<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2024.144019</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-132590</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>
 
 
  Floristic Diversity, Stand Structure and Plant Life Traits in the Forest-Savanna Mosaic at Ndjole (Centre Cameroon)
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Djeuguen</surname><given-names>Vanessa Tchaleu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Solefack</surname><given-names>Marie Caroline Momo</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>Mateso</surname><given-names>Aim&amp;#233; Kambale</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ndondjeu</surname><given-names>Charles Tafen</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yanick</surname><given-names>Borel Kamga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Victor</surname><given-names>Fran&amp;#231;ois Nguetsop</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Research Unit of Applied Botany (URBOA), Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Dschang, Dschang, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>11</day><month>04</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>309</fpage><lpage>330</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>8,</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2024</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2024</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>23,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2024</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>
 
 
  With the aim of assessing floristic diversity, stand structure and vegetation ecology, the present work was carried out in the savanna mosaic forest of the locality of Ndjole (Centre Cameroon). A total of 30 floristic plots of 40 m &amp;#215; 40 m (1600 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) were delineated in the different ecosystems (forest, forest-savanna contact zone and the savanna). Within each plot, all individuals with a diameter at breast height &amp;#8805; 10 cm at 1.30 m were taken into account. ANOVA was used to compare the means of the diversity indices of the different ecosystems, and the DUNCAN test at 5% significance level (XLSTAT 2016) to separate these means. A total of 85 species belonging to 67 genera and 33 families were recorded. That is, 68 species in semi-caducifolia forest, 45 in forest-savanna contact zone and 18 in savanna. Urticaceae, Combretaceae, Apocynaceae, Myristicaceae and Euphorbiaceae are the most diverse families in the forest. On the other hand, in contact zones, the Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Annonaceae and Moraceae families are the most diversified, while in the savannas, the Combretaceae, Fabaceae and Annonaceae families are the most diversified. Shannon&amp;#8217;s diversity index values (1.7 to 2.37 bits) reflect low specific diversity; Pi&amp;#233;lou&amp;#8217;s equitability (0.86 to 0.9) shows good distribution of individuals within species. The diametric structure of woody species shows an inverted &amp;#8220;J&amp;#8221; shape in all plant communities. This indicates a high regeneration potential characterized by a greater number of small trees than large trees. Mesophanerophytes and megaphanerophytes are dominant in forests and forest-savanna contact zones, and microphanerophytes in the savannas. Endozoochory is the main mode of diaspore dissemination. As regards the distribution of phytogeographical types, it shows the overall dominance of Guineo-Congolese species in all plant communities. Our study provides detailed data on forest-savanna floristic and plant life traits in the mosaic and recommends further studies on the impact of environmental parameter variations on the forest encroachment into savanna.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Mosaic</kwd><kwd> Communities</kwd><kwd> Dissemination</kwd><kwd> Regeneration</kwd><kwd> Diversity</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>African tropical rainforests are terrestrial ecosystems with one of the highest and most complex biological diversities on the planet [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref1">1</xref>] . It is the second largest block of dense rainforest after Amazonia, and its Central African forests extend over six countries: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. They play an important global role in preserving biodiversity and storing carbon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref2">2</xref>] . Its forests account for around 70 percent of the African continent’s forest cover, nearly half of which are dense lowland forests [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref3">3</xref>] . Cameroon’s forests belong to the vast Central African forest massif and represent around 11% of this massif [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>Cameroon’s forest ecosystems cover around 46.27% or 22.5 million ha of the national territory [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref5">5</xref>] . Cameroon is one of the Central African countries with high forest potential, with 22 million ha of dense rainforest. Forest-savanna mosaics rank among the country’s most important forest categories, accounting for 9.4% of Cameroon’s forest cover with an area of around 2,537,718 hectares [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref6">6</xref>] .</p><p>Ecotones are transition zones between ecological communities, ecosystems or eco-logical regions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref7">7</xref>] . Whatever the scale, transition zones generally cover vulnerable ecosystems that are relevant to the flow of organisms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref8">8</xref>] , with high biodiversity and the presence of rare species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref9">9</xref>] . Transitions between forest and savanna show a wide variety of vegetation types, with different characteristics, floristic composition and ecosystem functions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref10">10</xref>] . Throughout the tropical region, forest and savanna largely coexist as a mosaic at the landscape scale [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref11">11</xref>] . These two vegetation types differ not only in terms of tree density and vegetation structure, but also in species composition, with few species present in both ecosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref12">12</xref>] . Its rich biodiversity is an important natural resource for food, medicine, timber and firewood for local inhabitants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>Knowledge on floristic diversity of an area can reflect the total resources and conservation status which have a key role for making conservation strategies and policies. Among the various ecological attributes of plant communities, floristic composition and ecological diversity are the most important ones that are influenced by a variety of biotic and abiotic factors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>In the Ndjole ecological zone, observations have shown that dense semi-caducifolia forest has been continuously colonizing periforest savannas for several decades, and that this transgression movement is certainly not recent [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref15">15</xref>] . Transition zones often receive little attention in biodiversity conservation strategies, although they can generate adaptive responses to environmental change [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref16">16</xref>] . The forest-savanna mosaic provides local communities with arable land, wild fruits and honey, bushmeat, firewood, building materials, water and grazing areas, among other regulatory and cultural ecosystem services [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref17">17</xref>] .</p><p>Unfortunately, these forest-savanna mosaics have been severely fragmented, degraded and modified by human activities, such as slash-and-burn agriculture, unsustainable exploitation of wild resources and urbanization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref19">19</xref>] . Very few studies have been conducted on the characterization of forest-savanna mosaics in Cameroon, so it is therefore urgent to provide a good knowledge of the composition of the woody flora and other parameters. The goal is to highlight the floristic diversity, structure and ecology of vegetation in the forest-savanna transition zones in the locality of Ndjole.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Site</title><p>The study took place in the locality of Ndjole, commune of Yoko, located in the Mbam et Kim Division, Centre Region Cameroon, between latitude 5˚35'33'' North and longitude 12˚18'57'' East (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). The Yoko commune has a Guinean equatorial climate, with abundant rainfall spread over almost the whole year. The average annual rainfall is 1550 mm. The climate is marked by two dry seasons and two rainy seasons [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref20">20</xref>] .