronted the reality of the ground.</p><p>Regarding the diversity indices, the values of the Shannon index varied from 2.03 to 2.83 and from 1.85 to 2.32 respectively in the 2008 and 2018 AAC stations. On the other side, those of the Equitability of Pielou vary from 0.85 to 0.96 and from 0.67 to 0.77, respectively in the 2008 and 2018 AAC stations. This biological diversity demonstrates that the values of the Shannon and Pi&#233;lou Equitability indices are relatively very high in the 2008 AAC compared to the 2018 AAC. This could imply that the AAC 2008 presents a more diversified and equitable species richness than that of AAC 2018. Overall, the two AAC presents a diversified and equitable specific richness. Our results converge with the works of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126587-ref64">64</xref>] which stipulate that when the equitability is high, the dispersion of the elements of biodiversity would be equitable. Finally, the correlation between the age of the road and the indices of diversity showed that there is no link between the ages of secondary roads post-logging and the indices of diversity (p-value &gt; 0.005).</p><p>Nonetheless, the Shannon index was negatively correlated with the age of the road (R = −0.488), which could mean that the older the road, the less woody species would be diversified. The pielou equitability index was positively correlated with the age of the road (R = 0.683), which tends to confirm that the older the road, the more species are fairly distributed in the environment. This implies that post-logging secondary roads present a significant proportion of woody species.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>This study consisted to assess the natural regeneration potential of regenerating woody species at the edges of post-logging secondary roads. The results highlighted the interest that woody species could play in natural regeneration at the edges of post-logging secondary roads. We have demonstrated that the floristic composition of woody species at the edges of post-logging secondary roads depends on the seniority of the roads. Overall, the results of this study reveal that: 1) the density of regenerating woody species was very high in the 2018 Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2018) compared to the 2008 Annual Allowable Cut (AAC 2008); 2) the woody species of Annual Allowable Cut 2008 were largely dominated by species such as Pterocarpus soyauxii, Tetrorchidium didymostemon which are secondary forest species that can be found also in mature forests; 3) short-lived and fast-growing pioneer species such as Musanga cecropio&#239;des, Macaranga spp. were much more abundant in the 2018 Annual Allowable Cut and 4) commercial tree species were not well represented among the woody species inventoried in the two AAC. Consequently, the reforestation of commercial species in the post-logging Annual Allowable Cut is necessary to sustainably manage these forests devoted to intensive timber exploitation. Nonetheless, some research options on the potential of natural regeneration stay misknown and/or little explored. This type of study could also be carried out in felling gaps to improve knowledge on the quantity and quality of regenerating woody species. This component will allow us to compare the natural regeneration potential in the felling gaps compared to post-logging secondary roads.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors thank Marien Ngouabi University (Republic of the Congo), the DynAfFor project (Dynamique des For&#234;ts d’Afrique Centrale) leaded by CIRAD, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech and Nature+, as well as the logging company OLAM/Agri for their financial, scientific and technical support, and for their aid with fieldwork. Finally, we would like to thank Bijoux Toumba-Paka, Christian Moussoumbou, Julienne Bonazaba, Jean-Louis Doucet, Baptiste Leborgne, Vincent Istace, Eric Forni, Mercier Mayinga, Isaac Dzombo, Ati N’gouabi and Patricia Kitsoukou for their various contributions and their advice.</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>Douh, C., Malonga, L.M., N’zala, D., Mabengo, B.C., Moussoumbou, C., Ndza&#239;, S.F. and Koubouana, F. (2023) Regeneration Potential of Woody Species at the Side of Secondary Roads Post-Logging of Loundoungou-Toukoulaka Forest Management Unit, Republic of the Congo. Natural Resources, 14, 102-120. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2023.147008</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.126587-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mayaux, P., Pekel, J.-F., Desclée, B., Donnay, F., Lupi, A., Achard, F., Clerici, M., Bodart, C., Brink, A., Nasi, R. and Belward, A. (2013) State and Evolution of the African Rainforests between 1990 and 2010. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, Article ID: 20120300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0300</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Biwolé, A.B., Ouédraogo, D.-Y., Betti, J.L., Picard, N., Rossi, V., Delion, S., Lagoute, P., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Lejeune, P. and Doucet, J.-L. (2019) Dynamique des populations d’azobé, Lophira alata Banks ex C. F. Gaertn., et implications pour sa gestion durable au Cameroun. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques, 342, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2019.342.a31670</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gillet, J.-F. (2013) Les forêts à Marantaceae au sein de la mosa&amp;#239;que forestière du nord de la République du Congo: Origines et modalités de gestion. Université de Liège—Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Gembloux, 194 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Wasseige, C., Flynn, J., Louppe, D., Hiol Hiol, F. and Mayaux, P. (2014) Les Forêts du Bassin du Congo—Etat des Forêts 2013. Weyrich, Neufchateau, 328 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchatchou, B., Sonwa, D.J., Ifo, S. and Tiani, A.M. (2015) Déforestation et dégradation des forêts dans le Bassin du Congo: état des lieux, causes actuelles et perspectives. Papier occasionnel 120. CIFOR, Bogor.