Brasil
Rodriguésia
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
Original Paper • Rodriguésia 77 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860202677003 linkcopy

Open-access Diversity, dispersal syndromes and origin of ruderal plants in an urban area at Central-West Brazil

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

We present a study of the diversity, origin and dispersal syndromes of ruderal plants in an urban area in Central-West Brazil. We recorded 266 species in the urban area of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul state, distributed into 165 genera and 59 families, of which Fabaceae (42 species), Poaceae (32 species) and Asteraceae (26 species) were the most diverse. The surveyed ruderal flora is dominated by native species from the regional Cerrado flora with abiotic dispersal syndromes, through dry fruits and capsules, and by autochory. We present mechanisms of human dispersal of ruderal plants in the city.

Key words:
invaders; Mato Grosso do Sul; naturalized species; spontaneous plants; weeds

Introduction

Ruderals, from the Greek “ruderes” means “ruin” (Font Quer 1953), are plants that occur in environments highly disturbed by human action and can be native or exotic, which can eventually initiate a process of ecological succession (Moro et al. 2012). Ruderal plants can enhance urban ecosystem services by improving nutrient cycling (Sukopp 2004), creating a more robust and resilient urban ecosystem (Mogîldea & Biță-Nicolae 2024). Such plants play a fundamental role as an alternative food resource for pollinators, which, attracted to urban areas, increase fruit productivity, with economic and environmental benefits (Montagnana & Campos 2020). Ruderal species represent a significant resource for the fauna, such as Hymenoptera, birds, and small animals in the urban environment (Luniak 2008). They also represent a potential human food resource once some species have high nutrient contents (e.g., Sukopp 2004).

However, due to the intense movements among urban areas worldwide, exotic species also successfully access new environments far from their origin, widening their geographic distribution. That, allied to gene flow, diaspore dispersal, favorable microclimate conditions and disturbed soil, have contributed to spreading plants and animals from warmer regions (Sukopp 2008). Furthermore, ruderal plants do not avoid little disturbed environments and under low abiotic stress (Schmidtlein et al. 2012). The urban environment can be seen as a mosaic shaped by a tangle of spaces and several landscapes. Though distinct from a natural ecosystem, it is also considered an ecosystem once it depends on and is supported by natural environmental factors such as climate, substrate, water, vegetation and fauna, related and interdependent, constituting an urban ecosystem (Marcondes 2002).

Globalization and the expansion of urban areas worldwide led to marked changes in habitat availability and species assemblages (Bonthoux et al. 2019), suppressing and homogenizing city biodiversity (Ziller 2001). Therefore, urban centers became quickly occupied by generalist native or exotic weed plants, which propagate themselves rapidly, generating a decline of other species (Yalçınalp & Meral 2019) and, as a consequence, exerting relevant ecological role (Kühn 2006; Del Tredici 2010).

Thus, studies on ruderal species can reveal relevant information about their origin and distribution, favoring the understanding of whether such species threaten the native flora or represent native species in the biome where the urban area is inserted (Del Tredici 2010). Furthermore, ruderal plant species are ideal for improving our understanding of the impact of urban ecosystems and the subsequent response of the ecosystem (Dana et al. 2002; Chen et al. 2014), besides their recovery potential of degraded areas (Ranđelović et al. 2024).

We provide an annotated checklist of the ruderal plants from Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, aiming to answer the following questions: 1) What is the diversity and composition of local ruderal florule? 2) What are the types of fruits and dispersal syndromes that favor their dissemination in the urban environment; and 3) What is the origin and distribution pattern of the surveyed ruderal plants?

Material & Methods

Study location

The survey was carried out in Campo Grande city, Mato Grosso do Sul, for eight days, four hours a day, totaling 32 hours. We separated three distinct environments present in urban environments: sidewalks, central beds, and empty lots (Tab. 1; Figs. 1; 2a-m).

The climate is tropical seasonal (Aw), with annual rainfall around 1,500 mm. The predominant soil type is red Latosol, often with earthmoving, landfill, or topsoil removal, compacted by machinery and human trampling. Fertilizers and dog urine add nutrients, and empty plots may receive domestic and construction dumps.

Sampling and data processing

We sampled using the wandering technique and collected fertile specimens in the study areas (Filgueiras et al. 1994) We botanized and identified the plants consulting weed manuals (Kissmann 1991; Kissmann & Groth 1992; Kissmann & Groth 1995; Neto et al. 2010) and websites such as Flora do Brasil and Kew, and deposited them in the CGMS Herbarium, Biosciences Institute of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (INBio-UFMS). When a species had already been collected in a ruderal area in Campo Grande with complete material deposited in the CGMS herbarium, the Curator of CGMS herbarium opted to not deposit the material again. We analyzed the specimen already deposited in the herbarium CGMS and verified the identification. This material was considered as part of the research when collected in an urbain place in Campo Grande municipality. Data on the collected material can be consulted at the website Jabot (JBRJ continuously updated).

After storing the material in the CGMS Herbarium, we entered the data into a spreadsheet and searched in databases for information on their morphology, vulnerability, occurrences and origin in speciesLink (speciesLink continuously updated), Flora e Funga do Brasil (Flora e Funga do Brasil continuously updated) and Plants of the World Online (POWO continuously updated). The dispersal syndromes were classified according to van der Pijl (1989) into six groups: autochory (explosive dispersal of diaspores or by gravity), anemochory (wind-blown diaspores), zoochory (endozoochory: diaspore dispersal through the animal digestive tract); epizoochory (diaspore dispersed outside the animal) and hydrochory (water dispersal). Although craspedium and lomentum are pod variations, we considered them distinct since their dispersal mechanism differs.

We used the following distribution patterns: American (species with occurrence in South, Central, and North America that reached temperate regions of the continent), South American (species exclusive to South America), Neotropical (species with occurrence in tropical America), African (species native to Africa) and Asian (species native to Asia).