</p><p>Soils are generally ferralitic, reddish in the savanna zones and blackish in forest zones. They are clayey, lateritic and clayey-sandy in places. Soil degradation is encouraged by erosion. The relief is dominated by the high rocky mountain range to the west of Yoko commune (Mont Fouiy), with an average altitude of around 1060 m, and the vast plains found in the savanna zones. These are low-lying areas, valleys located downstream of forests and steep hills that break up the monotony of the plains [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref21">21</xref>] . The hydrographic network is very dense. It is made up of numerous small, medium and large rivers. Flora and vegetation are characterized by savanna (tree savanna, shrub savanna, herbaceous savanna) and forest (dense forest and gallery forest). Forest vegetation is rich in various types of trees and non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Non-timber forest products include Djansang, Okok, wild mango and cola. Savanna vegetation consists of small trees, fodder species and aquatic forage found in lowlands and along watercourses. Forests and the savannas are exploited by the population for agriculture [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref22">22</xref>] . The fauna is diverse, comprising small animals, large animals, birds and reptiles. Agriculture is the main source of income for rural populations in the Yoko district. Agricultural practices are slash-and-burn in forest zones and bush fires in the savanna zones. Animal husbandry is very little developed, despite the fact that it is practiced by both men and women. Extensive livestock farming is characterized by small herds and roaming animals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref22">22</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Methodology</title><p>Phytosociological surveys were carried out in three plant communities: forests, forest-savanna contact zones and the savannas. Quadrats of 40 m &#215; 40 m, i.e. 1600 m<sup>2</sup>, were installed at random in the different sites chosen, striving to integrate the different facies of the plant communities studied, various natural and anthropogenic conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref14">14</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref23">23</xref>] . Thus, 30 quadrats were established in the Ndjole locality, representing a total of 48,000 m<sup>2</sup> (4.8 ha). For each tree, the diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥ 10 cm was measured at 1.30 m from the ground or 30 cm above the last trunk deformation using a diametric tape. Species identification was carried out in-situ and ex-situ. Several botanical works were used to identify species in the field, including Useful Trees of Gabon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref24">24</xref>] , Trees of Equatorial Guinea [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref25">25</xref>] and a Collection of plants names in ethnic languages of Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref26">26</xref>] . Unidentified species were collected and compared with samples from the Yaound&#233;-Cameroon National Herbarium for identification. The classification system used was APG III.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Data Processing</title><p>The species composition was described using the following parameters:</p><p>- Frequency, also known as number of occurrences, is the number of times a taxon appears in a survey. It thus gives an idea of the social behavior of this taxon and its distribution in space.</p><p>- Species abundance corresponds to the number of individuals of a given species out of the total number of individuals in the sample. It is also expressed in terms of relative density. Relative density (Dr) is the number of plants of a species (or family) divided by the total number of plants and multiplied by 100.</p><p>- Taxon dominance is assessed by basal area. This takes into account the size of individuals, and highlights the taxa that occupy the most space in the vegetation. The relative dominance of a species is the ratio of its basal area to the total basal area, multiplied by 100.</p><p>- The Species Importance Value Index (IVI) is an indicator of the phytosociological importance of a species, within a particular community. This index was developed by Cottam and Curtis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref27">27</xref>] . It is calculated according to the following formula,</p><p>IVI = relative density + relative frequency + relative dominance.</p><p>Specific diversity of the site was described using the following indices:</p><p>- Shannon diversity index (H') is the most commonly used index in the literature. It expresses diversity by taking into account the number of species and the abundance of individuals within each species. It is expressed in terms of the proportions of each species. H is maximal when all individuals are equally distributed among all species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref28">28</xref>] . The Shannon diversity index increases as diversity increases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref29">29</xref>] .</p><p>H ′ = − ∑ ( n i / N ) log 2 ( n i / N ) ,</p><p>with n<sub>i</sub> = number of species i, N = number of all species; ISH is expressed in bits.</p><p>- Pielou Equitability (EQ) corresponds to the ratio between observed diversity and the maximum possible diversity of the number of species (N). Pielou Equitability varies from 0 to 1. It tends towards 0 when almost all species are concentrated in a single species. It is 1 when all species have the same abundance. A low Equitability represents a high importance of a few dominant species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref30">30</xref>] . Its formula is as follows:</p><p>EQ = ISH / log 2 N .</p><p>- Simpson’s diversity index measures the probability that two randomly selected individuals in the sample belong to the same species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref31">31</xref>] . It measures the way in which individuals are distributed between the species of a community. Its formula is as follows:</p><p>D = 1 − ∑ n i / N</p><p>where n<sub>i</sub> = number of species i, N = total number of species;</p><p>- Sorensen’s index of similarity (K) is used to assess whether two sites to be compared floristically belong to the same plant community or not. For K values &gt; 50%, the two sites compared belong to the same plant community. For those below 50%, we conclude that the two areas compared belong to different plant communities. Sorensen’s coefficient of similarity is:</p><p>K = ( 2 c / ( a + b ) ) &#215; 100 ;</p><p>a = Represents the number of species in plot 1; b = Represents the number of species in ploot 2; c = number of species common to both plots.</p><p>Structural parameters</p><p>This was determined by the distribution of individuals by diameter class, density and basal area in each land-use type. Trees and shrubs were divided into diameter classes of 10 cm amplitude, and distribution histograms were developed to characterize the diametric structure of the vegetation.</p><p> Species density</p><p>The density of a species is the number of individuals of that species per hectare. It is evaluated by the formula N = n/S (with N: density (number of stems/ha), n: number of stems present on the surface considered, S: surface considered (ha).</p><p> Basal area</p><p>The basal area of a tree is the surface area occupied by the stem, measured on the bark at 1.30 m from the ground. It is expressed in m<sup>2</sup>/ha. The basal area of a species is the sum of the basal areas of all the individuals of that species, expressed per hectare. The total basal area is the sum of the basal areas of all the individuals present on the surveyed area.</p><p>Functional spectrum of vegetation</p><p>To characterize vegetation types, observations were made based on characteristics related to biological type, diaspore type, dispersal mode and phytogeographical distribution.</p><p>- The various biological types obtained in the course of this work are defined according to Raunkiaer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref32">32</xref>] classification, adapted to tropical regions by numerous authors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref35">35</xref>] .</p><p>- Diaspore types and their seed dispersal modes were determined in the field by observations on the species and other sources. The diaspore types of species are taken from Senterre [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref36">36</xref>] .</p><p>- The phytogeographical elements of the species in our study area were obtained from information on the distribution of species contained in the various floras and from the work of several authors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref14">14</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref37">37</xref>] .</p><p>ANOVA was used to compare the means of the diversity indices of the different ecosystems and see if there was a significant difference, and the DUNCAN test at the 5% significance level was used to separate these means using XLSTAT Software.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Floristic Composition</title><p>A total of 933 individuals with stem diameter at breast height (DBH) of ≥10 cm representing 85 tree species, 67 genera and 33 families were recorded in all plant communities. Among these families, the Urticaceae family is the most represented in the forest (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(a)). It is followed by the Combretaceae, Apocynaceae, Myristicaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Malvaceae and Anacardiaceae families. On the contact zone, two families (Euphorbiaceae and Fabaceae), i.e. 9.09% of total families, are present in all plots, corresponding to a relative frequency of</p><p>100%. Five families have a frequency ≥ 50%, i.e. present in at least 4 plots (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(b)): Annonaceae, Moraceae, Cannabaceae, Mimosaceae and Rutaceae In the savanna, 11 families were recorded. Of these, the Combretaceae family was present in every plots, corresponding to a relative frequency of 100% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>(c)), followed by Fabaceae, Annonaceae, Rubiaceae, Hypericaceae, Moraceae, Pittosporaceae, Lamiaceae, Bignoniaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Phyllanthaceae.