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nnah Ndobe, S. and Mantzel, K. (2014) Déforestation, REDD et le Parc national Takamanda au Cameroun—Une étude de cas. Forest People’s Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, 47 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kleinschroth, F. and Healey, J. (2017) Impacts of Logging Roads on Tropical Forests. Biotropica, 49, 620-635. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12462</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Estève, J. (2016) [Destruction of Forest Areas as a Result of Logging and Harvesting in African or American Dense Tropical Rainforests]. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques, 328, 5-11. https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2016.328.a31298</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tesfaye, G., Teketay, D., Fetene, M. and Beck, E. (2010) Regeneration of Seven Indigenous Tree Species in Dry Afromontane Forest, Southern Ethiopia. Flora, 205, 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2008.12.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Da&amp;#239;nou, K., Bauduin, A., Bourland, N., Gillet, J.F., Fétéké, F. and Doucet, J.-L. (2011) Soil Seed Bank Characteristics in Cameroonian Rainforests and Implications for Post-Logging Forest Recovery. Ecological Engineering, 37, 1499-1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.05.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Douh, C., Da&amp;#239;nou, K., Loumeto, J.J., Fayolle, A. and Doucet, J.-L. (2014) Explorer la banque de graines du sol pour mieux comprendre la dynamique de régénération des forêts tropicales africaines (synthèse bibliographique). Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 18, 558-565.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Douh, C., Da&amp;#239;nou, K., Loumeto, J.J., Moutsambote, J.-M., Fayolle, A., Tosso, F., Forni, E., Gourlet-Fleury, S. and Doucet, J.-L. (2018) Soil Seed Bank Characteristics in Two Central African Forest Types and Implications for Forest Restoration. Forest Ecology and Management, 409, 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.12.012</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zebaze, D., Fayolle, A., Da&amp;#239;nou, K., Libalah, M., Droissart, V., Sonké, B. and Doucet, J.-L. (2022) Land Use Has Little Influence on the Soil Seed Bank in a Central African Moist Forest. Biotropica, 54, 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.13032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Carrière, S.M., André, M., Letourmy, P., Olivier, I. and Mckey, D.B. (2002) Seed Rain Beneath Remnant Trees in a Slash-and-Burn Agricultural System in Southern Cameroon. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 18, 353-374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467402002250</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kleinschroth, F., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Sist, P., Mortier, F. and Healey, J.R. (2015) Legacy of Logging Roads in the Congo Basin: How Persistent Are the Scars in Forest Cover? Ecosphere, 6, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00488.1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kleinschroth, F. (2016) Roads in the Rainforests: Legacy of Selective Logging in Central Africa. Bangor University, Bangor, 154 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yang, L., Lv, X., Yang, X., Zhang, G. and Li, D. (2022) The Triggering Effect of Gaps on Seedling Germination of the Soil Seed Bank in Tropical Rain Forests, Hainan Island, South China. Forests, 13, Article No. 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101653</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Capers, R.S., Chazdon, R.L., Brenes, A.R. and Alvarado, B.V. (2005) Successional Dynmaics of Woody Seedling Communities in Wet Tropical Secondary Forests. Journal of Ecology, 93, 1071-1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01050.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gourlet-Fleury, S., Beina, D., Fayolle, A., Ouédraogo, D.Y., Mortier, F., Bénédet, F., Closset-Kopp, D. and Decocq, G. (2013) Silvicultural Disturbance Has Little Impact on Tree Species Diversity in a Central African Moist Forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 304, 322-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.05.021</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bégué</surname><given-names> L. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1967</year>)<article-title>Chronique phytogéographique. Les forêts du nord de la République du Congo (Brazzaville)</article-title><source> Bois et Forêts des Tropiques</source><volume> 111</volume>,<fpage> 63</fpage>-<lpage>76</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gond, V., Fayolle, A., Pennec, A., Cornu, G., Mayaux, P., Camberlain, P., Doumenge, C., Fauvet, N. and Gourlet-Fleury, S. (2013) Vegetation Structure and Greenness in Central Africa from Modis Multi-Temporal Data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, Article ID: 20120309. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0309</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Freycon, V. (2014) Caractérisation des sols de Loundoungou et de Mokabi (Congo). Rapport de mission DynAfFor, 2 au 24 avril 2014. CIRAD, Montpelier.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fayolle, A., Picard, N., Doucet, J.-L., Swaine, M., Bayol, N., Bénédet, F. and GourletFleury, S. (2014) A New Insight in the Structure, Composition and Functioning of Central African Moist Forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 329, 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.06.014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Oslisly, R., White, L., Bentaleb, I., Favier, C., Fontugne, M., Gillet, J.