View in EDS

Searching for Caatinga and accurate maps of tropical dry forests: Comments on Zappi et al. (2025) and Hardy et al. (2025)/Martin et al. (2025) from an "ecosystems uncertain" perspective.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Searching for Caatinga and accurate maps of tropical dry forests: Comments on Zappi et al. (2025) and Hardy et al. (2025)/Martin et al. (2025) from an "ecosystems uncertain" perspective.
Authors: Scogings, Peter F.1 (AUTHOR) scogingsp@ukzn.ac.za
Source: Restoration Ecology. May2026, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p1-4. 4p.
Subjects: Ecological mapping, Ecosystems, Tropical dry forests, Savannas, Plant ecology, Applied ecology, Caatinga plants, Invasive plants
Abstract: Accurately mapping major terrestrial ecosystems is important for monitoring anthropogenic impacts, but there is widespread disparity among maps. A recent Opinion Article in Restoration Ecology highlighted an example where inaccurate mapping could lead to misguided restoration interventions if Caatinga was omitted from, but savanna included in, an earlier Review Article about non‐native invasive plants in tropical dry forests. The review authors' reply confirmed that Caatinga was actually included, but did not respond about including savannas. Neither original nor commenting authors explored reasons for inaccurate mapping. The aim of this Opinion Article is to address whether studies located in savannas and Caatinga (and Caatinga‐like ecosystems) should have been included in the review, and explore reasons for inaccurate delineation of dry tropical/subtropical ecosystems. Savannas are grassy ecosystems characterized by C4 graminoids, variable woody cover and frequent fires. Caatinga‐like thicket ecosystems are non‐grassy, non‐pyric, mostly below 3 m, succulent‐rich and frequently spiny. Both have unlayered woody overstoreys and vigorous resprouting responses to fire or herbivory. Neither savanna nor Caatinga should have been included because both have characteristic sets of plant functional traits not characteristic of forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Restoration Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Accurately mapping major terrestrial ecosystems is important for monitoring anthropogenic impacts, but there is widespread disparity among maps. A recent Opinion Article in Restoration Ecology highlighted an example where inaccurate mapping could lead to misguided restoration interventions if Caatinga was omitted from, but savanna included in, an earlier Review Article about non‐native invasive plants in tropical dry forests. The review authors' reply confirmed that Caatinga was actually included, but did not respond about including savannas. Neither original nor commenting authors explored reasons for inaccurate mapping. The aim of this Opinion Article is to address whether studies located in savannas and Caatinga (and Caatinga‐like ecosystems) should have been included in the review, and explore reasons for inaccurate delineation of dry tropical/subtropical ecosystems. Savannas are grassy ecosystems characterized by C4 graminoids, variable woody cover and frequent fires. Caatinga‐like thicket ecosystems are non‐grassy, non‐pyric, mostly below 3 m, succulent‐rich and frequently spiny. Both have unlayered woody overstoreys and vigorous resprouting responses to fire or herbivory. Neither savanna nor Caatinga should have been included because both have characteristic sets of plant functional traits not characteristic of forests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10612971
DOI:10.1111/rec.70308