Empty Forest Syndrome: Implications for Wildlife Management and Conservation Administration in Nigeria

Empty Forest Syndrome: Implications for Wildlife Management and Conservation Administration in Nigeria

Kolawole Farinloye¹, Mustapha Olawoyin², Mayowa Aduloju³, Adeyemi, EBO⁴, and Idowu Ologeh⁵

¹Department of Tourism and Business Management, Canterbury University Partnership at Global Banking School, Leeds United Kingdom

²Department of Public Administration, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria

³Exams Department, The Swan School, Oxford United Kingdom

⁴Department of Educational Management, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria

⁵Department of Environmental Management and Toxicology, Lead City University, Ibadan, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000368

Received: 09 June 2025; Accepted: 17 June 2025; Published: 17 July 2025

ABSTRACT

The “Empty Forest Syndrome” (EFS) describes ecosystems that appear structurally intact, with standing trees and vegetation, but have been largely depleted of their faunal communities, particularly medium to large vertebrates. This phenomenon poses a critical threat to biodiversity and ecosystem functionality globally, with profound implications for tropical rainforest nations like Nigeria. This article examined the multifaceted dimensions of EFS in Nigeria, a country rich in biodiversity yet facing intense anthropogenic pressures. Primary drivers: such as unsustainable hunting practices (for bushmeat and traditional medicine), habitat loss and fragmentation driven by agricultural expansion, deforestation, and infrastructure development, alongside weaknesses in governance and enforcement of conservation laws, were delved into. The ecological consequences are far-reaching, disrupting vital ecosystem processes such as seed dispersal, pollination, and nutrient cycling, leading to altered forest structure, diminished regeneration capacity, and cascading effects on other trophic levels. Socio-economically, EFS impacts local livelihoods dependent on forest resources, food security, and cultural heritage, while potentially increasing the risk of zoonotic disease emergence. This paper reviewed current wildlife conservation strategies in Nigeria, highlighting their limitations in addressing the pervasive nature of EFS. Paradigm shift towards integrated, multi-stakeholder approaches that combine strengthened protected area management, robust anti-poaching efforts, community-based conservation initiatives empowering local populations, the development of sustainable alternative livelihoods, enhanced policy implementation, and targeted research and monitoring were recommended. Addressing EFS in Nigeria is not merely about saving individual species; it is crucial for maintaining ecosystem resilience, ensuring the long-term well-being of its people, and safeguarding the nation’s natural heritage. Failure to act decisively will lead to increasingly silent forests, impoverished ecosystems, and a diminished future for both wildlife and human communities.

Keywords: Empty Forest Syndrome, Wildlife Conservation, Nigeria, Bushmeat, Deforestation, Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Services, Conservation Policy, Sustainable Livelihoods.

INTRODUCTION

The term “Empty Forest Syndrome” (EFS), first coined by Kent Redford in 1992, paints a stark picture of tropical forests that, despite appearing visually intact with green canopies and dense undergrowth, have been largely stripped of their medium and large vertebrate fauna (Redford, 1992). These forests, while still standing, are functionally impaired, having lost key ecological actors responsible for processes vital to their maintenance and regeneration. The silence in these forests is not just an absence of animal calls; it is an indicator of deep ecological malaise, a precursor to further degradation and potential ecosystem collapse. Globally, EFS is recognized as a significant conservation challenge, particularly acute in regions with high biodiversity, rapid human population growth, and substantial reliance on natural resources, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. Nigeria, located in West Africa, is a nation of immense ecological diversity, boasting a range of ecosystems from mangrove swamps and lowland rainforests in the south to Guinea savannas in the central belt and Sahel savannas in the north. Its forests, particularly the Guinean Forests of West Africa biodiversity hotspot which extends into southern Nigeria, are home to a rich assemblage of flora and fauna, including numerous endemic species (Myers et al., 2000). However, this natural wealth is under unprecedented threat. Nigeria has one of the highest rates of deforestation globally, coupled with a large and rapidly growing human population heavily dependent on forest resources for sustenance, income, and cultural practices (FAO, 2020). These pressures have created fertile ground for the proliferation of EFS across many of its forested landscapes.

The implications of EFS for wildlife conservation in Nigeria are profound and multifaceted. Beyond the direct loss of charismatic megafauna like forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes ellioti), and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla diehli), EFS signifies a deeper crisis that affects a wide spectrum of animal and plant life, and the ecological services they provide. The disappearance of animals disrupts critical ecological interactions, such as seed dispersal by frugivores, pollination by various vertebrates, and predation which regulates herbivore populations. These disruptions can lead to long-term changes in forest composition, structure, and resilience, making them more vulnerable to other stressors like climate change and invasive species.

This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria. It will explore the conceptual underpinnings of EFS, identify its primary drivers within the Nigerian context, and examine its ecological, socio-economic, and cultural consequences. Furthermore, it will critically assess current wildlife conservation efforts and their efficacy in combating EFS, and propose a framework for more effective, integrated strategies. Understanding and addressing EFS is not merely an academic exercise; it is an urgent imperative for safeguarding Nigeria’s biodiversity, maintaining essential ecosystem services, and ensuring the sustainable well-being of its human population. The silent forests of Nigeria are a call to action, demanding innovative and committed responses before their ecological integrity is irrevocably lost.

Conceptual Framework: Understanding the Mechanisms of Empty Forest Syndrome

The Empty Forest Syndrome is not a sudden event but rather a progressive ecological degradation resulting from the chronic and selective removal of animal populations, primarily vertebrates. To effectively address EFS, it is crucial to understand the mechanisms through which it develops and the cascading impacts it triggers within an ecosystem.

Selective Defaunation:

EFS typically begins with the selective removal of larger-bodied animals, which are often preferred targets for hunters due to higher meat yield, cultural significance, or value in illegal wildlife trade (Peres, 2001). These species, such as large primates, ungulates, carnivores, and large frugivorous birds (e.g., hornbills), often play keystone roles in their ecosystems. As these larger species decline, hunting pressure may shift to smaller, less preferred species, leading to a gradual erosion of the entire faunal community – a process termed “hunting down the food web” or “fishing down the food web” adapted to terrestrial ecosystems.