Results

Floristics

We recorded 266 species distributed in 165 genera and 59 families of Angiosperm species (Tab. S1, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31126753>). Eudicots (79.1%) were the most collected, followed by Monocots (19.7%) and Magnolids (0.8%). The most diverse families were Fabaceae (41 species), Poaceae (32), Asteraceae (26), Convolvulaceae and Euphorbiaceae (13), Malvaceae (12), Cyperaceae (10), Solanaceae (seven), Amaranthaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Rubiaceae and Verbenaceae (six) (Figs. 3; 4a-m; 5a-m). The three richest families accounted for about 37% of the species, while the ten most diverse families aggregated 62% of diversity within ruderal plants in Campo Grande. On the other hand, although families with one (45%) and two species (16%) represented 61% of the families, these totaled only 17% of the sampled ruderal species diversity. The most diverse genera were Cyperus, Ipomoea, Mimosa (seven species each), Euphorbia, Desmodium (six), Solanum (five), Chamaecrista, Eragrostis, Ludwigia and Sida (four), representing less than 6% of genera, but 20% of species.

Regarding the growth habit, herbs (61%) were predominant, followed by sub-shrubs (18%), shrubs (8%), vines (8%), trees (1.5%), voluble (0.75%) and lianas (0.35%).

Fruits and dispersal syndromes

Dry fruits corresponded to 90% of the diversity in the ruderal flora, in contrast with fleshy structures accounting only for 10% of the species (Fig. 6). Nineteen types of fruits were recorded, with the capsule (34% of the species) the richest, followed by caryopsis (11.8%), cypsela (9.6%) and legume (8.5%), the most representative. Pomid, samara, samarid and siliqua were found in only one species. Furthermore, 54% of the families had capsule fruits, 7% with berries and schizocarps, and 5% with drupes. Families with the highest fruit diversity were Rubiaceae with capsules, schizocarps, and drupes, and Fabaceae with legume, lomentum, and craspedium. Although diverse in number of species and genera, Poaceae (caryopsis), Asteraceae (cypsela) and Fabaceae (legume) had a strongly canalized fruit structure, with their typical and exclusive fruits of each family. Such fruits represented about 30% of the total of ruderal plants.

thumbnail of Figure 1
Figure 1
- Map of Brazil, highlighting the collection points within the limits of the city of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.

Abiotic mechanisms dominated the diaspore dispersal forms of ruderal flora, accounting for 78% of the species, while biotic processes represented 22%. The most frequent dispersal syndrome in ruderal flora was autochory (63%), followed by anemochory (14%), zoochory (22%), and hydrochory (1%) (Fig. 7a-c). Regarding zoochory, there was a prevalence of endozoochory (12%) over epizoochory (9%). Autochory occurred especially in Fabaceae (19% of the syndrome), Poaceae (10%), Euphorbiaceae (8%) and Convolvulaceae (7%), and this is exclusive in Convolvulaceae, Cyperaceae, Lamiaceae, Loganiaceae, Onagraceae, Oxalidaceae, Sapindaceae and Talinaceae. On the other hand, anemochory was predominant in Asteraceae (52%) and Poaceae (28%), representing 80% of this syndrome in ruderal flora.

thumbnail of Figure 2
Figure 2
- a-m. Ruderal places in the city of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil - a-f. urban environments - a. sidewalk; b. empty lots; c.empty lots; d. central beds; e. empty lots; f. central beds; g-m. examples of occurrence ruderal plants in urban environments.

Zoochory was also concentrated in Fabaceae (18% epizoochory), Solanaceae (10% endozoochory) and Cucurbitaceae (7% endozoochory). Endozoochory was also exclusive to families such as Moraceae, Passifloraceae, and Piperaceae, and epizoochory was exclusive to Caryophyllaceae and Phytolaccaceae. Seeds dispersed by ants (myrmecochory) occurred only in Turneraceae and Polygalaceae.

Within ruderal flora, the capsule was the fruit type that presented all five dispersal syndromes, followed by caryopsis and cypsela with three dispersal forms. Autochory, zoochory and anemochory were the dispersal mechanisms observed in the highest diversity of fruits (Fig. 8). Fleshy fruits, with 83% of the syndrome, were directly linked to endozoochory.

Origin and distribution pattern

The ruderal flora was represented by 72% of native and 28% of exotic species of Brazil (Fig. 9). The diversity found has a predominance of species widely distributed in the Americas, with 78% native to the continent and 71% exclusive to the Americas. The distribution patterns with the highest number of species were American (27% of species), South American (20%), Neotropical (18%), and African-Asiatic (6%), while 12 species were endemic to Brazil.

thumbnail of Figure 3
Figure 3
- Most diverse families and genera of ruderal plants in the city of Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil.

Regarding native species from Brazilian Phytogeographic Domains, 66% of the diversity was from Cerrado, followed by the Atlantic Forest (64%). Concerning species exclusive to one of these domains, 50% were from the Cerrado and 37% from the Atlantic Forest. Twenty-five per cent of species occurred in all Brazilian Phytogeographic Domains (Amazon, Caatinga, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pampa and Pantanal); 71% occurred, at least, in four of these domains, and 6% were exclusive to one domain. We highlight that 13% of the ruderal plants from Campo Grande are not mentioned in the Flora do Brasil for Mato Grosso do Sul state. Stachytarpheta sprucei, Malvastrum coromandelianum, Piriqueta carnea, Mimosa chaetosphaera

Fabaceae (33 species), Asteraceae (18), and Poaceae (12) were the families with the highest number of native species; however, they also had more exotics, Poaceae (19 species), Fabaceae (8) and Asteraceae (7) (Fig. 10). In contrast, Cucurbitaceae (100%), Poaceae (60%), and Lamiaceae (50%) were the families with the highest percentage of exotic species. Among the ten most diverse families, Cucurbitaceae presented all exotic species, while Solanaceae, Verbenaceae, Turneraceae, Acanthaceae, and Onagraceae had exclusively native diversity.

The ruderal flora in Campo Grande presents some commercial crop species, such as sesame (Sesamum indicum L.), papaya (Carica papaya L.), watermelon (Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai), pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.), loofah (Luffa aegyptiaca L.), castor-bean (Ricinus communis L.), basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) and guava (Psidium guajava L.). Ornamental plants are also found, such as king’salad (Cosmos caudatus Kunth), fortune flower (Kalanchoe laetivirens Desc.), begonia (Begonia cucullata Willd.), lemon-balm (Lippia alba (Mill.) N.E. Br. ex Britton & P. Wilson), shamrock (Oxalis latifolia Kunth.), marvel-plant (Mirabilis jalapa L.), and the guarujá flower (Turnera subulata Sm.).

Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray, Cenchrus echinatus L., Mimosa caesalpiniaefolia Benth., Urochloa decumbens (Stapf) R.D.Webster are listed on the online platform Brazilian Biodiversity Information System as invasive species (<https://specieslist.sibbr.gov.br>).

Seedlings of urban arborization trees with wind-blown seeds are abundant, e.g., native trumpet trees (Handroanthus Mattos and Tabebuia Gomes ex DC. species), also the exotic Tabebuia rosea (Bertol.) DC., besides the native trees Albizia niopoides (Spruce ex Benth.) Burkart and Astronium urundeuva (F. Allemão) Engl. Seedlings of the exotic tree Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit are highly frequent, besides Bauhinia variegata L. and Moquilea tomentosa Benth.

thumbnail of Figure 4
Figure 4
- a-m. Ruderal flora from Campo Grande (MS) Brazil - a. Arachis glabrata; b. Chamaecrista rotundifolia; c. Clitoria ternatea; d. Commelina erecta; e. Cucurbita; f. Desmodium incanum; g. Dichondra sericea; h. Emilia fosbergii; i. Celosia argentea; j. Euploca procumbens; l. Indigofera spicata; m. Ipomoea cairica.

Discussion

Floristics

We present a survey of ruderal plants with a high species richness (264 species) considering other studies of ruderal plants in some Brazilian regions (e.g., Cervi et al. 1988; Carneiro & Irgang 2005; Silva et al. 2008). The richness of those ruderal floras varied from 53 species (Souza et al. 2012) to 344 species (Neto 2010; Neto et al. 2010) (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31126753>). Discrepancies in the diversity of floristic studies are generally linked to the different methodologies adopted, sampling effort, area size and Phytogeographic Domain of the vegetation fragment of the city (e.g., Cervi et al. 1988; Carneiro & Irgang 2005; Silva et al. 2008; Souza et al. 2012). Another influencing factor is the history of disturbance in the area and whether cities maintain forest fragments around (Ratter et al. 2003; Bridgewater et al. 2004).

Although Fabaceae was the most diverse family of ruderal plants of Campo Grande, Asteraceae was the richest in most studies in Brazil, followed by Poaceae and Fabaceae, respectively (e.g.,Carneiro & Irgang 2005; Schneider & Irgang 2005; Hassemer & Trevisan 2012). Asteraceae is mentioned as the most diverse family in 63% of surveys, and Poaceae appears in 27% and Fabaceae in 23% (Tab. S1, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31126753>). These three families were highlighted in all national surveys of ruderal flora (Brandão et al. 1995; Silva et al. 2008; Rolim 2013; Neto et al. 2015; Vichiato & Vichiato 2016) and among the four most diverse families in Brazil (Forzza et al. 2010; BFG 2018; Gomes da Silva et al. 2021), representing about 25% of the floristic diversity of the Cerrado Phytogeographic Domain, predominantly from poor and open environments (Sano et al. 2008).

thumbnail of Figure 5
Figure 5
- a-m. Ruderal flora from Campo Grande (MS) Brazil - a. Ipomoea procurrens; b. Ipomoea quamoclit; c. Mollugo verticillata; d. Passiflora pohlii; e. Pectis odorata; f. Plantago tomentosa; g. Portulaca oleracea; h. Portulaca oleracea; i. Richardia grandiflora; j. Tithonia diversifolia; l. Turnera orientalis; m. Turnera subulata.

thumbnail of Figure 6
Figure 6
- Most representative fruit types of the ruderal flora of Campo Grande (MS) Brazil.

thumbnail of Figure 7
Figure 7
- a-c. Mechanisms and dispersal syndromes of the ruderal flora at Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.

Fabaceae is the family that most contributes to the richness of the Neotropical flora (Gentry 1988), has the highest richness in Brazil (Forzza et al. 2010; BFG 2018; Gomes da Silva et al. 2021) and is highlighted in the floristic composition of all Phytogeographic Domains (Pott & Pott 1999; Ribeiro et al. 1999; Bridgewater et al. 2004; Felfili et al. 2002; Ratter et al. 2003; Battilani et al. 2005; Sano et al. 2008), including ruderal floras (Gavilanes & D’angieri Soares-Filho et al. 2016; Vichiato & Vichiato 2016). Asteraceae and Poaceae are also among the most diverse families in Brazil (Gomes da Silva et al. 2021) and are relevant components of the invasive species diversity of anthropic areas on account of preference for open environments, rapid growth and efficient dispersal (Funk et al. 2009; Vichiato & Vichiato 2016; Souza & Lorenzi 2019). The ruderal florule in this central area of the state is similar to that found in the eastern part (Neto 2010; Neto et al. 2010), and many species also occur in the western area (Pott & Pott 1985, 1986, 1999).

We point out that Mazaceae, with the tiny Mazus pumilus (Burm. f.) Steenis, had never been collected and mentioned for Mato Grosso do Sul state. The species is from Asia and Oceania, adapting in Brazil to cracks in sidewalks and walls (Souza & Lorenzi 2019).

Fruits and dispersal syndromes

Abiotic dispersal mechanisms in ruderal flora, as found here, are directly related to the high proportion of dry fruits (e.g.,Silva & Rodal 2009; Silva et al. 2013) in agreement with the anemochoric and autochoric syndromes of dispersal (van der Pijl 1982). There is a direct relationship between the proportion of dry fruits and strong seasonality, with the opposite occurring with fleshy fruits (Silva & Rodal 2009). Therefore, dry fruits, especially capsules, are also the most abundant type in the Cerrado Phytogeographic Domain (Peres 2016).

thumbnail of Figure 8
Figure 8
- Types of fruits and their respective dispersal syndromes of the ruderal flora from Campo Grande (MS) Brazil.