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Floristic Diversity of Different Plant Communities</title><p>The species richness and average diversity index values (Shannon diversity, Simpson diversity and Pielou equitability) of the different ecosystems in the study area are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. This table shows that forests are significatively richer than contact zones and savannas (p ≤ 0.05). The mean value of the Shannon index varies from 1.7 &#177; 0.3; 2.16 &#177; 0.19 to 2.37 &#177; 0.23 for savannas, contact zones and forests respectively. These values show that forest is more di-verse than contact zone and savanna, which is confirmed by Simpson’s index (0.85 &#177; 0.06). As for Pielou’s equitability, it tends towards 1 for all ecosystems. Values range from 0.86 in the savannas, 0.87 in the contact zone and 0.90 in the forests. These values show that the forest is more diverse than the contact zone and savanna, which is confirmed by Simpson’s index. Similarly, forest species are more evenly distributed than those of other plant communities.</p><p>Floristic similarity between ecosystems</p><p>Sorensen’s Index which is the most widely used one in ecological studies to know the similarity between two communities was used (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The results show that floristically, the forest and forest-savanna contact zone (59.32%) belong to the same plant community (K being greater than 50%). The degree of floristic similarity is 32.09% between the forest-savanna contact zone and the savanna, and 25.24% between the forest and the savanna.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Floristic richness and diversity in the study area. N: number of individuals, ISH: Shannon diversity index, D: Simpson diversity index, EQ: Pielou equitability</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ecosystems</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of genus</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of families</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H’ (bits)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Simpson</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EQ</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >448</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.37 &#177; 0.23<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.85 &#177; 0.06<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9 &#177; 0.05<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest-savanna contact</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >278</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.16 &#177; 0.19<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84 &#177; 0.03<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.87 &#177; 0.03<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Savanna</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >207</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7 &#177; 0.3<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.77 &#177; 0.07<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86 &#177; 0.07<sup>c</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>a,b,c</sup>: Means followed by the same letters, in the same column,, are not significantly different at the 5% probability threshold.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Sorensen’s coefficient (K) of similarity between different plant communities in the Ndjole locality</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ecosystems</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Forest-savanna contact</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest-savanna contact</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Savanna</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.09</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Importance value of species</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the species with the highest importance value indices in the Ndjole locality, according to different communities. The species with the highest importance index (IVI) values in the forest overall (10.07% to 24.57%) are Ceiba pentandra, followed by Musanga cecropioides, Pycnanthus angolensis, Terminalia superba, Myrianthus arboreus, Albizia adianthifolia and Pentacletra macrophylla. Three species have a preponderance of less than 1%. These are Alstonia boonei, Bridelia micrantha and Canthuim sp. In the savanna-forest contact zone, eight species have a preponderance value of over 10%. These are Terminalia glaucescens, Macaranga assas, Piptadeniastrum africanum, Xylopia aethiopica, Albizia ferruginea, Milicia excelsa, Albizia adianthifolia and Afzelia pachyloba. The remaining species (82%) have an importance value of less than 10%. In the savanna, Terminalia glaucescens is the species with the highest importance index value, followed by Nauclea diderrichii, Annona senegalensis, Piliostigma thonningii, Pittosporum sp. and Ficus sp2. Six species have a preponderance value of less than 10%: Cassia sp., Markhamia lutea, Bridelia sp., Alchornea cordifolia, Ficus sp. and Macaranga assas.</p><p>Vegetation structure in Ndjole locality</p><p>➢ Density</p><p>A total of 933 individuals with DBH ≥ 10 cm are distributed across the different plant communities. Density is the highest in the forest (235.78 stems/ha), followed by the forest-savanna contact zone (217.18 stems/ha) and the savanna (150.62 stems/ha) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p><p>➢ Basal area of species in different plant communities</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref> illustrates the variation in basal area in the different ecosystems of the Ndjole locality. Basal area is higher in the forest (30.1 m<sup>2</sup>/ha) than in the contact zone (13.08 m<sup>2</sup>/ha), and lower in the savanna (3.75 m<sup>2</sup>/ha). The forest is home to larger-diameter trees in the study area, followed by the contact zone and finally the savanna.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Preponderance values of species in the study area (DBH ≥ 10 cm) with higher IVI. With Fr: Relative frequency; Dor: Relative dominance; Dr: Relative abundance; IVI: Importance Value Index</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Communities</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fr %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >DR %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Dor %</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >IVI</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="10"  >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ceiba pentandra</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Musanga cecropioides</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pycnanthus angolensis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.97</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terminalia superba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrianthus arboreus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.65</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia adianthifolia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentacletra macrophylla</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piptadeniastrum africanum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Milicia excelsa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia zygia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="10"  >Forest-savanna contact zone</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terminalia glaucescens</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.65</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macaranga assas</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piptadeniastrum africanum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Xylopia aethiopica</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia ferruginea</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Milicia excelsa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia adianthifolia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Afzelia pachyloba</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia zygia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pentacletra macrophylla</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Savanna</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terminalia glaucescens</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nauclea diderrichii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annona senegalensis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32?95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pittosporum sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piliostigma thonningii</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ficus sp2.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vitex doniana</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Albizia zygia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.13</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Milicia excelsa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.92</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>➢ Stand diameter class distribution</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref> shows the distribution of individuals by diameter class in the various plant communities. The histograms show an inverted “J” shape in all plant communities since the number of stems decreases steadily from small to large diameter classes. The number of young individuals is relatively higher in the forest than in the savanna and contact zone. In the forest, the [10 - 20 cm[ diameter class accounted for 206 individuals (46.81%), followed by the [20 - 30 cm[ diameter class with 90 individuals (20.45%). In the forest-savanna contact zone, 126 individuals are present in the [10 - 20 cm[ diameter class, i.e. 45.32%, and 74 individuals in the [20 - 30 cm[ diameter class, i.e. 26.97%. In the savanna, individuals included in the [10 - 20 cm[ class accounted for 170 individuals, or 82.12%, followed by the [20 - 30 cm[ class with 20 individuals recorded, or 9.66%. The number of individuals in other classes decreased progressively in the different plant communities, reaching the lowest values.