Vegetative Identification of Tropical Woody Plants: State of the Art and Annotated Bibliography¹

Abstract

This annotated bibliography is provided in order to assess the achievements and gaps in the literature on vegetative identification of woody plants in the tropics. The bibliography includes 258 references divided into general references (48), pantropical and multi‐continental keys (4), Africa (46), Asia (53), Australia and New Guinea (21), and the Neotropics (86). Vegetative keys are not easy shortcuts to the identification of woody tropical plants to species. Identification of sterile material requires as much, if not more, training as that required for using keys that emphasize floral and fruit characters. Nevertheless, the literature surveyed in this bibliography may be helpful to biologists seeking references for the geographic region in which they work, models for the construction of vegetative keys and field guides, and/or the types of characters that should be observed in the field.

Transplante de plântulas e plantas jovens como estratégia de produção de mudas para a restauração de áreas degradadas

“…Baseado no conhecimento teórico, diversos modelos e técnicas de restauração foram desenvolvidas para áreas perturbadas em diferentes níveis. Poucos são os trabalhos na literatura que tratam do monitoramento e avaliação de áreas restauradas no Brasil, podendo destacar os de , Souza e Batista (2004) e Melo e Durigan (2007). Apesar dos avanços significativos alcançados ao longo dos quase 30 anos de restauração ecológica no Brasil, alguns estudos reforçam a necessidade de mudanças que incorporem a utilização de elevada diversidade de espécies, sobretudo nas áreas inseridas em matrizes pouco permeáveis DE SOUZA;BATISTA, 2004).…”

GuiaTreeKey, a multi-access electronic key to identify tree genera in French Guiana

“…Also, traditional dichotomous keys impose constraints on identifying tree samples because they rely on a hierarchical and fixed organization of characters that hampers the identification of a sample when one or several characters are not observed at the time of collection. Moreover, traditional keys often focus on Linnaean characters (flowers and fruits, Rejmánek and Brewer 2001), and only few tools aid the identification of plant species based on vegetative characters (Belhumeur et al 2008). The identification of sterile samples is therefore difficult even though sterile samples are much more common than fertile ones (the proportion of sterile specimens commonly reaches 90-95%, Aymard et al 2009; Martinez and Phillips 2000) and taxonomists are often unwilling to review sterile material.…”

Shape analysis for the automated identification of plants from images of leaves

“…Conservative estimates of the number of species range between 3 and 10 million species (Alroy, 2002), and plants alone have between 200,000 and 400,000 species (Govaerts, 2001;Scotland & Wortley, 2003). Because of this diversity, identification is a difficult problem for which an extensive literature has been devoted, and in the tropics where biodiversity is highest, species identification presents a hurdle to those wishing to study community or ecosystem-wide processes (see Rejmánek & Brewer, 2001, for a review of plant identification in the tropics). An ideal tool for species identification would be accurate, inexpensive, quick, and easy to use and access.…”

“…Seed plants often have leaves with characteristic shapes, but few keys rely on leaf shape alone to discriminate species (Rejmánek & Brewer, 2001). Part of the difficulty in using leaf shape alone lies in the fact that leaf shape can vary within species due to plasticity, and ecological constraints on leaf shape can result in a high degree of convergence among species (e.g., Bailey & Sinnott, 1916;Grubb, 1977;Givnish, 1978).…”

“…Part of the difficulty in using leaf shape alone lies in the fact that leaf shape can vary within species due to plasticity, and ecological constraints on leaf shape can result in a high degree of convergence among species (e.g., Bailey & Sinnott, 1916;Grubb, 1977;Givnish, 1978). Rejmánek & Brewer (2001) review approaches to identify plants in the tropics, and they question the utility of leaf shape for plant identification. Moreover, complex terminology associated with leaf shapes and margins can limit successful application of keys.…”