Abiotic dispersal mechanisms are common in pioneer plants and increase in importance in more open environments and regions with low rainfall (Gentry 1982; van der Pijl 1982; Peres 2016). Consequently, abiotic syndromes, such as autochory and anemochory, are dominant in the Caatinga (Silva & Rodal 2009; Silva et al. 2013; Lima & Melo 2015), Chaco (Andrella et al. 2023), rupestrian cerrado (Dutra et al. 2009), outcrop rocky areas (Araújo et al. 2008; Costa 2014), deserts (van der Pijl 1982; van Oudtshoorn & van Rooyen 1999; Liu et al. 2014), grasslands (Peres 2016) and in ruderal environments, as we have seen here. For this reason, abiotic dispersal tools are typical of dry fruits (Silva & Rodal 2009; Silva et al. 2013), such as dry fruits are dominant (90%) in ruderal flora.

In contrast, zoochoric dispersal, especially endozoochory, intensifies in more humid vegetation (Gentry 1982), dominating in the forested formations of the Amazon and Atlantic Forests (Yamamoto et al. 2007; Stefanello et al. 2010; Silva et al. 2012) besides in Cerrado riparian forests (Stefanello et al. 2010; Silva et al. 2012; Ramos & Sartori 2013) and restingas (Amaral et al. 2015). The prevalence of endozoochory over epizoochory increased by the occurrence of species with fleshy native and cultivated fruits, i.e., Carica papaya, Citrullus lanatus, Citrus spp., Cucurbita pepo L., Cucumis anguria L., Psidium guajava, and Solanum spp. Endozoochory has birds as the preferential dispersal agent in cities (Soares-Filho et al. 2016; Yang et al. 2021), a more diverse group in the urban environment compared with native mammals (Yang et al. 2021).

thumbnail of Figure 9
Figure 9
- Distribution patterns of the ruderal flora at Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.

The deforested open environment in ruderal areas, the anthropic and wind stresses, and the virtual absence of mammals (except bats, pets, and humans) as dispersers selected species of dry fruits, autochory, and anemochory (Vittoz & Engler 2007), which may be a characteristic that enabled a high number of native species are present. Since autochory does not require biotic dispersers, such species may show an aggregated distribution pattern (Vittoz & Engler 2007).

Although hydrochory in the survey only occurred in Nymphoides humboldtiana (Kunth) Kuntze, this mechanism may also occur in Ipomoea carnea Jacq. due to trichomes on the seeds as a flotation tool (Pott & Pott 2000). Nevertheless, Pilea microphylla (L.) Liebm. abundant tiny seeds are also carried by rain and irrigation water, besides being wind-blown, growing in shaded, moist, rich soil. Five species showed dispersal by zoochory-myrmecochory (Asemeia rhodoptera (Mart. ex A.W. Benn.) J.A. Pastore & J.R. Abbott, A. violacea (Aubl.) J.F.B. Pastore & J.R. Abbott, Turnera orientalis (Urb.) Arbo, T. pumilea L., and T. subulata). Asemeia rhodoptera is restricted to Brazil, perhaps for a dispersal mechanism favorable to its survival in the urban environment (Leal et al. 2015). The dispersal of T. subulata by myrmecochory shows that this type of dispersal is not restricted to small-sized species (Leal et al. 2015). The highly frequent leaf-cutting ants (Atta laevigata (Smith 1858)) can carry such seeds.

Poaceae species, such as Aristida riparia Trin, Digitaria insularis (L.) Fedde, Melinis minutiflora P. Beauv. and M. repens (Willd.) Zizka can be dispersed by both anemochory or epizoochory. This phenomenon results from long periods of contact of the invasive species with agriculture, generating a change in its form of dispersal, originally anemochoric, gradually becoming epizochoric (anthropochoric) by adhesion (Müller 1955).

Important factors in the dispersal of ruderal plant species are the domestication (Zohary & Hopf 2000), the closer relationship between man and wild animals (Povolny 1963; Kenward & Allison 1994), making them cosmopolitan, soil use in the city (Sukopp 2008) and dispersal by residents and domestic animals through epizoochory associated with anemochory (Vittoz & Engler 2007).

Human actions for anthropochory are a direct dispersal agent of ruderal plants, specially through aspects of his daily life. Below, we describe the potential by which people in cities disperse diaspores of ruderal plants by anthropochory.

Fortuitous transport of diaspores (burrs) by human epizoochory, which adhere to clothes and shoes, especially the lower limbs, and objects that come into contact with plants. These diaspores are transported to other places in the city and removed deliberately or left around houses and backyards. Examples: Bidens subalternans DC., Boerhavia difusa L., Cenchrus echinatus L., Desmodium incanum (Sw.) DC., D. tortuosum (Sw.) DC.,, Drymaria cordata (L.) Willd. ex Roem. & Schult., Priva bahiensis A.DC., Triumfetta semitriloba Jacq. and Zornia latifolia Sm. Earthworks favor vegetative propagation of perennial species, e.g., grasses and sedges. Under frequent lawn mowing and human trampling, plants tend to regrow from the base or underground, and their size becomes reduced. Sometimes, fires occur in empty plots overgrown by grass.

thumbnail of Figure 10
Figure 10
- Distribution of exotic (black) and native species (green) in the main botanical families of the ruderal flora of Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.

2) Soil transfer between locations carrying diaspores from seed banks is potentially a dispersal route for all ruderal plant species. Examples: Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet, Cyperus rotundus L., Ricinus communis, Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam., Turnera subulata and Stachytarpheta cayennensis (Rich.) Vahl. Besides autochory to the soil seed bank, the pods of Leucaena leucocephala are wind-blown, and the seeds are also carried by water. The propagules of Arachis glabrata Benth. are rhizomes since ir rarelely fructifies, and Cyperus rotundus L. has bulbs and tubers connected by rhizomes, besides seeds. Present in lawns kept short, Cipura paludosa also has bulbs.

3) Public agents weeding, pruning and mowing urban ruderal areas remove excessive vegetation and dropped leaves and transfer diaspores to garbage dumps. Examples: Cyperus esculentus L., Euphorbia heterophylla L., E. hirta L., E. hyssopifolia L. and Tithonia diversifolia.

