4.6 Article

Trees and their seed networks: The social dynamics of urban fruit trees and implications for genetic diversity

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agropolis Fondation [1605-042, Labex Agro: ANR-10-LABX0001-01, ANR16-IDEX-0006]
  2. Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the social dynamics of urban tree planting, focusing on the African plum tree in Yaounde, Central Africa. The research reveals that urban trees in Yaounde have a high level of genetic diversity similar to that of the species' production region. The findings suggest that cities and urban dwellers can play a role in safeguarding indigenous tree genetic diversity.
Trees are a traditional component of urban spaces where they provide ecosystem services critical to urban wellbeing. In the Tropics, urban trees' seed origins have rarely been characterized. Yet, understanding the social dynamics linked to tree planting is critical given their influence on the distribution of associated genetic diversity. This study examines elements of these dynamics (seed exchange networks) in an emblematic indigenous fruit tree species from Central Africa, the African plum tree (Dacryodes edulis, Burseraceae), within the urban context of Yaounde. We further evaluate the consequences of these social dynamics on the distribution of the genetic diversity of the species in the city. Urban trees were planted predominantly using seeds sourced from outside the city, resulting in a level of genetic diversity as high in Yaounde as in a whole region of production of the species. Debating the different drivers that foster the genetic diversity in planted urban trees, the study argues that cities and urban dwellers can unconsciously act as effective guardians of indigenous tree genetic diversity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available