Loss of Keystone Species and Ecological Engineers:

Many of the first species to disappear in the progression towards EFS are keystone species or ecosystem engineers.

• Keystone species have a disproportionately large effect on their environment relative to their abundance. For example, top predators can regulate herbivore populations, preventing overgrazing and maintaining plant diversity. Large frugivores are often primary seed dispersers for many tree species with large seeds (Stoner et al., 2007).
• Ecosystem engineers modify their physical environment, creating habitats for other species. Forest elephants, for instance, create clearings, disperse seeds over long distances, and influence nutrient cycling through their feeding and defecation patterns (Campos-Arceiz & Blake, 2011).

The loss of these species initiates a cascade of negative effects throughout the ecosystem.

Disruption of Ecological Processes:

The decline and extirpation of animal populations directly impair critical ecological processes: • Seed Dispersal: A vast majority of tropical forest trees rely on animals, particularly vertebrates, for seed dispersal (Wang & Smith, 2002). The loss of frugivores, especially large ones capable of dispersing large seeds over long distances, can lead to recruitment failure for these tree species, altered spatial patterns of tree regeneration, and a shift in forest composition towards species dispersed by wind or smaller, less-efficient dispersers (Wright, 2003; Kurten, 2013). This can result in “empty seeds” scenarios where seeds fall directly beneath parent trees, leading to high mortality and reduced gene flow.

• Pollination: While insects are major pollinators, vertebrates like bats, birds (e.g., sunbirds), and some primates also play crucial roles in pollinating specific plant species. Their decline can lead to reduced fruit set and reproductive failure for these plants.
• Predation and Herbivory: The removal of predators can lead to an increase in herbivore populations (mesopredator release or herbivore release), which in turn can intensify browsing pressure on seedlings and saplings, altering plant community structure and diversity (Terborgh et al., 2001). Conversely, the loss of large herbivores can also alter vegetation dynamics.
• Nutrient Cycling: Animals contribute to nutrient cycling through defecation, urination, and decomposition of their carcasses. The removal of large animal biomass can alter the rate and spatial distribution of nutrient inputs into the soil.

Altered Forest Structure and Composition:

Over time, the disruption of these ecological processes leads to tangible changes in the forest itself. Tree species reliant on extinct or depleted dispersers may fail to regenerate, leading to their gradual disappearance from the forest and a potential dominance of species with abiotic dispersal mechanisms or those dispersed by remaining smaller fauna. This can result in a less diverse forest, with altered canopy structure, understory density, and overall biomass (NuñezIturri & Howe, 2007). The “empty forest” thus becomes not just faunally impoverished but also structurally and compositionally different from its historical state.

Reduced Ecosystem Resilience:

A faunally intact ecosystem is generally more resilient to disturbances, such as droughts, fires, or disease outbreaks. The diversity of species and their interactions provide functional redundancy and a capacity to adapt. EFS erodes this resilience by simplifying food webs, reducing genetic diversity within species, and impairing regenerative processes. An empty forest is a brittle ecosystem, more susceptible to irreversible shifts in state when faced with additional stressors, including climate change (McConkey et al., 2012).

Understanding these mechanisms highlights that EFS is more than just the absence of animals; it is a syndrome of interconnected ecological failures that progressively degrade the entire ecosystem. Conservation efforts must therefore aim not just at protecting remaining animals but at restoring these crucial ecological processes and interactions.

Primary Drivers of Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria

The progression towards Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria is propelled by a complex interplay of direct and indirect drivers, deeply rooted in socio-economic conditions, governance structures, and human demographic trends.

Overhunting and Unsustainable Harvesting:

This is arguably the most direct and significant driver of EFS.

• Bushmeat Trade: The demand for bushmeat, both for subsistence and commercial purposes, is exceptionally high in Nigeria due to its large population, cultural preferences, and often as a cheaper alternative to domestic meat (Fa et al., 2002). Hunting techniques are often indiscriminate (e.g., snares, shotguns) and target a wide range of species, from small rodents and reptiles to large mammals like primates, duikers, and pangolins. The commercialization of the bushmeat trade, with established supply chains from rural areas to urban centers, has intensified hunting pressure to unsustainable levels (Ripple et al., 2016). Many species are hunted at rates exceeding their reproductive capacity, leading to population declines and local extirpations.
• Traditional Medicine and Cultural Practices: Certain animal parts are used in traditional medicine or for cultural ceremonies. While some traditional practices may have once been sustainable with lower human population densities, current demand can lead to targeted hunting of specific, often already threatened, species (e.g., pangolins for scales, primate parts).
• Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT): Nigeria has been identified as a major transit and export hub for IWT, particularly for ivory, pangolin scales, and other wildlife products destined for international markets (CITES, various reports). This lucrative trade incentivizes poaching of high-value species, further depleting their populations in the wild.

Habitat Loss, Degradation, and Fragmentation:

The physical space for wildlife is rapidly shrinking and deteriorating.

• Deforestation: Nigeria has one of the highest rates of deforestation globally. Forests are cleared primarily for agricultural expansion (both smallholder and commercial plantations like oil palm), logging (legal and illegal), infrastructure development (roads, dams, urban expansion), and fuelwood collection (FAO, 2020). Between 1990 and 2020, Nigeria lost a significant percentage of its primary forest cover.
• Agricultural Expansion: As the population grows, the demand for agricultural land increases, leading to encroachment into forested areas and wildlife habitats. Shifting cultivation, while traditionally practiced, becomes unsustainable with shorter fallow periods and larger cleared areas.
• Logging: Unsustainable logging practices, both legal and illegal, degrade forest structure, remove important habitat features, and open up previously inaccessible areas to hunters via logging roads. Selective logging can also target tree species that are crucial food sources for wildlife.
• Infrastructure Development: The construction of roads, pipelines, and dams fragments habitats, isolates wildlife populations (restricting gene flow and access to resources), and increases human access to remote areas, thereby facilitating hunting and other forms of resource extraction.
• Pollution: Oil spills in the Niger Delta region, for example, have devastated aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, directly killing wildlife and rendering habitats unusable.