-F. and Sebag, D. (2013) Climatic and Cultural Changes in the West Congo Basin Forests over the Past 5000 Years. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, Article ID: 20120304. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0304</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Morin-Rivat, J., Fayolle, A., Gillet, J.-F., Bourland, N., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Oslisly, R., Bremond, L., Bentaleb, I., Beeckman, H. and Doucet, J.-L. (2014) New Evidence of Human Activities during the Holocene in the Lowland Forests of the Northern Congo Basin. Radiocarbon, 56, 209-220. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.16485</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Dallmeier, F., Kabel, M. and Rice, R. (1992) Methods for Long-Term Biodiversity Inventory Plots in Protected Tropical Forest. In: Dallmeier, F., Ed., Long-Term Monitoring of Biological Diversity in Tropical Forest Areas: Methods for Establishment and Inventory of Permanent Plots, MAB Digest 11, UNESCO, Paris, 11-46.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Picard, N. and Gourlet-Fleury, S. (2008) Manuel de référence pour l’installation de dispositifs permanents en forêt de production dans le Bassin du Congo. COMIFAC, Yaoundé.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Meunier, Q., Moumbogou, C. and Doucet, J.-L. (2015) Les Arbres Utiles du Gabon. Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Borges, K.H. and Engel, V.L. (1993) Influência de fragmentos de vegeta&amp;#231;aonativa na composi&amp;#231;ao do banco de sementes de povoamentos implantados de eucaliptos. In: Proceedings of the Brazilian Forest Congress, Vol. 7, SBS/SBEF, Sao Paulo, 434-437.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Butler, B. and Chazdon, R.L. (1998) Species Richness, Spatial Variation, and Abundance of the Soil Seed Bank of a Secondary Tropical Rain Forest. Biotropica, 30, 214-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.1998.tb00056.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martins, A.M. and Engel, V.L. (2007) Soil Seed Banks in Tropical Forest Fragments with Different Disturbance Histories in Southeastern Brazil. Ecological Engineering, 31, 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.05.008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Douh, C., Mabengo, B.C., Nzila, J.D., Mbouchi Malonga, L., Nsongola, G., Loumeto, J.J., Mankessi, F., Ndza&amp;#239;, S.F. and Koubouana, F. (2023) Soil Seed Bank Characteristics in Congolese Rainforests and Implications for Post-Logging Plots Reforestation. Open Journal of Forestry, 13, 294-314. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojf.2023.133018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roberts, D.W. (2019) Labdsv: Ordination and Multivariate Analysis for Ecology. R Package Version 2.0-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=labdsv</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dufrêne, M. and Legendre, P. (1997) Species Assemblages and Indicator Species: The Need for a Flexible Asymmetrical Approach. Ecological Monographs, 67, 345-366. https://doi.org/10.2307/2963459</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walther, P., Resch, K.J., Rudolph, T., Schenck, E., Weinfurter, H., Vedral, V., Aspelmeyer, M. and Zeilinger, A. (2005) Experimental One-Way Quantum Computing. Nature, 434, 169-176. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03347</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walther, B.A. and Morand, S. (1998) Comparative Performance of Species Richness Estimation Methods. Parasitology, 116, 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182097002230</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walther, B.A. and Martin, J.L. (2001) Species Richness Estimation of Bird Communities: How to Control for Sampling Effort? Ibis, 143, 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2001.tb04942.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chiarucci, A., Enright, N.J., Perry, G.L.W., Miller, B.P. and Lamont, B.B. (2003) Performance of nonparametric Species Richness Estimators in a High Diversity Plant Community. Diversity and Distributions, 9, 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2003.00027.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dove, A.D.M. and Cribb, T.H. (2006) Species Accumulation Curves and Their Applications in Parasite Ecology. Trends in Parasitology, 22, 568-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2006.09.008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Colwell, R.K. (2013) EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples. Version 9.1.0. User’s Guide and Application.http://purl.oclc.org/estimates</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Chao</surname><given-names> A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1984</year>)<article-title>Non-Parametric Estimation of the Number of Classes in a Population</article-title><source> Scandinavian Journal of Statistics</source><volume> 11</volume>,<fpage> 265</fpage>-<lpage>270</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Chao, A. (2005) Species Richness Estimation. In: Balakrishnan, N., Read, C.B., Vidakovic, B., Eds., Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Wiley, New York, 7907-7916.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chao, A., Li, P.C., Agatha, S. and Foissner, W. (2006) A Statistical Approach to Estimate Soil Ciliate Diversity and Distribution Based on Data from Five Continents. Oikos, 114, 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14814.