</p><p>Life form and phytogeographic distribution</p><p>The flora is largely dominated by Guineo-Congolese species in the forest (39.69%) and in the contact zone (40.9%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). This is followed by liaison species in the forest (38.23%), in the contact zone (36.36%) and widely distributed species in the forest (13.23%) and in the contact zone (15.89%). The savanna is also well represented by Guineo-Congolese species (44.43%) and liaison species (44.43%). Wide-ranging species are not represented in the savanna. Analysis of the biological types of woody individuals with DBH ≥ 10 cm reveals a clear predominance of mesophanerophytes both in the forest and in the contact zone, with (44.11%) and (44.51%) respectively. Microphanerophytes are more dominant in the savanna (45.43%). Megaphanerophytes are better represented in the forest (35.29%), followed by the savanna (26.77%) and the contact zone (25%). With regard to the types of diaspores of the species inventoried, sarcochores are more important in the forest, contact zone and the savanna, with 60.29%, 57.27% and 38.88% respectively, followed by barochores.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Phytogeographical distributions, biological types, diaspore types and modes of dissemination of species in the different plant communities of the Ndjole forest-savanna ecotone</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  >Ecological parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Ecosystems</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >% Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% Savanna-forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >% Savanna</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="11"  >Phytogeographical distributions</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Guinean-Congolese endemic species</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lower-Guinean-Congolian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Centro-Guinean-Congolian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Omniguinean-congolese</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Linking species</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Afrotropical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Guinean-Sudanese-Zamb&#233;zian</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Wide-ranging species</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Afro-American</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pantropical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Paleotropical</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Biological types</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mesophanerophytes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Megaphanerophytes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Microphanerophytes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Types of diaspore</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ballochores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Barochores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pogonochores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sarcochores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sclerochores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pterochores</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Dissemination methods</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Endozoochory</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anemochory</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Autochory</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Barochory</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.55</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Pogonochores are least abundant in the forest and contact zone, at 4.41% and 4.54% respectively. Throughout the study area, endozoochory is dominant in forest (60.29%), contact zone (54.54%) and the savanna (55.55%). Barochory is weakly represented in the various biotopes, at 5.88%, 6.81% and 5.55% respectively.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The floristic richness of the Ndjole locality was estimated at 85 species belonging to 67 genera in 33 families, of which 68 species were found in semi-caducifolia forest, 45 in the savanna forest contact zone and 18 species in the savanna. This floristic richness is lower than that obtained by Koulibaly [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref38">38</xref>] who have225 species in the forest-savanna mosaics of the Lamto Reserve and Como&#233; National Park in C&#244;te d’Ivoire. This result is also lower than those found by Soro et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref39">39</xref>] in the forest-savanna ecotone of the Lamto reserve in C&#244;te d’Ivoire (223 species) and this high species richness could be explained by the fact that the reserve enjoys protected area status and by Tiebre et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref40">40</xref>] (349 species) in the forest-savanna transition zone of Foungbesso. This difference is due to the fact that these authors inventoried trees, shrubs, lianas, grasses and epiphytes. This difference in results could also be explained by sample size, sampling methods and other parameters such as climatic and edaphic conditions. The low number of species in savannas (18 species) is due to the fact that savanna environments are generally not very diverse [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref42">42</xref>] . The loss of savanna diversity is also linked to the use of these biotopes for the establishment of certain perennial crops [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref43">43</xref>] . The specific diversity of families varies according to ecosystem. In the forest, we have the Urticaceae, Malvaceae, Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Moraceae families. In contact zones, on the other hand, the Annonaceae families, followed by Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Combretaceae were more diversified, and in savannas, the Combretaceae, Fabaceae, Annonaceae, Rubiaceae, Hypericaceae and Moraceae families. All these families, with the exception of Cannabaceae, are recognized for their high diversity in lowland Cameroonian dense forest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref44">44</xref>] or in highland forest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref35">35</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref45">45</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref46">46</xref>] . Indeed, according to Xiao-Tao and Jian-Wei [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref47">47</xref>] , Fabaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Annonaceae and Rubiaceae are common tropical forest families. Other studies on floristic diversity carried out in the Dja reserve (Cameroon) have shown that Fabaceae, Rubiaceae, Malvaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Sapotaceae, Annonaceae and Meliaceae are the most diverse families [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref48">48</xref>] . N’Dja et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref49">49</xref>] in the Besso classified forest (Ivory Coast), Soro et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref39">39</xref>] in the forest -savanna ecotone of the Lamto reserve in Ivory Coast and Tiebre et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref40">40</xref>] in the forest-savanna transition zone at Foungbesso in Ivory Coast found virtually the same family procession. Indeed, several Ivorian forests are dominated by the same family procession [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref50">50</xref>] . The Fabaceae family is also considered to characterize old-growth forests, alongside the Burseraceae and Olacaceae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref51">51</xref>] . According to Gonmadje et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref52">52</xref>] , the high diversity of this family in an environment is indicative of environments belonging to the Guineo-Congolese domain.</p><p>The highest Shannon index value (H’) is obtained in the forest (2.37 bits), showing that it is more diverse than other ecosystems. The Shannon diversity index increases as specific diversity increases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref29">29</xref>] . However, according to Kent and Coker [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref53">53</xref>] , forest communities are considered rich according to the Shannon index with a value of 3.5 bits. The value for the forest is below the norm and therefore reflects the low specific richness of this plant formation. This low species richness may be due to human activities, the main ones being agriculture, NTFP harvesting, energy/timber exploitation and road infrastructure, as well as environmental factors. This value is lower than that found by Kamga et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref44">44</xref>] in Garcinia kola formations in the Central and Eastern Regions of Cameroon (2.98 bits and 2.13 bits respectively) and that obtained by Sunderland et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref54">54</xref>] (3.92 bits) in the forests of the Monts de Cristal in Gabon. These authors concluded that this high value reflects high diversity and a good reconstitution of understory floristic diversity, no doubt due to favorable environmental conditions. These low values of the shannon diversity index (of which 2.37 bits is maximum and 1.7 bits is minimum) characterize the dominance of a species or group of species over the stand [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref30">30</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref55">55</xref>] . Indeed, these formations have recently undergone