4) Disposal of residential organic waste with seeds of ruderal food species to inappropriate areas and vacant lots. Examples: Acrocomia totai Mart., Carica papaya, Citrullus lanatus, Cucumis anguria, Cucurbita pepo, Mangifera indica L., Psidium guajava and Syagrus romanzoffiana (Cham.) Glassman.

5) Bagged and potted soil and lawn bought from flower shops and nurseries carry many seedlings and diaspores, which germinate and disperse their seeds, e.g., Cyperus spp.

6) Domestic animals (dogs and cats) help to disperse ruderal species by transporting diaspores attached to their fur.

7) House-to-house transport of diaspores by exchange of ornamental ruderal plants, enabling their dissemination in nearby areas. Examples: Mirabilis jalapa, Petiveria alliacea L. and Lantana fucata Lindl.

8) Dispersal of seeds of potential ruderal plants to feed and attract birds to houses (ornithophily). E.g., Carica papaya, Eugenia uniflora L., Helianthus annuus L., Panicum milliaceum L. (proso millet) and Psidium guajava. Many fleshy and dry fruits feed native birds, such as blue-and yellow macaws.

9) Introduced birds, such as pigeons and sparrows, help to transport diaspores of ruderal plants attached to their body or when they feed on seeds, especially Poaceae.

10) Wind and air displacement by vehicles, besides adherence to wheels, help disseminate anemochoric species in gardens around the streets or central beds. Examples: Aristida riparia, Eragrostis tenuifolia (A.Rich.) Hochst. ex Steud. (Guglieri Caporal et al. 2011), Emilia fosbergii Nicolson, Pectis brevipedunculata (Gardner) Sch.Bip., Porophyllum ruderale (Jacq.) Cass., Tridax procumbens L. and Youngia japonica (L.) DC.

Origin and distribution pattern

Native species accounted for the majority of ruderal surveys, reaching an average of 74% (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31126753>), close to the about 72% found here. However, the percentage (28%) of exotic species here was higher than the national average (23%) (Tab. S2, available on supplementary material <https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31126753>). The results of native species are similar to research in Bolivia (80%) and China (69%) (Guo et al. 2018), but different from that found in Chile (20%), Australia (S) (11%) and New Zealand (19%) (Meurk et al. 2016).

Exotic ruderal species (28%) originate mainly from the American continent, followed by Africa and Asia. Human action since the colonization of Brazil has introduced many exotic species through agriculture (Schneider & Irgang 2005). The invasive potential of ruderal plants is remarkable, as these species often thrive in disturbed environments, facilitating their spread into natural ecosystems. Ruderal areas serve as critical entry points for invasive species, which can negatively impact local biodiversity and ecosystem health (Vanessa et al. 2019; Dubyna et al. 2022). Invasive species accounted for 20% of all ruderal species observed in Beijing’s urban areas, indicating their widespread distribution (Guo et al. 2018). A study in Bratislava, Slovakia (i.e., Rendeková et al. 2017) revealed an increase in invasive neophytes over 30 years, indicating a growing trend of invasions in ruderal areas. The results indicated a trend of biodiversity loss and homogenization of plant communities in urban areas, driven by increasing anthropogenic pressures. Therefore, it is important of monitoring alien species dynamics in urban environments to understand ecological changes and inform conservation efforts (Rendeková et al. 2017).

Immigrants from different continents have contributed to the cultural exchange of varied eating habits and the tradition of plant cultivation. Campo Grande is one of the largest Japanese (Okinawa) and Paraguayan communities in Brazil, besides Arabs and Lebanese, and a large number of migrants from the South and Southeast of the country. Indigenous communities and quilombolas also occur in the municipality.

Our data show that the ruderal plants generally present wide distribution, with occurrence records in various Brazilian biomes (Flora e Funga do Brasil, continuously updated). Distinct biomes such as Amazon, Caatinga, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pampa and Pantanal have influenced the flora of Mato Grosso do Sul, and this we also observed in the recorded ruderal native species. The native vegetation areas around the sampled sites, with floristic elements from Cerrado and gallery forest, may have favored the prevalence of native species and the high percentage of species exclusive to the Cerrado. Considered one of the most arborized cities in Brazil, Campo Grande keeps 20% of native vegetation protected in linear parks and conservation units (Planurb 2020). Besides, native species add up to 49% of those used in the landscaping of the city (Pestana et al. 2011), and their planting has been stimulated in urban planning.

We highlight a new species record in our study in the Flora of Brazil. Among the exotic species stands out Mazus pumilus, from the Asian continent, a new occurrence for Mato Grosso do Sul. We point out that the state has one of the lowest collection indices in Brazil (Peixoto 2003; Shepherd 2003; Alves et al. 2018). In the last decades, the official incentive of research policies for cataloguing the Brazilian biodiversity has been reflected in the gradually growing botanical knowledge about the distinct Brazilian regions, e.g., the project Flora and Funga of Brazil (Flora e Funga do Brasil, continuously updated). However, despite all efforts, the extensive territory and megadiversity of the country have hindered the cataloguing of the flora.

In this study, the richest families in ruderal species were Fabaceae, Asteraceae, and Poaceae. The different uses of the species of these families go beyond their food value, such as soil cover (rain infiltration and erosion control), ornamental, medicinal, and religious. Fabaceae and Asteraceae also correspond to the families with the highest number of species among Angiosperms and are well represented worldwide. Besides, these three families have a high reproductive potential, diverse reproductive patterns, and seeds that are fit for wind dispersal, mainly in Asteraceae and Poaceae. Most Fabaceae fix nitrogen and, thus, are favored by their capacity to accumulate nutrients and colonize new areas.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Fundação de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Ensino, Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul (FUNDECT) (grant number 71/018.907/2021).