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Heltshe, J.F. and Forrester, N.E. (1983) Estimation Species Richness Using the Jackknife Procedure. Biometrics, 39, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530802</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Faith, D.P., Minchin, P.R. and Belbin, L. (1987) Compositional Dissimilarity as a Robust Measure of Ecological Distance. Vegetatio, 69, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00038687</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Clarke, K.R. (1993) Non-Parametric Multivariate Analyses of Changes in Community Structure. Australian Journal of Ecology, 18, 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Glèlè, K.R., Salako, V.K., Padonou, E.A. and Lykke, A.M. (2016) Méthodes statistiques multivariées utilisées en écologie. Annales des Sciences Agronomiques, 20, 139-157.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ripley, B., Venables, B., Bates, D.M., Hornik, K., Gebhardt, A. and Firth, D. (2021) Support Functions and Datasets for Venables and Ripley’s MASS. Package ‘MASS’. https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/MASS/MASS.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cordonnier, T., Dreyfus, P. and Trouvé, R. (2012) Quelles dimensions et quels indices d’hétérogénéité privilégier pour l’expérimentation dans les peuplements forestiers mélangés ou irréguliers? Revue Forestière Fran&amp;#231;aise, 64, 773-788. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/51115</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Djego, J., Gibigaye, M., Ente, B. and Sinsin, B. (2012) Analyses écologique et structurale de la forêt communautaire de Kaodji au Bénin. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 6, 705-711. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v6i2.14</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hallé, F., Oldeman, R.A.A. and Tomlinson, P.B. (1978) Tropical Trees and Forests: An Architectural Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 441 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81190-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Van Hoef, Y. (2019) Installation d’un dispositif permanent de suivi de la dynamique forestière au Gabon. Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Université de Liège, Gembloux, 129 p. http://hdl.handle.net/2268.2/7755</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngueguim, R.J., Zapfack, L., Emmanuel Youmbi, E., Riera, B., Onana, J., Foahom, B., Judith, G. and Makombu, G.J. (2010) Diversité floristique sous canopée en plantation forestière de Mangombe-Edea (Cameroun). Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 14, 167-176.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hopkins, L.D. (1977) Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 43, 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367708977903</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Douh, C., Makouanzi Ekomono, C.G., Bouya, A.H. and Koubouana, F. (2022) Determinants of the Seeds Germination of Mukulungu-Autranella congolensis (De Wild.) A.Chev. in Nursery. Revue Africaine d’Environnement et d’Agriculture, 5, 63-71.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Douh, C., Makouanzi Ekomono, C.G., Kessimo, R.G. and Koubouana, F. (2022) Nursery Germination Trial of Tali Seeds, Erythrophleum suaveolens (Guill. &amp; Perr.) Brenan. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 16, 2611-2620. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v16i6.13</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Doucet, J.-L. (2003) L’alliance délicate de la gestion forestière et de la biodiversité dans les forêts du centre du Gabon. Faculté Universitaire des Sciences Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux, 323 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Evrard, Q., Haurez, B. and Doucet, J.-L. (2017) Le r&amp;#244;le des rongeurs dans la dispersion des diaspores en milieu forestier (synthèse bibliographique). Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 21, 66-79. https://doi.org/10.25518/1780-4507.13448</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matthews, A. and Matthews, A. (2004) Survey of Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in Southwestern Cameroon. Primates, 45, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-003-0058-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Petre, C.A., Tagg, N., Haurez, B., Beudels-Jamar, R., Huynen, M.-C. and Doucet, J.-L. (2013) Role of the Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) in Seed Dispersal in Tropical Forests and Implications of Its Decline. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, 17, 517-526.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Haurez, B., Petre, C. and Doucet, J. (2013) Impacts of Logging and Hunting on Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) Populations and Consequences for Forest Regeneration. A Review. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, 17, 364-372.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ambombo Onguene, E.M., Ngodo Melingui, J.B., Pial, A.C., Mbarga Bindzi, A. and Mossebo, D.C. (2018) Dynamique de la régénération naturelle des essences commerciales sur les routes secondaires de différents ages de l’UFA 09-003 (Djoum, Cameroun). International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 12, 341-352. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v12i1.27</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Scalbert, M., Stiernon, Q., Franceschini, S., Vermeulen, C., Brostaux, Y., Ngwet, R. and Doucet, J.-L. (2023) Not All Roads Are Barriers: Large Mammals Use Logging Roads in a Timber Concession of South-Eastern Cameroon. Forest Ecology and Management, 541, Article ID: 120910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.120910</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126587-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rahman, M.D.R., Rahman, M.M., Chowdhury, M.A. and Akhter, J. (2018) Tree Species Diversity and Structural Composition: The Case of Durgapur Hill Forest, Netrokona, Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Forestry, 3, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.13057/asianjfor/r030102</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>