a great deal of anthropogenic disturbance, which is thought to be responsible for the reduction in their biodiversity. However, the Shannon index in these formations remains high compared with that of the gallery forests of Koupa Matapit (West Cameroon), which averages 1.28 bits [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref14">14</xref>] . The Pielou Equitability values (0.86 to 0.9) found in the present work tend towards 1, indicating that the species in these sites have the same abundance. These values fall within the range of values considered optimal (0.6 to 0.8) by Odum [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref56">56</xref>] . They reflect a good distribution of individuals within species. These values are comparable to those of Tiebre et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref40">40</xref>] in the forest-savanna transition zone of Foungbesso (western C&#244;te d’Ivoire) (0.60 and 0.95), these authors asserting that the high value of Pielou Equitability testifies to a good distribution of individuals within the stand. Simpson’s index, which is highly sensitive to the distribution of individuals between species, varies from (0.77 to 0.85). These high values of Simpson’s index in all plant formations express a weak organization of the ecological system and correspond to environmental conditions favorable to the installation of numerous species represented by a small number of individuals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref30">30</xref>] and are higher than that obtained by Ngueguim [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref57">57</xref>] in the Mangombe forests (0.5); to that found in the Dja reserve in Cameroon, i.e. 0.50 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref58">58</xref>] and to that of Wouokoue [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref59">59</xref>] , 0.12 at Mount Bambouto (Cameroon). According to these authors, the high value of Simpson’s index shows that the probability of two individuals taken at random belonging to the same species is high.</p><p>The species importance value index for individuals with DBH ≥ 10 cm varies according to plant communities. Important species in the Ndjole forest-savanna ecotones are (in order of importance): Terminalia superba, Myrianthus arboreus, Pycnanthus angolensis, Pentacletra macrophylla, Milicia excelsa and Musanga cecropioides (73.97% to 92.93%). In the contact zone, we have Xylopia aethiopica, Terminalia glaucescens, Piptadeniastrum africanum, Albizia ferruginea, Albizia adianthifolia and Nesogordonia papaverifera. Indeed, some of these species (including Musanga cecropioides, Pycnanthus angolensis, Myrianthus arboreus and Terminalia superba) are recognized by N’guessan and Kassi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref60">60</xref>] as the most important species in the forests of the Agbo ecotone in Ivory Coast. According to Kamga et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref44">44</xref>] , the latter include Musanga cecropioides and Myrianthus arboreus, which are pioneer species. This is confirmed by the high proportion of pioneer species in all the different ecosystems and exotics such as Mangifera indica, which shows that the environment has been disturbed by anthropogenic activities. In the savanna, we have Terminalia glaucescens, Nauclea diderrichii, Annona senegalensis, Piliostigma thonningii, Pittosporum sp. and Albizia zygia as the most important species, of which only Annona senegalensis has been in the periphery of the Mbam and Djerem National Park [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref61">61</xref>] . It should also be noted that the presence of certain savanna species found at Ndjole was reported by the same author and recognized as important by Youta et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref15">15</xref>] in the valley of the confluence of the Mbam and Kim rivers in Central Cameroon; these are Hymenocardia acida, Lophira lanceolata, Combretum micranthum, Olax subscorpioidea, Vitex doniana, Crossopterix febrifuga and Albizia zygia. From the above, it is clear that the Albizia genus is represented in forest, contact zone and savanna. Youta [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref62">62</xref>] confirms that Albizia adianthifolia and Albizia zygia are part of the floristic procession with a wide distribution linked to their important ecological plasticity due to their important dispersal capacity. Kassi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref63">63</xref>] asserts that the presence of Albizia adianthifolia in a stand is proof of its secondary origin.</p><p>This study highlights the dominance of mesophanerophytes followed by megaphanerophytes in forests and forest-savanna contact zones, and the dominance of microphanerophytes in savannas. This result is in partial agreement with the findings of Soro et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref42">42</xref>] in forest relics in the Poro region of C&#244;te d’Ivoire, who obtained a predominance of microphanerophytes (70%). The high representation of microphanerophytes in savanna shows a preponderance of shrub or low forest formations in the study environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref64">64</xref>] . Koffi et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref65">65</xref>] , notes that in tropical forests, phanerophytes make up almost the entire plant community, while other biological types are poorly represented. Sarcochores are the most important type of diaspora in the study area. This dominance of sarcochores is in line with the work of Sonk&#233; (1998) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref58">58</xref>] in Central Africa, with proportions in excess of 50%. The predominance of sarcochores over other types of diaspore is also highlighted in work by Yangakola et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref66">66</xref>] and Nshimba [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref31">31</xref>] in intertropical Africa. The proportion of sarcochore species that correspond to zoochore species shows the importance of the role of animals in diaspora dissemination. Indeed, the main mode of spread in our surveys is zoochory (endozoochory). The importance of zoochory is noted in most studies of forests in C&#244;te d’Ivoire [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref67">67</xref>] , as is the dominance of zoochorous species in the Congo Basin, with proportions generally exceeding 50% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref58">58</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref68">68</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref69">69</xref>] . This dissemination mainly concerns birds, mammals (elephants) and frugivorous vertebrates (monkeys, rats, tiger cats, antelopes and squirrels). With regard to the distribution of phytogeographical types, it shows the overall dominance of Guineo-Congolese species in all plant formations. This result is similar to that of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref38">38</xref>] , who also obtained the dominance of Guineo-Congolese species in the forest-savanna mosaics of the Lamto Reserve and Como&#233; National Park in C&#244;te d’Ivoire. According to Sonk&#233; [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref58">58</xref>] , a high proportion of Guinean species in the floristic background of an area is proof that the area belongs to the Guinean-Congolian region. The high proportion of Guinean-Congolese species reflects the great maturity of these plant formations, which appear to be little or undisturbed by human activity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref45">45</xref>] .</p><p>Vegetation structure</p><p>The distribution of individuals by diameter class in the various plant formations found in the different ecosystems is characterized by more individuals in the [10 - 20 cm[ diameter class. But from class [10 - 20 cm[ upwards, the number of individuals decreases from lower to higher classes. This is characteristic of tropical forests, where stand structure is generally inverted J-shaped and small trees (DBH &lt; 10 cm) account for around 80% of species diversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref70">70</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref71">71</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref72">72</xref>] . In other words, they demonstrate that the number of individuals per diameter class decreases in much the same way as one moves successively from small-diameter classes to larger classes. This exponential downward trend confirms that the stand studied has a high regeneration potential. The density of individuals with DBH ≥ 10 cm for all plant communities studied is higher in the forest (235.78 stems/ha), than in the contact zone (217.18 stems/ha) and savanna (150.62 stems/ha). These values are lower than those found by Djuikouo et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.132590-ref73">73</xref>] in the Dja reserve (350 - 460.4 stems/ha). The low density observed in the Ndjole locality can be explained mainly by the strong anthropic pressure exerted on the trees.