Data availability statement

In accordance with Open Science communication practices, the authors inform that there is no data sharing of this manuscript

Data availability statement

See supplementary material at Figshare

References

  • Alves FM, Lehn CR, Damasceno-Júnior GA, Sartori ÂLB, Pott A, Pott VJ, Bortolotto IM, Ishii IH, Salis SM, Urbanetz C, Bueno ML & Sciamarelli A (2018) Coleções botânicas do estado de Mato Grosso do Sul: situação atual e perspectivas. Iheringia, Série Botânica 73: 93-100.
  • Amaral DD, Jardim MAG, Costa Neto SV & Bastos MNC (2015) Síndromes de dispersão de propágulos e a influência da floresta amazônica na composição de espécies lenhosas de uma restinga no litoral norte brasileiro. Biota Amazônica 5: 28-37.
  • Andrella GC, Souza EB & Sartori ALB (2023) Revealing the influence of climatic variables on the distribution of legume dispersal traits in the Chaco. Acta Botanica Brasilica 37: e20230118.
  • Araújo FS, Oliveira RF & Lima-Verde LW (2008) Composição, espectro biológico e síndromes de dispersão da vegetação de um inselbergue no domínio da caatinga, Ceará. Rodriguésia 59: 659-671.
  • Battilani JL, Scremin-Dias E & Souza ALT (2005) Fitossociologia de um trecho da mata ciliar do rio da Prata, Jardim MS. Acta Botanica Brasilica 19: 597-608.
  • BFG - The Brazil Flora Group (2018) Brazilian Flora 2020: innovation and collaboration to meet Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). Rodriguésia 69: 1513-1527.
  • Bonthoux S, Voisin L, Bouché-Pillon S & Chollet S (2019) More than weeds: spontaneous vegetation in streets as a neglected element of urban biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 185: 163-172.
  • Brandão M, Paluma E, Klein VLG, Mautone L, Guimarães EF, Pereira RC & Niguel JR (1995) Plantas daninhas do estado do Rio de Janeiro: acréscimo aos trabalhos já efetuados no estado. Planta Daninha 13: 98-116.
  • Bridgewater S, Ratter JA & Ribeiro JF (2004) Biogeographic patterns, b-diversity and dominance in the cerrado biome of Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2295-2318.
  • Carneiro AM, Irgang BE (2005) Origem e distribuição geográfica das espécies ruderais da Vila de Santo Amaro, General Câmara, Rio Grande do Sul. Iheringia, Série Botânica 60: 175-188.
  • Cervi AC, Guimarães OA, Acra LA, Negrelli RRB & Sbalchiero D (1988) Catálogo das plantas ruderais da cidade de Curitiba, Brasil. Estudos preliminares III. Acta Biológica Paranaense 17: 109-139.
  • Chen X, Wang W, Liang H, Liu X & Da L (2014) Dynamics of ruderal species diversity under the rapid urbanization over the past half century in Harbin, Northeast China. Urban Ecosystems 17: 455-472.
  • Costa ECS (2014) Análise florística, síndromes de dispersão e aspectos estruturais em “ilhas” de vegetação de um afloramento rochoso no agreste paraibano. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Campina Grande. 105p.
  • Dana ED, Vivas S & Mota JF (2002) Urban vegetation of Almería City - a contribution to urbain ecology in Spain. Landscape and Urban Planning 59: 203-2016.
  • Dutra VF, Vieira MF, Garcia FCP & Lima HC (2009) Fenologia reprodutiva, síndromes de polinização e dispersão em espécies de leguminosae dos campos rupestres do parque estadual do itacolomi, minas gerais, Brasil. Rodriguésia 60: 371-387.
  • Del Tredici P (2010) Spontaneous urban vegetation: reflections of change in a globalized world. Nature and Culture 5: 299-315.
  • Dubyna D, Dziuba T, Iemelianova S, Protopopova VV & Shevera MV (2022) Alien species in the pioneer and ruderal vegetation of Ukraine. Diversity 14: 1085. DOI: 10.3390/d14121085
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/d14121085
  • Felfili JM, Nogueira PE, Júnior MCS, Marimon BS & Delitti WBC (2002) Composição florística e fitossociologia de um cerrado sentido restrito no município de Água Boa-MT. Acta Botanica Brasilica 16: 103-112.
  • Filgueiras TS, Nogueira PE, Brochado AL & Guala II GF (1994) Caminhamento: um método expedito para levantamentos florísticos qualitativos. Cadernos de Geociências 12: 39-43.
  • Flora e Funga do Brasil (continuously updated) Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available at <Available at http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ >. Access on 21 June 2024.
    » http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/
  • Font Quer P (1953) Diccionario de botánica. Ed. Labor, Barcelona. 1244p.
  • Forzza RC, Baumgratz JFA, Bicudo CEM, Carvalho Júnior AA, Costa A, Costa DP, Hopkins MG, Leitman PM, Lohmann LG, Maia LC, Martinelli G, Menezes M, Morim MP, Coelho MAN, Peixoto AL, Pirani JR, Prado J, Queiroz LP, Souza VC, Stehmann JR, Sylvestre LS, Walter BMT & Zappi D (2010) Catálogo de plantas e fungos do Brasil. Vols. 1 e 2. Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. 1700p.
  • Funk VA, Susanna A, Stuessy TF & Bayer RJ (2009) Systematics, evolution, and biogeography of Compositae. International Association for Plant Taxonomy, Vienna. 1001p.
  • Gavilanes ML & D’Angieri Filho CN (1991) Flórula ruderal da cidade de Lavras, MG. Acta Botanica Brasilica 5: 77-88.
  • Gentry A (1982) Patterns of Neotropical plant species diversity. In: Hecht MK, Wallace B & Prance GT (eds.) Evolutionary biology. Plenum Press, New York. Pp. 1-84.
  • Gentry A (1988) Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 75: 1-34.
  • Gomes da Silva J, Lanna J & Forzza RC (2021) Distribution of endemic angiosperm species in Brazil on a municipality level. Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e66043.
  • Guglieri Caporal A, Caporal FJM & Valls JFM (2011) Eragrostis tenuifolia (A. Rich.) Hochst. ex Steud. (Poaceae) no Mato Grosso do Sul e Mato Grosso, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Biociências 9: 418-420.
  • Guo P, Yu F, Ren Y, Liu D, Li J, Ouyang Z & Wang X (2018) Response of ruderal species diversity to an urban environment: implications for conservation and management. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15: 2832.