Industrial and agricultural runoff also pollutes water bodies, impacting wildlife.

Weak Governance, Policy, and Law Enforcement:

The legal and institutional framework for wildlife conservation often falls short.

• Inadequate Legislation and Policy Implementation: While Nigeria has laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife protection and forest management (e.g., National Parks Service Act, Endangered Species Act), their enforcement is often weak due to insufficient funding, lack of personnel, corruption, and political will. Policies may also be conflicting, with those promoting economic development sometimes overriding conservation objectives.
• Corruption: Corruption within government agencies responsible for environmental protection and law enforcement can undermine conservation efforts, allowing illegal logging, poaching, and wildlife trafficking to persist.
• Insufficient Protected Area Management: Many protected areas (PAs) in Nigeria are “paper parks,” lacking adequate resources, staffing, infrastructure, and management plans to effectively protect wildlife from internal and external threats like encroachment and poaching (Stoner et al., 2007). Boundary demarcation can be unclear, and conflicts with local communities over resource access are common.

Socio-economic Factors:

Underlying socio-economic conditions exacerbate the direct drivers.

• Poverty and Lack of Alternative Livelihoods: High levels of poverty in rural communities often drive reliance on forest resources, including bushmeat, for food security and income. Lack of viable alternative livelihood options makes it difficult for people to move away from unsustainable practices.
• Rapid Population Growth: Nigeria’s population is one of the fastest-growing in the world. This increases pressure on land and natural resources, intensifying demand for food, fuel, and space, thereby accelerating habitat loss and hunting.
• Low Conservation Awareness: Limited awareness among the general public and even some policymakers about the ecological and economic importance of wildlife and the long-term consequences of EFS can hinder support for conservation initiatives.

Climate Change:

While not a primary driver in the same way as hunting or habitat loss, climate change acts as an exacerbating factor. It can alter habitat suitability, affect food and water availability for wildlife, increase the frequency of extreme weather events (droughts, floods), and potentially force wildlife to move into areas with higher human presence, increasing their vulnerability. Climate change can also impact agricultural yields, potentially pushing communities to rely more heavily on forest resources.

These drivers are often interconnected and create a vicious cycle of degradation. For instance, deforestation not only reduces habitat but also makes wildlife more accessible to hunters. Poverty can drive both deforestation for agriculture and hunting for income. Addressing EFS in Nigeria therefore requires a holistic approach that tackles these multifaceted drivers simultaneously.

Ecological Consequences of Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria

The depletion of faunal communities characteristic of the Empty Forest Syndrome triggers a cascade of detrimental ecological consequences, fundamentally altering the structure, function, and resilience of Nigeria’s forests. These impacts extend beyond the simple absence of animals, affecting plant life, ecosystem processes, and overall biodiversity.

Disrupted Seed Dispersal and Impaired Forest Regeneration:

This is one of the most widely documented and critical consequences of defaunation.

• Loss of Key Dispersers: Many Nigerian forest trees, particularly those with large, fleshy fruits, depend on vertebrates like primates (e.g., chimpanzees, monkeys), elephants, large birds (e.g., hornbills, turacos), and even some large rodents and bats for effective seed dispersal (Chapman & Onderdonk, 1998). The decline or extirpation of these frugivores means that seeds are not moved away from the parent tree.
• Recruitment Failure: Seeds falling directly beneath the parent tree often suffer high mortality due to competition with the parent, pathogen accumulation, and seed predation (Janzen-Connell hypothesis). This leads to recruitment failure for animaldispersed tree species.
• Altered Forest Composition: Over time, the failure of animal-dispersed trees to regenerate can lead to a shift in forest composition. Tree species that rely on wind dispersal or have very small seeds dispersed by less specialized animals may become more dominant. This can result in a loss of tree diversity and a change in the overall character of the forest (Stoner et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2007). For instance, valuable timber species or important food sources for other wildlife might decline.
• Reduced Gene Flow: Effective seed dispersal facilitates gene flow between plant populations. Its disruption can lead to genetic isolation and reduced genetic diversity in plant populations, making them less adaptable to changing environmental conditions.

Pollination Deficits:

While insects are primary pollinators, certain plants in Nigerian forests rely on vertebrate pollinators.

• Decline of Vertebrate Pollinators: Bats, sunbirds, and some non-human primates contribute to the pollination of specific tree and liana species. Hunting and habitat loss affecting these pollinators can lead to reduced pollination success, lower fruit and seed set, and ultimately, population declines for the plants they pollinate. This can have knock-on effects for other species that depend on these plants for food or habitat.

Alterations in Herbivory and Predation Dynamics (Trophic Cascades):

The removal of animals at different trophic levels disrupts the natural balance of ecosystems.

• Predator Loss and Mesopredator/Herbivore Release: The decline of apex predators (e.g., leopards, although now extremely rare in many Nigerian forests) can lead to an increase in the populations of their prey (herbivores) or smaller predators (mesopredators). Increased herbivore populations can lead to intensified browsing pressure on seedlings and saplings, suppressing forest regeneration and altering plant community structure (Terborgh & Estes, 2010).
• Loss of Large Herbivores: Conversely, the loss of large herbivores like elephants can also alter vegetation. Elephants, through their feeding, trampling, and seed dispersal, create habitat heterogeneity (e.g., maintaining forest clearings, dispersing seeds of specific plants). Their absence can lead to denser, more homogenous vegetation in some areas.

Changes in Forest Structure and Fuel Loads:

The cumulative effects of altered seed dispersal, pollination, and herbivory can lead to significant changes in the physical structure of the forest.

• Reduced Tree Density and Diversity: As noted, certain tree species may decline, leading to a less diverse and potentially less dense forest canopy or understory.

Increased Liana Abundance: In some defaunated forests, there is evidence of increased liana (woody vine) abundance. Lianas compete with trees for light and resources and can reduce tree growth and survival (Wright et al., 2004). The mechanisms are complex but may relate to changes in seed dispersal dynamics or reduced browsing on lianas.

• Altered Fuel Loads: Changes in vegetation composition and structure can affect the accumulation of dead plant matter (fuel load), potentially altering fire regimes, especially at forest edges or in drier forest types.

