Figure: Exemplary landscape at the sampling sites. Photo by Verene Nyiramvuyekure.
By Molly Parker, on Nyiramvuyekure et al., 2026, Woody vegetation diversity remains low after extensive forest landscape restoration efforts in a western Rwandan landscape,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111812 (full citation at the bottom of this post).
Rwanda, like many biodiversity-rich tropical countries, is facing land degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, all of which are exacerbated by anthropogenic disturbances and further driven by historical aspects which have placed enormous strain on the country’s landscapes and natural resources. With the aim of providing ecological and social benefits and mitigating climate change impacts, forest landscape restoration has been implemented country-wide. Despite these efforts, the extent to which these efforts are actually restoring the diversity, structure, and function of ecosystems has remainedlargely unknown. Nyiramvuyekure et al. (2026) examined this by looking at woody vegetation species structure and diversity across different land use types in western Rwanda, using Gishwati-Mukura National Park as a reference site.
This study took place across four districts in western Rwanda (Rubavu, Nyabihu, Rutsiro, and Ngororero) which were further classified into five social-ecological clusters (Fig. 1).
Using a quasi-experimental design, the researchers surveyed 159 sites across four land use types within the study: agriculture mosaics, tree patches, pastures, and homegardens. Species composition was documented by classifying each species as native or exotic and assigning it to one of three functional groups: pioneer, forest specialist, or generalist. An initial hypothesis by the authors, based on known patterns of management intensity and planting history in the region, was that different land use types would restore woody vegetation diversity and structure to varying extents.
The findings showed significant variation in woody species richness and compositions across land use types. The reference sites within the national park had 100% native woody species, which was significantly more native species than the other land use types (Fig. 2).
Of the non-reference sites, homegardens had the highest species richness and diversity, while agricultural mosaics and pastures showed intermediate richness, and tree patches had the lowest (Fig. 3).
Regardless of extensive restoration efforts, the landscape in western Rwanda continues to be dominated by exotic species such as Eucalyptus and Pinus. Although these species provide numerous crucial socio-economic benefits (timber, fuel, erosion control, etc.), these often come at the cost of biodiversity and ecological resilience. Homegardens stand out in this study as they are traditionally overlooked in restoration initiatives, but here they showed the highest native woody species richness of the non-reference land use types. This suggests there may be a greater role for homegardens to play in conservation strategies.
The study highlights the complexities of forest landscape restoration in western Rwanda. It shows that woody species richness remains low in restored sites compared to reference sites even after significant restoration. Based on their findings, the authors recommend using more native species in restoration efforts, including homegardens in restoration strategies, and conducting additional research on the drivers of species selection in restoration. It is not news that balancing biodiversity conservation efforts with socio-economic needs of local communities is a major challenge. It is, however, becoming clear that more inclusive and adaptive restoration approaches are needed not only in Rwanda, but in other regions facing similar pressures and problems.
Citation:
Nyiramvuyekure, V., Fischer, J., Kaplin, B. A., Mukuralinda, A., & Temperton, V. M. (2026). Woody vegetation diversity remains low after extensive forest landscape restoration efforts in a western Rwandan landscape. Biological Conservation, 317, 111812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111812