  • Hassemer G & Trevisan R (2012) Levantamento florístico de plantas vasculares espontâneas em ambientes antrópicos no campus da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brasil. Biotemas 25: 75-96.
  • JBRJ - Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro (continuously updated) Jabot - Banco de Dados da Flora Brasileira. Available at <Available at http://jabot.jbrj.gov.br/ >. Access on 21 June 2024.
    » http://jabot.jbrj.gov.br/
  • Kenward HK & Allison EP (1994) Rural origins of the urban insect fauna. In: Hall AR & Kenward HK (eds.) Urban-rural connexions: perspectives from environmental archaeology. Ed. Oxbow Monograph, Oxford. Pp. 55-77.
  • Kissmann KG (1991) Plantas infestantes e nocivas. Vol. 1. Ed. BASF, São Paulo. 608p.
  • Kissmann KG & Groth D (1992) Plantas infestantes e nocivas. Vol. 2. Ed. BASF, São Paulo. 798p.
  • Kissmann KG & Groth D (1995) Plantas infestantes e nocivas. Vol. 3. Ed. BASF, São Paulo. 683p.
  • Kühn I & Klotz S (2006) Urbanization and homogenization - comparing the floras of urban and rural areas in Germany. Biological Conservation 127: 292-300.
  • Leal IR, Leal LC, Oliveira FMP, Arcoverde GB & Andersen AN (2015) Effects of human disturbance and climate change on myrmecochory in Brazilian Caatinga. In: Oliveira PS & Koptur S (eds.) Ant-plant interactions: impacts of humans on terrestrial ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 112-132.
  • Lima EA & Melo JIM (2015) Biological spectrum and dispersal syndromes in an area of the semi-arid region of north-eastern Brazil. Acta Scientiarum. Health Sciences 37: 91-100.
  • Liu H, Zhang D, Yang X, Huang Z, Duan S & Wang X (2014) Seed dispersal and germination traits of 70 plant species inhabiting the Gurbantunggut Desert in Northwest China. The Scientific World Journal 2014: 346405.
  • Luniak M (2008) Fauna of the big city - estimating species richness and abundance in Warsaw, Poland. In: Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Endlicher W, Alberti M, Bradley G, Ryan C, ZumBrunnen C & Simon U (eds.) Urban ecology: an international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer, New York. Pp. 349-354.
  • Marcondes I (2002) A influência da urbanização na distribuição da vegetação na cidade de Curitiba, PR. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba. 100p.
  • Mautone L, Brandão M, Guimarães EF & Miguel JR (1990) Daninhas ocorrentes na zona serrana do estado do Rio de Janeiro - Município de Petrópolis. Acta Botanica Brasilica 4: 123-135.
  • Meurk CD, Sullivan J & Mcwilliam W (2016) Vegetation history and dynamics in New Zealand: future scenarios and improved trajectories towards restoring natural patterns. In: Box EO (ed.) Vegetation structure and function at multiple spatial, temporal and conceptual scales. Springer, Berlin. Pp. 517-528.
  • Mogîldea D & Biță-Nicolae C (2024) Ruderal Plant diversity as a driver for urban green space sustainability. Urban Science 8: 159.
  • Montagnana PC & Campos MJO (2020) Ruderal plants providing bees diversity on rural properties. Sociobiology 67: 388-400.
  • Moro MF, Souza VC, Oliveira-Filho AT, Queiroz LP, Fraga CN, Rodal MJN, Araújo FS & Martins FR (2012) Alienígenas na sala: o que fazer com espécies exóticas em trabalhos de taxonomia, florística e fitossociologia? Acta Botanica Brasilica 26: 991-999.
  • Müller SP (1955) Verbreitungsbiologie der Bliitenpflanzen. Veröffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH Zürich 30: 1-52.
  • Neto MJ (2010) Levantamento florístico e colonização micorrízica em dois remanescentes de Cerrado típico e em plantas ruderais no Município de Três Lagoas-MS. UNESP, Ilha Solteira. 145p.
  • Neto MJ, Otsubo HCB & Cassiolato AMR (2010) Plantas ruderais. Ed. UFMS, Campo Grande. 364p.
  • Neto MJ, Otsubo HCB, Scabora MH, Maltoni KL & Cassiolato AMR (2015) A floristic survey, origin and mycorrhization of ruderal plants in remaining Cerrado areas publishing agreement. Journal of Agriculture and Life Science 2: 38-50.
  • Planurb - Agência Municipal de Meio Ambiente e Planejamento Urbano (2020) Perfil socioeconômico de Campo Grande/Instituto Municipal de Planejamento Urbano - Planurb. Vol. 27. Agência Municipal de Meio Ambiente e Planejamento Urbano, Campo Grande. 528p.
  • Pestana LTC, Alves FM & Sartori ALB (2011) Espécies arbóreas da arborização urbana do centro do município de Campo Grande, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Arborização Urbana 6: 1-21.
  • Peixoto AL (2003) Coleções biológicas de apoio ao inventário, uso sustentável e conservação da biodiversidade. Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro. 237p.
  • Peres MK (2016) Estratégia de dispersão de sementes no bioma cerrado: considerações ecológicas e filogenéticas. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília. 353p.
  • Povolny D (1963) Einige Erwägungen über die Beziehungen zwischen den Begriffen “Synanthrop” und “Kulturfolger”. Beiträge Zur Entomologie 13: 439-444.
  • Pott VJ & Pott A (1985) Flórula ruderal da Cidade de Corumbá, MS. In: Anais do XXXVI Congresso Nacional de Botânica. Vol. 2. IBAMA, Curitiba. Pp. 519-535.
  • Pott A & Pott VJ (1986) Plantas colonizadoras da estrada transpantaneira (da Fazenda Leque ao retiro Chatelodo), na Nhecolândia, Pantanal. Embrapa 7: 1-9.
  • Pott A & Pott VJ (1999) Flora do Pantanal - listagem atual das Fanerógamas. In: Dantas M, Catto JB & Resende EK (eds.) Anais do II Simpósio sobre recursos naturais sócio-econômicos do Pantanal. Embrapa Pantanal, Corumbá. Pp. 297-325.
  • Pott VJ & Pott A (2000) Plantas aquáticas do Pantanal. Embrapa, Brasília. 404p.
  • POWO (continuously updated) Plants of the World Online. Facilitated by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Available at <Available at http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/ >. Access on 21 June 2024.
    » http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/