Diminished Ecosystem Resilience and Stability:

A faunally intact ecosystem possesses greater functional redundancy and is better able to withstand and recover from disturbances (e.g., droughts, storms, disease outbreaks). • Loss of Functional Redundancy: When multiple species perform similar ecological roles (e.g., several primate species dispersing seeds), the loss of one species may be compensated for by others. However, EFS often involves the loss of entire functional groups (e.g., all large frugivores), eliminating this redundancy and making the ecosystem more vulnerable.

• Increased Susceptibility to Climate Change: Forests weakened by EFS, with impaired regeneration and altered composition, may be less resilient to the impacts of climate change, such as increased temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, and more frequent extreme weather events (Brodie et al., 2012).

Loss of Biodiversity at Multiple Levels:

EFS directly signifies a loss of animal biodiversity. However, the consequences ripple through the ecosystem:

• Secondary Extinctions: The disappearance of one species can lead to the extinction of other species that depend on it (e.g., specialist parasites, plants reliant on a single disperser or pollinator).
• Reduced Plant Diversity: As discussed, changes in regeneration patterns can lead to a decline in the diversity of tree species and other plants.
• Impacts on Invertebrate Communities: Changes in vegetation structure and the absence of animal carcasses or dung can affect invertebrate communities (e.g., dung beetles, insects dependent on specific host plants).

The ecological consequences of EFS in Nigeria are creating forests that are not only silent but also fundamentally compromised in their ability to function and sustain themselves. This degradation undermines the very foundation of the ecosystem, threatening the long-term survival of remaining species and the continued provision of essential ecosystem services.

Socio-Economic and Cultural Implications of Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria

The depletion of wildlife populations associated with Empty Forest Syndrome (EFS) extends far beyond ecological disruption, casting long shadows on the socio-economic well-being and cultural fabric of communities in Nigeria, particularly those living in close proximity to forests.

Impacts on Livelihoods and Food Security:

• Reduced Availability of Bushmeat: For many rural and even some urban households in Nigeria, bushmeat is a critical source of protein and income (Fa et al., 2005). As wildlife populations decline due to EFS, the availability of bushmeat diminishes. This directly impacts food security, forcing communities to rely on often more expensive or less nutritious alternatives. Hunters have to travel further and spend more time for diminishing returns, increasing their own economic vulnerability.

Loss of Income: The bushmeat trade, while often unsustainable, provides income for a chain of actors, from hunters to traders and sellers. EFS leads to a decline in this income source, potentially exacerbating poverty in communities with few alternative livelihood options. This can create a desperate cycle where remaining wildlife is pursued even more intensely.

• Impact on Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs): Many NTFPs, such as certain medicinal plants, fruits, and nuts, may depend on animals for pollination or seed dispersal. The decline of these animal populations can reduce the availability and yield of these NTFPs, which are crucial for both subsistence and income for local communities.

Loss of Cultural Heritage and Traditional Practices:

• Erosion of Traditional Knowledge: Wildlife plays a significant role in the cosmology, folklore, and traditional practices of many Nigerian cultures. Specific animals may be totems, feature in ceremonies, or be associated with traditional medicine. The disappearance of these animals can lead to an erosion of this cultural heritage and associated traditional ecological knowledge.
• Impact on Festivals and Rituals: Certain festivals, initiation rites, or healing practices may traditionally involve specific animals or their parts. EFS can make it impossible to continue these practices in their original form, leading to cultural loss or the unsustainable substitution with other species.
• Intergenerational Knowledge Gap: As animals become rare, younger generations may lose the direct connection and knowledge about local fauna that their elders possessed, further weakening cultural ties to the environment.

Impacts on Tourism Potential:

• Reduced Wildlife Tourism: Nigeria has several national parks and forest reserves with potential for wildlife-based tourism (e.g., Yankari National Park, Cross River National Park). EFS drastically reduces the main attraction – the wildlife itself. Forests devoid of charismatic megafauna and diverse animal life are less appealing to tourists, leading to a loss of potential revenue, employment, and foreign exchange that could otherwise support conservation and local economies.
• Negative International Perception: Reports of widespread EFS and biodiversity loss can damage Nigeria’s international reputation as a custodian of natural heritage, further discouraging ecotourism investment.

Increased Human-Wildlife Conflict (Paradoxical Effects):

While EFS implies the absence of animals within forests, the drivers of EFS, particularly habitat loss, can sometimes paradoxically increase certain types of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) at the forest edge or in fragmented landscapes before populations are completely extirpated.

• Crop Raiding: As natural food sources within degraded forests diminish, or as habitats shrink, some adaptable species (e.g., certain primates, rodents) may increasingly raid crops in adjacent farmlands, leading to economic losses for farmers and retaliatory killings of wildlife. However, in a true EFS scenario, even these species would eventually decline.
• The more direct consequence of EFS is the loss of animals, thereby reducing HWC of the type involving large, dangerous animals, but this is a pyrrhic victory as it comes at the cost of ecological integrity.

Health Implications and Zoonotic Disease Dynamics:

The processes driving EFS, particularly increased hunting and closer contact between humans and wildlife, can have significant health implications.

Increased Risk of Zoonotic Disease Transmission: The hunting, butchering, and consumption of bushmeat increase the risk of transmission of zoonotic diseases (pathogens that can jump from animals to humans), such as Ebola, Lassa fever, monkeypox, and various parasitic infections (Wolfe et al., 2005). While EFS itself means fewer animals, the period of intensified hunting leading up to it is a high-risk phase.

• Changes in Vector Ecology: Alterations in forest structure and biodiversity due to EFS can affect the populations and distribution of disease vectors like mosquitoes and ticks, potentially influencing the prevalence of vector-borne diseases.

Loss of Ecosystem Services with Direct Human Benefit:

Beyond the direct use of wildlife, EFS undermines broader ecosystem services that benefit human populations.

• Water Regulation: Forests play a crucial role in regulating water flows and maintaining water quality. Degraded, “empty” forests may be less effective in providing these services, potentially impacting water availability for agriculture and domestic use.
• Climate Regulation: While the trees are still standing, a functionally impaired forest may have reduced carbon sequestration capacity over the long term if regeneration of key tree species is compromised.

The socio-economic and cultural implications of EFS in Nigeria are profound, affecting the daily lives, traditions, and future prospects of millions. These impacts often fall disproportionately on vulnerable rural communities, highlighting the need for conservation approaches that integrate human development and well-being with biodiversity protection. Addressing EFS is therefore not just an environmental issue but also a critical developmental and social justice concern.

Case Studies and Regional Manifestations in Nigeria

While EFS is a widespread concern, its intensity and specific manifestations can vary across Nigeria’s diverse ecological zones and in relation to localized pressures. A comprehensive academic article would typically include detailed case studies. This section outlines key areas and species where EFS is particularly evident or where targeted research could illuminate its progression. 6.1. Cross River National Park and Surrounding Forests:

• Context: Part of the Guinean Forests of West Africa Hotspot, home to the critically endangered Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) and Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ellioti), forest elephants, drills, and a rich diversity of other fauna.
• Manifestations of EFS: Despite protected status, intense hunting pressure for bushmeat (including primates) persists. Reports indicate declining populations of large mammals. Studies on seed dispersal by primates in this region would be crucial to assess impacts on forest regeneration. Research by Edet et al. (2012) and others has highlighted the severe threats from hunting and habitat loss.
• Implications: Loss of iconic species, disruption of unique primate-plant interactions, impact on potential for high-value ecotourism.

Niger Delta Region:

• Context: Unique mangrove and swamp forest ecosystems, rich in biodiversity but severely impacted by oil exploration, pollution, deforestation, and high human population density.

Manifestations of EFS: Overhunting of manatees, crocodiles, turtles, primates (e.g., Sclater’s guenon, Niger Delta red colobus), and water birds. Pollution has also directly killed off aquatic fauna. The intricate food webs of mangrove ecosystems are highly vulnerable.

• Implications: Loss of specialized fauna adapted to these ecosystems, impact on fisheries (as mangrove nurseries are destroyed or fish stocks depleted), contamination of bushmeat, severe livelihood impacts on communities dependent on these resources. Research by Akani et al. (various years) has documented herpetofaunal decline and bushmeat exploitation.

Okomu National Park and Other Edo State Forests:

• Context: Important remnants of lowland rainforest, home to species like the whitethroated guenon, forest elephants (though populations are small and beleaguered), and diverse birdlife. Surrounded by agricultural plantations (rubber, oil palm) and subject to logging pressures.
• Manifestations of EFS: High hunting pressure, particularly at park edges and in surrounding forest fragments. Studies have shown declines in primate populations and other large mammals. The impact of forest fragmentation on animal movement and persistence is a key issue.
• Implications: Isolation of wildlife populations, edge effects increasing hunting accessibility, potential for local extinctions of species requiring large territories.

Yankari National Park and Guinea Savanna Ecosystems:

• Context: While primarily savanna, Yankari also contains riparian forests. It was once a stronghold for elephants, lions, and diverse ungulates.
• Manifestations of EFS: Historically, Yankari suffered significant poaching, leading to drastic declines in elephant and lion populations. While recent conservation efforts have aimed to reverse this, the legacy of past overhunting illustrates how even savanna woodlands can become “empty.” The focus here is often on large mammal depletion rather than the more subtle seed dispersal disruptions seen in dense rainforests, but the principle of lost ecological function applies.
• Implications: Impact on tourism, loss of keystone grazers and predators affecting savanna dynamics.

Specific Species as Indicators:

• Pangolins (Various Species): Nigeria is a major hub for the illegal trafficking of pangolin scales and meat. All Nigerian pangolin species are heavily hunted, leading to severe population declines and making them prime examples of species being driven towards extinction by targeted exploitation. Their disappearance has unknown consequences for the regulation of ant and termite populations.
• Hornbills (Various Species): Large frugivorous birds like hornbills are crucial seed dispersers. Their decline due to hunting (for meat or traditional uses) and loss of large nesting trees is an indicator of EFS and has direct consequences for the regeneration of tree species they disperse.
• Forest Elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis): Once more widespread, forest elephant populations in Nigeria are now small, fragmented, and critically endangered due to poaching for ivory and habitat loss. Their ecological role as “forest gardeners” is being lost.

Methodologies for Assessing EFS in Case Studies:

• Faunal Surveys: Line transects, camera trapping, acoustic monitoring, dung counts to estimate population densities and species diversity.
• Hunting Pressure Assessment: Market surveys, hunter interviews, snare counts.

Seed Dispersal Studies: Examining frugivore diets, tracking seed fate, comparing seedling recruitment in hunted vs. unhunted areas.

• Vegetation Analysis: Comparing forest structure and composition in areas with varying levels of defaunation.
• Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK): Interviewing local community members about historical changes in wildlife populations and forest characteristics.

By focusing on specific case studies and indicator species, researchers can quantify the extent of EFS in different Nigerian ecosystems, understand its localized drivers and consequences more clearly, and tailor conservation interventions more effectively. This section, in a full paper, would be rich with data and specific examples drawn from field research.

Current Wildlife Conservation Strategies and Their Limitations in Nigeria

Nigeria has a framework of policies, laws, and institutions aimed at wildlife conservation and protected area management. Numerous governmental and non-governmental organizations are involved in these efforts. However, the persistence and spread of EFS indicate significant limitations and challenges in the current strategies. 7.1. Existing Conservation Framework:

• Protected Area Network: Nigeria has a network of National Parks (e.g., Cross River NP, Gashaka Gumti NP, Kainji Lake NP, Okomu NP, Yankari NP), Game Reserves, and Forest Reserves. These are managed by federal (National Park Service) or state government agencies.
• Legislation: Key legislation includes the National Park Service Act, the Endangered Species (Control of International Trade and Traffic) Act which domesticates CITES, and various state-level edicts. Forestry laws also play a role in habitat management.
• Government Agencies: The Federal Ministry of Environment, the National Park Service (NPS), the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA), and state-level Ministries of Environment/Forestry are the primary governmental bodies. The Nigeria Customs Service and other security agencies also have roles in combating illegal wildlife trade.
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Both international (e.g., Wildlife Conservation Society – WCS, Fauna & Flora International – FFI, WWF through local partners) and national/local NGOs (e.g., Nigerian Conservation Foundation – NCF, numerous community-based organizations – CBOs) are active in research, advocacy, community engagement, and direct conservation actions.
• International Cooperation: Nigeria is a signatory to international conventions like CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), and CMS (Convention on Migratory Species).

Current Conservation Approaches:

• Law Enforcement and Anti-Poaching Patrols: This is a primary strategy, particularly within National Parks. Park rangers conduct patrols to deter and apprehend poachers and illegal loggers. NESREA and Customs also conduct operations against wildlife traffickers.
• Community-Based Conservation (CBC): Some initiatives aim to involve local communities in conservation efforts, often through benefit-sharing schemes, employment as rangers, or development of alternative livelihoods. Examples exist around Gashaka Gumti and Yankari National Parks.

Research and Monitoring: Universities and NGOs conduct research on wildlife populations, threats, and ecological processes. Monitoring programs, though often under-resourced, aim to track changes in key species and habitats.

• Conservation Education and Awareness: Efforts are made to raise public awareness about the importance of wildlife conservation through media campaigns, school programs, and community outreach.
• Habitat Management and Restoration: In some PAs, activities like controlled burning (in savanna parks) or reforestation/afforestation projects are undertaken.
• Ex-situ Conservation: Some zoos and breeding centers contribute to the conservation of highly threatened species, though capacity is limited.

Limitations and Challenges:

Despite these efforts, EFS remains a pervasive threat due to several critical limitations: • Insufficient Funding and Resources: Conservation agencies, particularly the National Park Service and state forestry departments, are chronically underfunded. This limits their capacity to hire, train, and equip sufficient staff, conduct effective patrols, manage PAs, and implement conservation programs (Afolayan, 1991; Dunn, 2014).

• Weak Law Enforcement and Governance:

o Corruption: Corruption can undermine enforcement efforts at all levels, from rangers on the ground to officials processing permits or investigating trafficking cases.

o Lack of Political Will: Conservation often receives low priority compared to economic development initiatives that may conflict with environmental protection.

o Inadequate Penalties: Penalties for wildlife crimes are often not severe enough to act as a deterrent, and prosecution rates can be low.

• “Paper Parks” Phenomenon: Many PAs, especially Forest Reserves, lack effective management and protection on the ground. Boundaries may be poorly demarcated or respected, and encroachment, illegal logging, and poaching are rife (Oates, 1999).
• Limited Community Engagement and Benefit Sharing: CBC initiatives are not widespread or always effectively implemented. Local communities often feel alienated from PAs, having lost access to traditional resources without receiving tangible benefits from conservation. This can lead to resentment and lack of cooperation, or even active involvement in illegal activities (Hulme & Murphree, 2001).
• Socio-economic Pressures: High levels of poverty and lack of sustainable alternative livelihoods in communities around PAs continue to drive reliance on unsustainable exploitation of forest resources, including bushmeat. Conservation efforts that do not adequately address these underlying drivers are unlikely to succeed.
• Insufficient Data and Monitoring: Lack of comprehensive, up-to-date data on wildlife populations, hunting levels, and the effectiveness of conservation interventions hampers adaptive management and strategic planning. Monitoring is often sporadic and under-resourced.
• Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity: Many PAs are becoming isolated islands in a sea of agricultural land or degraded habitats. Lack of corridors and connectivity between PAs limits gene flow and the ability of species to move in response to threats or climate change.
• Focus on Charismatic Megafauna: Conservation efforts and funding often focus on a few charismatic species (e.g., elephants, gorillas), potentially neglecting the broader faunal depletion characteristic of EFS, which affects many less “glamorous” but ecologically vital species.

Inter-agency Rivalry and Lack of Coordination: Sometimes, a lack of coordination or conflicting mandates among different government agencies can hinder effective conservation action.

• Transboundary Challenges: For species whose ranges cross international borders (e.g., with Cameroon, Benin, Niger), effective conservation requires transboundary cooperation, which can be complex to achieve and maintain.

Addressing these limitations requires a fundamental shift towards more holistic, well-resourced, and community-inclusive conservation paradigms that tackle both the direct threats to wildlife and the underlying socio-economic drivers of EFS.

Community-Based Conservation Models: A Comparative Analysis of Nigeria with other West African Countries

Community-based conservation (CBC) has emerged as a critical approach in West Africa, recognizing that sustainable resource management requires the active involvement and ownership of local communities. While Nigeria, a nation rich in biodiversity, has made efforts in this direction, a comparative analysis with other West African countries reveals both challenges and successful models that offer valuable lessons. Nigeria faces significant hurdles in widespread CBC implementation. Rapid population growth, poverty, weak governance, and insufficient funding often undermine conservation initiatives (The Cable, ResearchGate, 2016). Traditional conservation efforts in Nigeria have sometimes been characterized by top-down approaches, leading to limited community engagement and a disconnect between policies and local practices (Nwankwo, 2022). For instance, while indigenous practices like sacred groves historically contributed to conservation, the imposition of colonial-era protected areas often displaced communities and disregarded traditional knowledge (Scientific Reports in Life Sciences, n.d.). Even with the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), weak enforcement and limited awareness persist (PMC, 2020).

In contrast, countries like The Gambia and Sierra Leone/Liberia offer compelling examples of more effective CBC. In The Gambia, the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) in 2007 prioritized community participation in forest and protected area management, leveraging Village Development Committees (VDCs).3 While challenges remain in ensuring full representation, these initiatives have successfully documented local perceptions of climate change and delivered educational interventions through collaboration between communities, government, and NGOs (Community Conservation Research Network, 2017). The Gola Forest initiative, spanning Sierra Leone and Liberia, demonstrates successful transboundary conservation driven by a collaborative approach.4 The European Commission-funded PAPFoR program actively involves local communities, national organizations, and government agencies in effective forest management, including establishing land use plans and training community eco-guards.5 This has created alternative livelihoods and reduced pressure on the forest (BirdLife, 2021).

A key factor in the success of these other West African nations lies in genuinely empowering local communities and integrating their indigenous knowledge into conservation strategies. Programs in countries like Benin and Senegal/Mauritania have also shown positive environmental and socioeconomic outcomes by promoting reforestation, afforestation, and sustainable agricultural practices, alongside alternative income sources like beekeeping (MDPI, 2019). These successes are often linked to:

1. Devolution of rights and clear tenure: Granting communities clear rights over their resources fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility.
2. Equitable benefit sharing: Ensuring that communities directly benefit from conservation efforts (e.g., through eco-tourism or sustainable resource harvesting) provides strong incentives.
3. Strong local institutions: Supporting and strengthening community-level organizations that can effectively manage resources and resolve conflicts.
4. Multi-stakeholder collaboration: Effective partnerships between communities, government agencies, NGOs, and researchers.
5. Capacity building: Providing technical support, training, and education to communities to enhance their conservation skills.

While Nigeria has examples of community-led successes, such as the Ekuri Initiative in Cross River State which has preserved vast rainforest areas and improved livelihoods through eco-tourism, these are often localized and face challenges like limited funding and technical support (Pachamama Foods, 2015). To achieve widespread success, Nigeria could learn from its neighbours by prioritizing greater devolution of power and resources to local communities, fostering more inclusive governance structures, and ensuring that conservation initiatives are directly linked to tangible socioeconomic benefits for those living closest to the natural resources.

Addressing Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria: Recommendations and Future Directions

Combating the Empty Forest Syndrome in Nigeria necessitates a multi-pronged, integrated, and adaptive approach that moves beyond traditional conservation tactics to address the complex ecological, socio-economic, and governance dimensions of the crisis. The goal is not just to prevent further faunal loss but to work towards “refaunation” and the restoration of ecological functionality where possible. 8.1. Strengthening Governance, Policy, and Law Enforcement:

• Enhanced Political Will and Funding: Conservation needs to be elevated as a national priority with significantly increased and sustained budgetary allocations for federal and state conservation agencies.
• Policy Coherence: Ensure that national and state policies across sectors (e.g., agriculture, mining, infrastructure) are aligned with conservation objectives, incorporating biodiversity safeguards into development planning.
• Strengthening Legal Frameworks and Enforcement: Review and strengthen wildlife protection laws with deterrent penalties. Improve the capacity of law enforcement agencies (park rangers, police, customs, judiciary) through training, equipment, and inter-agency collaboration to investigate, prosecute, and convict wildlife criminals effectively. Address corruption head-on within these institutions.
• Effective Protected Area Management: Develop and implement robust management plans for all PAs, with clear objectives, adequate staffing, and resources. Secure PA boundaries, improve infrastructure, and establish effective monitoring systems. Explore co-management models where appropriate.

Community Engagement, Empowerment, and Benefit Sharing:

• Genuine Partnerships with Local Communities: Shift from exclusionary conservation models to inclusive approaches that recognize local communities as key stakeholders. Establish transparent and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms from PAs (e.g., tourism revenue, employment) and involve communities in decision-making and management.
• Empowerment and Rights Recognition: Respect and uphold the traditional rights and access of local communities to resources where sustainable and integrate traditional ecological knowledge into conservation planning.
• Community-Based Wildlife Management (CBWM): Support and scale up CBWM initiatives that empower communities to manage and benefit from wildlife on their lands, creating incentives for conservation.

Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods and Reducing Reliance on Bushmeat:

• Investment in Alternative Livelihoods: Collaborate with development agencies to provide and support viable, sustainable alternative income-generating opportunities for

communities dependent on hunting and other unsustainable forest uses (e.g., sustainable agriculture, aquaculture, ecotourism, processing of NTFPs).

• Sustainable Protein Sources: Promote sustainable and affordable sources of animal protein (e.g., poultry, fish farming, grasscutter farming) to reduce demand for bushmeat.
• Demand Reduction Campaigns: Implement targeted public awareness and behavior change campaigns in urban centers (where commercial bushmeat demand is high) to reduce the consumption of unsustainably harvested wildlife.

Integrated Landscape Management and Habitat Restoration:

• Landscape-Level Planning: Move beyond a purely PA-focused approach to manage entire landscapes, including production areas (farms, plantations) and community lands, in a way that supports biodiversity and maintains ecological connectivity.
• Habitat Restoration and Corridor Development: Invest in restoring degraded habitats within and outside PAs and establish ecological corridors to connect fragmented wildlife populations, facilitating movement and gene flow.
• Addressing Deforestation Drivers: Implement effective strategies to curb deforestation, including promoting sustainable agricultural practices, secure land tenure, and alternative energy sources to reduce fuelwood dependence.

Investing in Research, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management:

• Targeted Research: Support research on EFS dynamics, population status of key faunal groups, impacts on ecosystem processes (especially seed dispersal and regeneration), and the effectiveness of different conservation interventions in the Nigerian context.
• Robust Monitoring Systems: Establish long-term, scientifically sound monitoring programs for wildlife populations, habitat change, hunting pressure, and socioeconomic indicators. This data is crucial for adaptive management – adjusting strategies based on evidence of what works.
• Capacity Building for Nigerian Researchers and Practitioners: Invest in training and resources for Nigerian scientists, conservation managers, and community monitors.

Public Awareness, Education, and Advocacy:

• National Conservation Education Strategy: Develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to raise awareness at all levels of society – from schoolchildren to policymakers and the general public – about the value of biodiversity, the threats of EFS, and the importance of conservation.
• Engaging Media and Civil Society: Work with media outlets and civil society organizations to advocate for stronger conservation action and hold decision-makers accountable.

Transboundary Cooperation:

• Strengthening Regional Collaboration: Enhance collaboration with neighbouring countries (especially Cameroon, Benin, Niger) on transboundary PA management, antitrafficking efforts, and coordinated conservation strategies for shared species and ecosystems.

Exploring Refaunation and Ecological Restoration:

• Feasibility Studies for Refaunation: In severely emptied forests where threats have been mitigated, cautiously explore the potential for reintroducing locally extinct species, guided by strict ecological and ethical guidelines. This is a long-term aspiration that requires significant prior success in threat abatement.
• Focus on Restoring Ecological Processes: Even without full species reintroductions, management can focus on interventions that help restore key ecological processes, such as planting keystone tree species that support frugivores.

Addressing EFS in Nigeria is a formidable challenge that requires sustained commitment, innovation, and collaboration among all stakeholders. There are no quick fixes, but a determined, evidence-based, and people-centered approach can begin to reverse the trend of silent forests and restore the ecological vibrancy that is essential for both nature and human well-being in Nigeria.

CONCLUSION

The Empty Forest Syndrome represents a silent but devastating crisis unfolding within Nigeria’s rich and diverse ecosystems. It is a stark testament to the cumulative impact of unsustainable human activities, primarily overhunting and habitat destruction, exacerbated by governance failures and socio-economic pressures. While the forests may still stand, their ecological integrity is profoundly compromised by the loss of their faunal inhabitants, leading to disrupted seed dispersal, altered regeneration patterns, trophic cascades, and a diminished capacity to provide essential ecosystem services. The consequences are not merely ecological; they reverberate through the socio-economic fabric of the nation, impacting livelihoods, food security, cultural heritage, and potentially human health.

Current conservation efforts in Nigeria, though well-intentioned, are often hamstrung by insufficient resources, weak enforcement, inadequate community engagement, and a failure to address the root drivers of faunal depletion comprehensively. The “paper park” phenomenon, where designated protected areas lack effective on-the-ground management, remains a significant hurdle. Without a paradigm shift, Nigeria faces the grim prospect of its forests becoming little more than green deserts – structurally present but functionally barren.

Addressing EFS demands an urgent, multi-faceted, and sustained response. This includes strengthening governance and the rule of law, significantly increasing investment in conservation, and ensuring that protected areas are effectively managed. Crucially, conservation strategies must become truly inclusive, empowering local communities as partners and ensuring they derive tangible benefits from wildlife protection. Developing and promoting sustainable alternative livelihoods is paramount to reducing reliance on unsustainable practices like the commercial bushmeat trade. Furthermore, an integrated landscape approach that considers ecological connectivity and sustainable land use beyond PA boundaries is essential. Robust research and monitoring programs are needed to guide adaptive management and measure progress.

The challenge is immense, but not insurmountable. Nigeria possesses a wealth of dedicated conservationists, researchers, and communities who are committed to safeguarding their natural heritage. What is required is greater political will, strategic investment, and a collaborative spirit that bridges government, NGOs, academia, the private sector, and local communities. The path to “refilling” Nigeria’s empty forests will be long and arduous, but it is a path that must be taken. The alternative – a future of silent, impoverished ecosystems – is a price too high for Nigeria’s biodiversity, its people, and the planet. The time for decisive and concerted action is now, to ensure that Nigeria’s forests can once again resonate with the sounds of a thriving and diverse faunal community.

REFERENCES

1. Afolayan, T. A. (1991). Management of National Parks for Sustainable Development in Nigeria. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Mobilizing Finance for Natural Resources Conservation in Nigeria.
2. Campos-Arceiz, A., & Blake, S. (2011). Megagardeners of the forest – the role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecologica, 37(6), 542-553.
3. Chapman, C. A., & Onderdonk, D. A. (1998). Forests without primates: Primate/plant codependency. American Journal of Primatology, 45(1), 127-141.
4. Dunn, A. (2014). Conservation in Nigeria: A review of current efforts and remaining challenges. (Fictional example report for context)
5. Edet, D. I., et al. (2012). Primate populations and threats in the Oban Division, Cross River National Park, Nigeria. (Fictional example publication for context)
6. Fa, J. E., Peres, C. A., & Meeuwig, J. (2002). Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 232-237.
7. Fa, J. E., Ryan, S. F., & Bell, D. J. (2005). Hunting vulnerability, ecological characteristics and harvest rates of bushmeat species in afrotropical forests. Biological Conservation, 121(2), 167-176.
8. FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Nigeria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
9. Hulme, D., & Murphree, M. (Eds.). (2001). African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation. James Currey.
10. Kurten, E. L. (2013). Cascading effects of contemporaneous defaunation on tropical forest communities. Biological Conservation, 163, 22-32.
11. McConkey, K. R., et al. (2012). Seed dispersal in fluctuating environments: insights from long‐term data in a seasonal forest. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(7), 744-754.
12. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858.
13. Nuñez-Iturri, G., & Howe, H. F. (2007). Bushmeat and the fate of trees with seeds dispersed by large primates in a lowland Amazonian forest. Biotropica, 39(3), 348-354.
14. Oates, J. F. (1999). Myth and reality in the rain forest: How conservation strategies are failing in West Africa. University of California Press.
15. Peres, C. A. (2001). Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conservation Biology, 15(6), 14901505.
16. Redford, K. H. (1992). The empty forest. BioScience, 42(6), 412-422.
17. Ripple, W. J., et al. (2016). Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world’s mammals. Royal Society Open Science, 3(10), 160498.
18. Stoner, K. E., et al. (2007). The role of mammals in tropical forest regeneration and seed dispersal: a review of issues and new directions. Biotropica, 39(3), 355-366.
19. Terborgh, J., et al. (2001). Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science, 294(5548), 1923-1926.
20. Terborgh, J., & Estes, J. A. (Eds.). (2010). Trophic cascades: predators, prey, and the changing dynamics of nature. Island Press.
21. Wang, B. C., & Smith, T. B. (2002). Closing the seed dispersal loop. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(8), 389-395.
22. Wolfe, N. D., Daszak, P., Kilpatrick, A. M., & Burke, D. S. (2005). Bushmeat hunting, deforestation, and prediction of zoonotic disease. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11(12), 1822.
23. Wright, S. J. (2003). The myriad consequences of hunting for vertebrates and plants in tropical forests. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 6(1-2), 7386.
24. Wright, S. J., et al. (2007). The plight of large animals in tropical forests and the consequences for plant regeneration. Biotropica, 39(3), 289-291.
25. Wright, S. J., et al. (2004). Are lianas increasing in importance in tropical forests? A 17‐year study from Panama. Ecology, 85(2), 484-489.