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In the present study, floristic diversity and plant composition types were analyzed for the vascular plants in Ndjole Forest-savanna ecotones and provided baseline information for further studies. The study has resulted in the documentation of 85 species belonging to 67 genera and 33 families. There were 68 species in semi-caducifolia forest, 45 in contact zone and 18 in savanna. In the forest, the Urticaceae, Combretaceae, Apocynaceae, Myristicaceae, Euphorbiaceae and Malvaceae families were the most diverse. In the contact zone, the Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Annonaceae and Moraceae families were the most diverse, and in the savanna, we have the Combretaceae, Fabaceae and Annonaceae families. Diversity index values (Shannon’s index ranging from 1.7 to 2.37; Pielou’s equitability, 0.86 to 0.9; Simpson’s varies from 0.77 to 0.85) are generally low, however, forest is more diverse compared to contact zone and savanna. The degree of floristic similarity shows that the forest and contact zone (60.17%) belongs to the same plant community. The IVI values show variation in ecologically dominant species and have helped in understanding the ecological significance of the species in the forest-savanna mosaic. The diametric distribution of the different plant communities has a descending exponential trend, with a high regeneration potential. The flora is dominated by mesophanerophytes and megaphanerophytes in the forest and in the forest-savanna contact zone, and by microphanerophytes in the savanna. Sarcochores are the most important diaspores types, and the main mode of dissemination is zoochory (endozoochory). As for the distribution of phytogeographical types, it shows the overall dominance of Guineo-Congolese species in all plant communities. Plant diversity can often be increased at the local scale by changing or diversifying the management of a site. Local populations need to be made aware of the importance of biodiversity and the measures to be taken, such as protecting natural habitats, reducing logging, planting native species and promoting sustainable agricultural practices.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank the people of Ndjole for facilitating data collection. We are also grateful to the Department of Plant Biology for providing the laboratory facilities for completing the research activities.</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>Tchaleu, D.V., Momo, S.M.C., Kambale, M.A., Tafen, N.C., Kamga, Y.B. and Nguetsop, V.F. (2024) Floristic Diversity, Stand Structure and Plant Life Traits in the Forest-Savanna Mosaic at Ndjole (Centre Cameroon). Open Journal of Ecology, 14, 309-330. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2024.144019</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.132590-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gemerden, B.S. (2004) Disturbance, Diversity and Distributions in Central African Rain Forest. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Environmental Sciences. Wageningen University, Netherlands.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Dalimer, J., Achard, F., Delhez, B., Descl&amp;#233;e, B., Bourgoin, C. and Hugh, E. (2022) R&amp;#233;partition des types de for&amp;#234;ts et &amp;#233;volution selon leur affectation. In: Atyi, R.E., Hiol, H.F., Lescuyer, G., &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt;, Eds., &lt;i&gt;Les for&amp;#234;ts du bassin du Congo&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;i&gt; &amp;#201;tat des For&amp;#234;ts &lt;/i&gt;2021. &lt;br&gt;https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/Etat-des-forets-2021.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchatchou, B., Sonwa, D.J. and Tiani, A.M. (2015) D&amp;#233;forestation et d&amp;#233;gradation des for&amp;#234;ts dans le Bassin du Congo: &amp;#201;tat des lieux, causes actuelles et perspectives. Centre de recherche foresti&amp;#232;re internationale (CIFOR), 43.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">FAO (2010) Evaluation des ressources foresti&amp;#232;res mondiales 2010. FAO, Rome, 378.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngomin, A. and Mvongo, N.M.N. (2015) Sylviculture de 2&lt;sup&gt;&amp;#232;me&lt;/sup&gt; g&amp;#233;n&amp;#233;ration au Cameroun: Bases conceptuelles, leviers et sch&amp;#233;ma d&amp;#8217;op&amp;#233;rationnalisation. Cameroun, Yaound&amp;#233;, 86.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fongnzossie, F.E., Biwol&amp;#233;, A.B., Nguenang, G.M., Ngo, S.S., Fono, L.A., Dibong, S.D., Flore, N. and Ngoufo, R. (2019) Analyse floristique, structurale et phytog&amp;#233;ographique de la v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation du massif forestier de Ngog-Mapubi-Dibang (Cameroun) &lt;i&gt;Le Journal de Botanique de la Soci&amp;#233;t&amp;#233; de botanique de France&lt;/i&gt;, 86, 75-92. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3406/jobot.2019.1899</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Kark, S. (2013) Effects of Ecotones on Biodiversity. In: Levin S., Ed., &lt;i&gt;Encyclopedia of Biodiversity&lt;/i&gt;, Academic Press, Waltham, 142-148. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00234-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yarrow, M.M. and Mar&amp;#237;n, V.H. (2007) Toward Conceptual Cohesiveness: A Historical Analysis of the Theory and Utility of Ecological Boundaries and Transition Zones. &lt;i&gt;Ecosystems&lt;/i&gt;, 10, 462-476. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9036-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Araujo, M.B. (2002) Biodiversity Hotspots and Zones of Ecological Transition. &lt;i&gt;Conservation&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Biology&lt;/i&gt;, 16, 1662-1663. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.02068.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dexter, K.G., Pennington, R.T., Oliveira-Filho, A.T., Bueno, M.L., Miranda, P.L.S. and Neves, D.N. (2018) Inserting Tropical Dry Forests into the Discussion on Biome Transitions in the Tropics. &lt;i&gt;Frontiers&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Evolution&lt;/i&gt;, 6, Article 00104. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00104</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hoffmann, W.A., Geiger, E.L. and Gotsch, S.G. (2012) Ecological Thresholds at the Savanna-Forest Boundary: How Plant Traits, Resources and Fire Govern the Distribution of Tropical Biomes. &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Letters&lt;/i&gt;, 15, 759-768. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01789.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Felfili, J.M. and Silva, J.M.C. (1992) Floristic Composition, Phytosociology and Comparison of Cerrado and Gallery Forests at Fazenda &amp;#193;gua Limpa, Federal District, Brazil. In: Furley, P.A., Procter, J. and Ratter, J.A., Eds., &lt;i&gt;Nature and Dynamics of ForestSavanna Boundaries&lt;/i&gt;, Chapman and Hall, London, 393-415.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bellefontaine, R., Gaston, A. and Petrucci, Y. (1997) Am&amp;#233;nagement des for&amp;#234;ts naturelles des zones tropicales s&amp;#232;ches. FAO, Rome, 316.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Momo, S.M.C., Temgoua, L.F., Fedoung, E. and Zangmene, D.R. (2018) V&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation et spectres fonctionnels de la galerie foresti&amp;#232;re de Koupa Matapit. &lt;i&gt;Geogr&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;phie&lt;/i&gt;-&lt;i&gt;Ecologie&lt;/i&gt;-&lt;i&gt;Tropicale&lt;/i&gt;, 42, 147-158.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Youta, J.H., Bonvallot, J., Hotyat, M., Achoundong, J.G., Dessay, N., Guillet, B., Peltre, P., Schwartz, D., Servant, M. and Simonneaux, V. (2003) Bilan de la dynamique du contact for&amp;#234;t-savane en quarante ans (1950-1990) dans la r&amp;#233;gion du confluent du Mbam et du Kim, Centre-Cameroun. In: Froment, A. and Guffroy, J., Eds.,&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;Peuplements anciens et actuels des for&amp;#234;ts tropicales&lt;/i&gt;: &lt;i&gt;actes du s&amp;#233;minaire-atelier&lt;/i&gt;, 211-218.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Souza, L.A.S. and Eisenlohr, P.V. (2020) Drivers of Floristic Variation in Biogeographic Transitions: Insights from the Ecotone between the Largest Biogeographic Domains of South America. &lt;i&gt;Acta&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Botanica&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Brasilica&lt;/i&gt;, 34, 155-166. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-33062019abb0057</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lugo</surname><given-names> E. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2008</year>)<article-title>Ecosystem Services, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the Conceptual Difference between Benefits Provided by Ecosystems and Benefits Provided by People</article-title><source> &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Land&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Use&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Environ&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Law&lt;/i&gt;</source><volume> 23</volume>,<fpage> 243</fpage>-<lpage>261</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sinsin, B., Kampmann, D., Thiombiano, A. and Konat&amp;#233;, S. (2010) Atlas de la Biodiversit&amp;#233; de l&amp;#8217;Afrique de l&amp;#8217;Ouest. Tome I. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Atsri, H.K., Konko, Y., Cuni-Sanchez, A., Abotsi, K.E. and Kokou, K. (2018) Changes in the West African Forest-Savanna Mosaic, Insights from Central Togo. &lt;i&gt;PLOS ONE&lt;/i&gt;, 13, e0203999. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203999</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchuikoua, L.B. and Banaga, H. (2016) Contribution des organisations paysannes dans la production des cultures vivri&amp;#232;res dans l&amp;#8217;arrondissement de Ntui. &lt;i&gt;Revue&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;C&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;nadienne&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;de&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;G&amp;#233;ographie&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tropicale&lt;/i&gt;, 3, 53-65.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R&amp;#233;publique du Cameroun (2012) Strat&amp;#233;gies et Plan d&amp;#8217;Action National pour la Biodiversit&amp;#233;, Version II (SPANII), Minepded, Yaound&amp;#233;, 189.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Plan communal de d&amp;#233;veloppement (2011) Action Commune pour la Pr&amp;#233;servation de l&amp;#8217;Environnement et le D&amp;#233;veloppement, 177. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">K&amp;#233;meuz&amp;#233;, V.A., Solefack, M.C.M., Nkongmeneck, B., Decocq, G., Jiofack, T. and Johnson, M. (2009) Variation altudinale de la distribution des plantes &amp;#224; activit&amp;#233; insecticide dans la for&amp;#234;t communautaire de Kilium-Ijium: cas de &lt;i&gt;Clausena&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;anisata&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;i&gt;Bois&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;et&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;For&amp;#234;t&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;des&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tropiques&lt;/i&gt;, 299, 75-76. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.19182/bft2009.299.a20425</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref24"><label>24</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, 340.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Willis, K.J., Gillson, L. and Brncic, T.M. (2000) How &amp;#8220;Virgin&amp;#8221; Is Virgin Rainforest? &lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt;, 304, 402-403. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093991</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Onana, J.M. (2019) The Vascular Plants of Cameroon. A Taxonomic Checklist with IUCN Assessments. Flore du Cameroun, IRAD-National Herbarium of Cameroon. Yaound&amp;#233;. 195.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cottam, G. and Curtis J.T. (1956) The Use of Distance Measures in Phytosociological Sampling. &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt;, 37, 451-460. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/1930167</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Frontiers, S. (1983) Choix et Contraintes de l&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;chantillonnage &amp;#233;cologique. Presses de L&amp;#8217;Universit&amp;#233; de Laval, Qu&amp;#233;bec, 3-62.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tagne, G.A. (2007) Etude floristique et structurale des ligneux de la for&amp;#234;t submontagnarde de la colline de Messa (Yaound&amp;#233;) M&amp;#233;moire de DEA. Universit&amp;#233; de Yaound&amp;#233;, Yaound&amp;#233;.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dajoz, R. (1982) Pr&amp;#233;cis d&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;cologie. 48th Edition, Division des ressources foresti&amp;#232;res, D&amp;#233;partement des for&amp;#234;ts, Bordas, 503.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nshimba, S.W.M. (2008) Etude floristique, &amp;#233;cologique et phytosociologique des for&amp;#234;ts de l&amp;#8217;&amp;#238;le Mbiye &amp;#224; Kisangani. Th&amp;#232;se de Doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; de Kisangani, Kisangani.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Raunkier, C. (1934) The Life Forms of Plants and Statistical Plant Geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 632.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lebrun, J. (1960) Sur une m&amp;#233;thode de d&amp;#233;limitation des horizons et &amp;#233;tages de v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation des montagnes du Congo oriental. &lt;i&gt;Bulletin du Jardin botanique de &lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;l&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;#8217;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;&amp;#201;tat a Bruxelles&lt;/i&gt;, 30, 75-94. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/3667120</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schnell, R. (1971) Introduction &amp;#224; la phytog&amp;#233;ographie des pays tropicaux: Les probl&amp;#232;mes g&amp;#233;n&amp;#233;raux. Les milieux et les groupements v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;taux. Gauthier-Villard, Paris, 951.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Momo, S.M.C. (2009) Influence des activit&amp;#233;s Anthropiques sur la v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation du Mont Oku (Cameroun). Th&amp;#232;se de Doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; de Yaound&amp;#233; I, Yaound&amp;#233;.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Senterre, B. (2005) Recherches m&amp;#233;thodologiques pour la typologie de la v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation et la Phytog&amp;#233;ographie des for&amp;#234;ts denses d&amp;#8217;Afrique Tropicale. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lejoly, J., Ndjele, M.B. and Geering, D. (2010) Catalogue des plantes vasculaires des districts de Kisangani et de la Tshopo. Ulb et Unikis, 343.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koulibaly, A. (2008) Caract&amp;#233;ristiques de la v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation et dynamique de la r&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;n&amp;#233;ration sous l&amp;#8217;influence de l&amp;#8217;utilisation des terres, dans des mosa&amp;#239;ques forets-savanes des r&amp;#233;gions de la Reserve de Lamto et du Parc National de la Como&amp;#233; en Cote d&amp;#8217;Ivoire. Universit&amp;#233; de Cocody-Abidjan, Abidjan.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soro, G., Koffi, N.M., Kone, B., Kouakou, Y.E., M&amp;#8217;Bra, K.R., Soro, P.D. and Soro, N. (2019) Utilisation de produits phytosanitaires dans le mara&amp;#238;chage autour du barrage d&amp;#8217;alimentation en eau potable de la ville de Korhogo (nord de la C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire): Risques pour la sant&amp;#233; publique. &lt;i&gt;Environnement.&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Risque&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Sant&amp;#233;&lt;/i&gt;, 17, 155-163.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tiebre, M.S., Ouattara, B., Kpangui, K.B., Kouassi, D.F. and N&amp;#8217;Guessan, K.E. (2016) Diversit&amp;#233; floristique de la r&amp;#233;gion de Founbesso en zone de transition for&amp;#234;t-savane &amp;#224; l&amp;#8217;Ouest de la C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire. &lt;i&gt;International&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Biological&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Chemical&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Sciences&lt;/i&gt;, 10, 1007-1016. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v10i3.8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bolia, N.E., Bosanza, J.B.Z., Mongeke, M.M. and Ngbolua, K.N. (2019) &amp;#201;tudes dendrom&amp;#233;trique et floristique des for&amp;#234;ts mixte et mono-dominante &amp;#224; &lt;i&gt;Gilbertiodendron&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;dewevrei&lt;/i&gt; d&amp;#8217;une concession foresti&amp;#232;re en R&amp;#233;publique D&amp;#233;mocratique du Congo. &lt;i&gt;Revue&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Marocaine&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;des&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Sciences&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Agronomiques&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;et&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;V&amp;#233;t&amp;#233;rinaires&lt;/i&gt;, 7, 110-117.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soro, D., Dro, B., Seguena, F., Bakayoko, A. and Kon&amp;#233;, M.W. (2021) &amp;#201;valuation du potentiel floristique ligneux des reliques foresti&amp;#232;res de la r&amp;#233;gion du Poro. &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Animal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;&amp;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Plan&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Sciences&lt;/i&gt;, 47, 8506-8517. &lt;br&gt;http://www.m.elewa.org/JAPS </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abdoulaye, C., Ouattara, M., N&amp;#8217;Guessan, E.A. and N&amp;#8217;Gouan, A.J.E. (2020) Diversit&amp;#233; v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tale et usages des plantes dans une zone de savane soudanienne: Cas de la localit&amp;#233; de Ferkess&amp;#233;dougou (Nord, C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire). &lt;i&gt;International&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Biology&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Chemestry&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Science&lt;/i&gt;, 14, 2807-2825. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v14i8.13</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kamga, Y.B., Nguetsop, V.F., Momo, S.M.C. and Riera, B. (2018) Diversit&amp;#233; Floristique Des Ligneux Et Structure Des Formations &amp;#192; Garcinia Kola Heckel Dans Les R&amp;#233;gions Du Centre Et De l&amp;#8217;Est, Cameroun. &lt;i&gt;European Scientific Journal&lt;/i&gt;, 14, Article 451. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n21p451</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tiokeng, B., Mapongmetsem, P.M., Nguetsop, V.F. and Tacham, W.N. (2015) Biodiversit&amp;#233; floristique et r&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;n&amp;#233;ration naturelle sur les Hautes Terre de Lebialem (Ouest Cameroun). &lt;i&gt;International&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Biologycal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Chemical&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Sciences&lt;/i&gt;, 9, 56-68. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v9i1.6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngnignindiwou, M.J. (2018) Diversit&amp;#233; floristique et services ecosyst&amp;#233;matique de la for&amp;#234;t de Mawoun, Localit&amp;#233; de Foumbot, dans les hautes terres de l&amp;#8217;Ouest Cameroun. Th&amp;#232;se de Master, Universit&amp;#233; de Dschang, Dschang.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lu, X.-T. and Tang, J.-W. (2010) Structure and Composition of the Understory Treelets in a Non-Dipterocarp Forest of Tropical Asia. &lt;i&gt;Forest&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Ma&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;agement&lt;/i&gt;, 260, 565-572. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.05.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sonke, B. and Couvreur, T.L.P. (2014) Tree Diversity of the Dja Faunal Reserve, Southeastern Cameroon. &lt;i&gt;Biodiversity&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Data&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt;, 2, e1049. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.2.e1049</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">N&amp;#8217;Dja, K.J., Tuo, Y. and Zo-Bi, I.C. (2017) Diversit&amp;#233; floristique et infiltration humaine de la for&amp;#234;t class&amp;#233;e de la Besso (C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire). &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Applied&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Bio&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;s&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;ciences&lt;/i&gt;, 114, 1997-5902. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v114i1.3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bakayoko, A. (1999) Comparaison de la composition floristique et de la structure foresti&amp;#232;re de parcelles de la For&amp;#234;t Class&amp;#233;e de Boss&amp;#233;mati&amp;#233; dans l&amp;#8217;Est de la C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire. M&amp;#233;moire de DEA, Universit&amp;#233; de Cocody-Abidjan, Abidjan.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Leal, M.E. (2001) The African Rain Forest during the Last Glacial Maximum, an Archipelago of Forests in a Sea of Grass. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gonmadje, C.F., Doumenge, C., Sunderland, C.H.T., Balinga, P.B.M. and Sonk&amp;#233;, B. (2012) Analyse phytog&amp;#233;ographique des for&amp;#234;ts d&amp;#8217;Afrique Centrale: le cas du massif de Ngovayang (Cameroun). &lt;i&gt;Plant&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Evolution&lt;/i&gt;, 145, 152-164. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.5091/plecevo.2012.573</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kent, M. and Coker, P. (1992) Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 167-169. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sunderland, T.C.H., Walters, G. and Issembe, Y. (2004) A Preliminary Vegetation Assessment of the Mb&amp;#233; National Park. CARPE Report, Monts de Cristal, Gabon. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngueguim, J.R., Zapfack, L., Youmbi, E., Riera, B., Onana, J., Foahom, B. and Makombu, J.G. (2010) Diversit&amp;#233; floristique sous canop&amp;#233;e en plantation foresti&amp;#232;re de Mangombe-Edea. &lt;i&gt;Biotechnologie&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Agronomie&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Soci&amp;#233;t&amp;#233;&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;et&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Environnement&lt;/i&gt;, 1, 167-176.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Odum, E.P. (1976) &amp;#201;cologie. Doin, Paris, 257 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngueguim, J.R. (2013) Productivit&amp;#233; et diversit&amp;#233; floristique ligneuse en for&amp;#234;t d&amp;#8217;Afrique tropicale humide du Cameroun: sites de Mangombe, Bidou et Campo. Th&amp;#232;se, Ecole doctorale Sciences de la Nature et de l&amp;#8217;homme, Mus&amp;#233;um national d'histoire naturelle, Paris. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Sonk&amp;#233;, B. (1998) Biodiversity Study in Dja Fauna Reserve (Cameroon): Using the Transect Method. In: Huxley, C.R., Lock, J.M. and Cutler, D.F., Eds., &lt;i&gt;Chorology&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;Taxonomy&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;the&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Floras&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Africa&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;and&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Madagascar&lt;/i&gt;, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 171-179.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wouokoue, T.J.B. (2018) Phytosociologie des monts Bambouto et Mbapit, &amp;#233;quations allom&amp;#233;triques pour l&amp;#8217;estimation de la biomasse a&amp;#233;rienne des ligneux des savanes. Ph.D. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; de Dschang, Cameroun Colline de Foto.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">N&amp;#8217;guessan, A.E. and Kassi, N.J. (2018) Analyse de La diversit&amp;#233; floristique de la for&amp;#234;t class&amp;#233;e d&amp;#8217;Agbo I (C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire). &lt;i&gt;European&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Scientific&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt;, 14, 346-357. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2018.v14n9p346</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maiyanpa, P. (2019) Diversit&amp;#233; floristique et exploitation des produits forestiers non ligneux &amp;#224; la p&amp;#233;riph&amp;#233;rie du Parc National du Mbam et Djerem. Th&amp;#232;se de Master, Universit&amp;#233; de Dschang, Cameroun Colline de Foto.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Youta, H. (1998) Arbres contre gramin&amp;#233;es: la lente invasion de la savane par la for&amp;#234;t au centre-cameroun. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat, Paris-Sorbonne, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kassi, N.J. (2006) Successions secondaires post-culturales en for&amp;#234;t dense semi d&amp;#233;cidue de sanaimbo (C&amp;#244;te d&amp;#8217;Ivoire): Nature, structure et organisation fonctionnelle de la v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tation. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thiombiano, A. (2005) Les Combretaceae du Burkina Faso: taxonomie, &amp;#233;cologie et r&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;n&amp;#233;ration des esp&amp;#232;ces Th&amp;#232;se d&amp;#8217;&amp;#201;tat, d&amp;#233;partement de Biologie et &amp;#201;cologie v&amp;#233;g&amp;#233;tale Universit&amp;#233; de Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koffi, D.K., Tchaa, B. and Thiou, T.K.T. (2016) Quantification des changements de l&amp;#8217;occupation du sol dans la pr&amp;#233;fecture de Yoto (Sud-est, Togo) &amp;#224; l&amp;#8217;aide de l&amp;#8217;imagerie satellitaire Landsat. &lt;i&gt;Sciences de L&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#8217;&lt;i&gt;Environnement&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;13, 137-156.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yangakola, J.M., de Foucault, B., Yongo, O.D. and Lejoly, J. (2004) Analyse phy-tog&amp;#233;ographique comparative des savanes et des for&amp;#234;ts de Ngotto (R&amp;#233;publique Cen-trafricaine). &lt;i&gt;Acta&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Botanica&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Gallica&lt;/i&gt;, 151, 124-227. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.2004.10516036</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chapman (1995) Primate Seed Dispersal: Coevolution and Conservation Implication. &lt;i&gt;Evolutionary&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Anthropology&lt;/i&gt;, 4, 74-82. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1360040303</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mosango, M. (1990) Contribution &amp;#224; l&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;tude botanique et biog&amp;#233;ochimique de l&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;cosyst&amp;#232;me for&amp;#234;t en r&amp;#233;gion &amp;#233;quatoriale. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat. Universit&amp;#233; Libre de Bruxelles, Laboratoire De Botanique Syst&amp;#233;matique et Phytog&amp;#233;ographie, Bruxelles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kouka, L.A. (2000) Recherches sur la flore, la structure et la dynamique des forets du Pare national d&amp;#8217;Odza/a. Th&amp;#232;se de doctorat, Universit&amp;#233; Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rollet, B. (1974) Introduction &amp;#224; l&amp;#8217;&amp;#233;tude des mangroves du Mexique. Photo-inter-pr&amp;#233;tation, Types de for&amp;#234;t, Bibliographie, 156.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gentry, A.H. (1998) Changes in Plant Community Diversity and Floristic Composition on Geographic and Environmental Gradients. &lt;i&gt;Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden&lt;/i&gt;, 75, 1-34. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2307/2399464</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Loris, L. (2009) Analyse de la diversit&amp;#233; floristique dans les diverses strates des for&amp;#234;ts denses de Masako. M&amp;#233;moire de DEA, UNIKIS, 106.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.132590-ref73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Djuikouo, M.N.K., Doucet, J.T., Nguembou, C.K., Lewis, S. and Sonk&amp;#233;, B. (2010) Diversity and Aboveground Biomass in Three Tropical Forest Types in the Dja Biosphere Reserve, Cameroun. &lt;i&gt;African&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Journal&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;Ecology&lt;/i&gt;, 48, 1053-1063. &lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2010.01212.x.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>