  • Ramos WM & Sartori ALB (2013) Floristic analysis and dispersal syndromes of woody species of the Serra de Maracaju, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 73: 67-78.
  • Ranđelović D, Jakovljević K, Šinžar-Sekulić J, Kuzmic F & Šilc U (2024) Recognising the role of ruderal species in restoration of degraded lands. Science of the Total Environment 938: 173104.
  • Ratter JA, Bridgewater S & Ribeiro JF (2003) Analysis of the floristic composition of the Brazilian cerrado vegetation III: comparison of the woody vegetation of 376 areas. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 60: 57-109.
  • Ribeiro JELS, Hopkins MJG, Vicentini A, Sothers CA, Costa MAS, Brito JM, Souza MAD, Martins LH, Lohmann LG, Assunção PA, Pereira EC, Silva CF, Mesquita MR & Procópio LC (1999) Flora da Reserva Ducke. Guia de identificação das plantas vasculares de uma floresta de terra firme na Amazônia Central. INPA-DFID, Manaus. 800p.
  • Rolim RG (2013) Alta diversidade vegetal campestre em ambiente urbano - um estudo de caso no sul do Brasil. Monografia de conclusão de curso. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre. 31p.
  • Sano SM, Almeida SP & Ribeiro JF (2008) Cerrado: ecologia e flora. Embrapa Cerrados, Brasília. 1279p.
  • Schmidtlein S, Feilhauer H & Bruelheide H (2012) Mapping plant strategy types using remote sensing. Journal of Vegetation Science 23: 395-405.
  • Schneider AA & Irgang BE (2005) Florística e fitossociologia de vegetação viária no município de Não-Me-Toque, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia, Série Botânica 60: 49-62.
  • Shepherd GJ (2003) Avaliação do estado do conhecimento da diversidade biológica do Brasil: plantas terrestres. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília. 59p.
  • Silva AMA, Coelho ID & Medeiros PR (2008) Levantamento florístico das plantas daninhas em um parque público de Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brasil. Biotemas 21: 7-14.
  • Silva MCNA & Rodal MJN (2009) Padrões das síndromes de dispersão de plantas em áreas com diferentes graus de pluviosidade, PE, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 23: 1040-1047.
  • Silva ACC, Prata APN, Mello AA & Santos ACAS (2013) Síndromes de dispersão de Angiospermas em uma Unidade de Conservação na Caatinga, SE, Brasil. Hoehnea 40: 601-609.
  • Soares-Filho AO, Paula A, Santos AA, Oliveira CV, D’Soares CS, Santos FS, Carvalho RCF & Pereira JES (2016) Plantas ruderais no Planalto Conquistense, Bahia e sua importância. Natureza on line 14: 27-43.
  • Souza RSS, Filho HOM & Andrade TM (2012) Levantamento preliminar da vegetação ruderal da cidade de João Pessoa - PB. Revista Geonorte 1: 200-207.
  • Souza VC & Lorenzi H (2019) Botânica Sistemática: guia ilustrado para identificação das famílias de fanerógamas e nativas e exóticas no Brasil, baseado em APG IV. Ed. Instituto Plantarum, Nova Odessa. 768p.
  • speciesLink (continuously updated) speciesLink network. Available at <Available at https://specieslink.net/ >. Access on 21 June 2024.
    » https://specieslink.net/
  • Stefanello D, Ivanauskas NM, Martins SV, Silva E & Kunz SH (2010) Síndromes de dispersão de diásporos das espécies de trechos de vegetação ciliar do Rio das Pacas, Querência - MT. Acta Amazonica 40: 141-150.
  • Sukopp H (2004) Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 347-355.
  • Sukopp H (2008) On the early history of urban ecology in Europe. In: Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Endlicher W, Alberti M, Bradley G, Ryan C, ZumBrunnen C & Simon U (eds.) Urban ecology: an international perspective on the interaction between humans and nature. Springer, New York. Pp. 79-97.
  • Vichiato MRM & Vichiato M (2016) Flora Ruderal da cidade de Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais. Tecnologia & Ciencia Agropecuaria 10: 7-15.
  • Vittoz P & Engler R (2007) Seed dispersal distances: a typology based on dispersal modes and plant traits. Botanica Helvetica 117: 109-124.
  • van der Pijl L (1982) Principles of dispersal in higher plants. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 215p.
  • van Oudtshoorn KR & van Rooyen MW (1999) Restriction of dispersal due to reduction of dispersal structures. In: Dispersal biology of desert plants. Adaptations of desert organisms. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 215p.
  • Yamamoto LF, Kinoshita LS & Martins FR (2007) Síndromes de polinização e de dispersão em fragmentos da Floresta Estacional Semidecídua Montana, SP, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 21: 553-573.
  • Yang X, Li S, Hughes A & Feng G (2021) Threatened bird species are concentrated in regions with less historical human impacts. Biological Conservation 255: 108978.
  • Ziller SR (2001) A estepe gramíneo-lenhosa no segundo planalto do Paraná: diagnóstico ambiental com enfoque à contaminação biológica. Floresta 32: 41-47.
  • Yalçınalp E & Meral A (2019) Ruderal plants in urban and sub-urban walls and roofs. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University 56: 205-212. DOI: 10.20289/zfdergi.478083
    » https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.478083
  • Zohary D & Hopf M (2000) Domestication of plants in the Old World. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 316p.

Edited by

  • Area Editor:
    Dr. Luiz Menini Neto

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    01 May 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    06 Aug 2024
  • Accepted
    25 Aug 2025
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
location_on
Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro Rua Pacheco Leão, 915 - Jardim Botânico, 22460-030 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, Tel.: (55 21)3204-2148, Fax: (55 21) 3204-2071 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: rodriguesia@jbrj.gov.br
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro