Next Article in Journal
Xylem Functional Anatomy of Pure-Species and Interspecific Hybrid Clones of Eucalyptus Differing in Drought Resistance
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Different Phosphorus Addition Levels on Physiological and Growth Traits of Pinus massoniana (Masson Pine) Seedlings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 16
Issue 8
10.3390/f16081266
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Ecological Restoration of Tropical Forests: A Bibliometric Review

by
Yajaira Arévalo
1,*,
María Eugenia Avila-Salem
2,
Paúl Loján
3,
Narcisa Urgiles-Gómez
4,
Darwin Pucha-Cofrep
4,
Nikolay Aguirre
4 and
César Benavidez-Silva
5,6,7
1
Centro de Investigaciones y Servicios de Análisis Químico (CISAQ), Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja 110101, Ecuador
2
Facultad de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito 170521, Ecuador
3
Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja 110101, Ecuador
4
Carrera de Ingeniería Forestal, Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja 110101, Ecuador
5
Grupo de Investigación de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (GIMARN), Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja 110101, Ecuador
6
Instituto de Geografía, Facultad de Historia, Geografía y Ciencia Política, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago 7820436, Chile
7
Centro de Investigaciones Tropicales del Ambiente y Biodiversidad (CITIAB), Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja 110101, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2025, 16(8), 1266; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16081266 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 12 June 2025 / Revised: 19 July 2025 / Accepted: 26 July 2025 / Published: 2 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) play a vital role in the restoration of tropical forests by enhancing soil fertility, facilitating plant establishment, and improving ecosystem resilience. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global scientific output on AMF in the context of ecological restoration, based on 3835 publications indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases from 2001 to 2024. An average annual growth rate of approximately 9.45% was observed, with contributions from 10,868 authors across 880 journals. The most prominent journals included Mycorrhiza (3.34%), New Phytologist (3.00%), and Applied Soil Ecology (2.79%). Thematically, dominant research areas encompassed soil–plant interactions, phytoremediation, biodiversity, and microbial ecology. Keyword co-occurrence analysis identified “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi,” “diversity,” “soil,” and “plant growth” as core topics, while emerging topics such as rhizosphere interactions and responses to abiotic stress showed increasing prominence. Despite the expanding body of literature, key knowledge gaps remain, particularly concerning AMF–plant specificity, long-term restoration outcomes, and integration of microbial community dynamics. These findings offer critical insights into the development of AMF research and underscore its strategic importance in tropical forest restoration, providing a foundation for future studies and informing ecosystem management policies.

1. Introduction

Ecosystem services are essential benefits that ecosystems provide to humanity. These services are categorized into several types, including provisioning services, which supply resources such as food and water [1], regulating services, which help maintain environmental balance by purifying the air and controlling floods, and cultural services, which enrich human experiences through recreation and spiritual connection with nature [2]. Given the importance of these services, the degradation of ecosystems—particularly tropical forests—poses a significant threat. These forests are especially vulnerable to extinction due to anthropogenic activities. In response, forest restoration emerges as a crucial strategy. However, it is a complex process that must consider the spatial distribution, abundance, and quality of residual vegetation and can be more effective through natural regeneration [3]. Technical interventions, such as rehabilitation, plantations and reforestation, can support the recovery of certain ecosystem services and aid in biodiversity conservation, though their success is often limited and does not match the ecological values observed in well-preserved areas [4].
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are a group of soil fungi that form a mutualistic symbiosis with most terrestrial plants [5]. Fossil evidence suggests that this mutualism appeared 400–460 million years ago and had an important role in the adaptation of plants to terrestrial ecosystems [6,7]. Although early research on AMF focused mainly on their role in nutrient acquisition by plants [8,9], the focus gradually expanded to explore their diversity and ecological roles [10,11], potential applications in agriculture, and forestry [12,13] and the impact of environmental changes on this symbiosis [14,15]. The incorporation of AMFs in restoration projects has been shown to be an effective strategy for improving soil health and favoring reforestation [2,5,10].
Tropical forests are renowned for their extraordinary biodiversity, both in terms of plant formations and the vast number of species they support [16]. Some regions within these ecosystems rank among the most biologically diverse on Earth, characterized by exceptional concentrations of endemic species and unparalleled richness [17]. This diversity stems from a unique interplay of climatic and geological factors. The convergence of biogeographic elements has given rise not only to a rich array of flora and fauna but also to highly complex ecosystems and vegetation structures [1]. While aboveground biodiversity in tropical forests is relatively well documented, belowground diversity remains largely unexplored. Nevertheless, it is known that these forests harbor approximately 75% of all identified Glomeromycotina species, a major group of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) [18]. At the same time, tropical forests are experiencing severe degradation due to deforestation and land-use change, threatening both their biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide [19,20]. Among these services, carbon (C) sequestration stands out as particularly important. AMF contribute significantly to this function by altering soil microbiota and producing glomalin—a stable, carbon-rich glycoprotein. Their external hyphae access microsites beyond the reach of plant roots, depositing carbon that interacts with soil minerals and enhances long-term carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems [21,22,23]. Moreover, mounting scientific evidence shows that most herbaceous plants and trees establish complex underground hyphal networks, enabling the exchange of vital resources such as carbon among individual plants [24,25]. These networks—often referred to as “wood-wide webs” [26] —have been observed in both natural and agricultural ecosystems [27].
Plants, plant communities, and ecosystems rely heavily on the diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) [28,29]. AMF play a vital role in ecosystem recovery by facilitating plant establishment, enhancing soil health, and supporting successional processes [30,31,32]. Incorporating native AMF species into ecological restoration strategies has been shown to accelerate restoration outcomes and improve ecosystem quality [33]. Recent studies have further emphasized the ecological importance of common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs), particularly in mediating the transport of bioactive compounds such as allelochemicals, as well as facilitating the movement of phytohormones and signaling molecules [21,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. These networks promote plant growth, increase nutrient uptake, and activate defense mechanisms against pathogens and environmental stressors [18], thereby playing a central role in chemical communication and in shaping plant community structure [37,39]. However, the same networks that support ecological recovery can also be exploited by invasive plant species, which often manipulate AMF to gain competitive advantages in disturbed environments [24,25]. For example, Alliaria petiolata accumulates high concentrations of allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) in its rhizosphere, a compound that suppresses local AMF hyphal density while maintaining the plant’s own growth [38]. This strategy enables rapid colonization of AMF-depleted habitats [24,25]. Moreover, the allelopathic effects of A. petiolata on AMF spore germination and rhizosphere interactions exhibit a biogeographic pattern—disproportionately affecting fungal species that lack a shared evolutionary history with the invader [43].
More broadly, invasive plants may restructure AMF communities to favor more beneficial fungal partners [44] or exploit pre-existing mycorrhizal networks established by native vegetation [45]. Through these mechanisms, AMF can buffer negative plant–soil feedback, inadvertently facilitating the dominance of invasive species [46]. These dynamics have significant implications for both ecological restoration and long-term ecosystem management [24,25]. Despite advances in our understanding of AMF ecology, several knowledge gaps still hinder the effectiveness of restoration campaigns—particularly in tropical ecosystems [32,33]. Key uncertainties remain regarding the specificity of AMF–plant interactions, the influence of environmental factors on AMF dynamics, optimal inoculation strategies, and the long-term outcomes of inoculation success [47,48]. Addressing these gaps is critical for designing restoration practices that are both ecologically sound and context-specific.
Recent developments in high-throughput sequencing technologies (e.g., massively parallel sequencing) have enhanced our ability to explore AMF diversity, phylogeny, community composition, and functional traits [2,49]. These tools have also revealed how different types of disturbance can alter AMF community structure, thereby informing targeted restoration strategies. Nevertheless, to translate this knowledge into practice, it is essential to develop experimental protocols and amendment strategies tailored to specific ecological restoration scenarios [44,48]. Forest restoration and the role of AMF are now central topics in ecological research, especially in tropical and subtropical regions. They also represent major ecological, economic, and social challenges on a global scale. The replacement of tropical forests contributes not only to biodiversity loss and climate change but also to disruptions in hydrological cycles [50]. Although numerous narrative and systematic reviews have explored specific aspects of AMF ecology and its applications, a comprehensive and quantitative assessment of research trends in AMF-mediated tropical forest restoration remains lacking. In this context, bibliometric analysis emerges as a valuable method for systematically evaluating large volumes of scientific literature. It enables the identification of key publications, emerging topics, collaborative networks, and knowledge gaps within the field [51,52]. Unlike traditional literature reviews that synthesize selected studies, bibliometric approaches offer a broader, data-driven perspective—allowing researchers to trace the development of scientific domains and pinpoint research frontiers [53].
This bibliometric review presents a global analysis of research on AMF from 2001 to 2024, with a particular focus on their role in tropical forest restoration. The study aimed to: (1) quantify the temporal evolution and growth patterns of AMF-related research; (2) identify the most influential publications, authors, and journals; (3) examine the geographical distribution and international collaboration networks; (4) map thematic developments and emerging research trends; and (5) detect knowledge gaps and propose future research directions based on keyword co-occurrence and thematic clustering.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources

This bibliometric analysis used two prominent academic databases: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, known for their extensive coverage of scientific literature in various disciplines [54,55]. The search strategy focused on AMF as the main topic and related secondary topics such as ecological restoration, ecology, landscape, degradation, tropical zones, landscape ecology, tropical forest, mining, and bioremediation (Table 1). This selection of secondary terms was based on a preliminary exploratory review of the literature, which identified the main application areas of AMF in the context of ecological restoration. The article search was restricted to those published between 2001 and 2024, gathering the most recent and relevant literature. A comprehensive search query using Boolean operators such as “AND” and “OR” to encompass all relevant articles was designed to facilitate the accurate selection of the documents of interest. The query included specific terms related to AMF and the secondary topics mentioned. This query ensured the inclusion of articles addressing these topics within the specified timeframe. The data collection process was carried out systematically for each database, conducting individual searches for each secondary term in combination with AMF. For each search, complete metadata was examined, including bibliographic information (authors, titles, journals, publication years, abstracts, author keywords, and institutional and geographic affiliation data). The number of results retrieved for each search term in both databases was documented to ensure transparency in the literature selection process.

2.2. Bibliometrics Analysis

A second stage consisted of merging the individual databases using the “bibliometrix” R package [56] using R software v 4.5.0 [57]. This integration process required the implementation of duplicate detection and removal algorithms [58], resulting in a reduction from 6412 documents to 3835 after duplicates were eliminated. Deduplication was based on multiple criteria, including unique identifiers (DOI), article titles, and combinations of author names. Data normalization was a critical step, involving the standardization of author names, correction of variations in institutional affiliations, and harmonization of journal titles and keywords to ensure accuracy in subsequent analyses.
Several Bibliometrix functions were used to calculate key indicators, such as productivity metrics (number of documents per year, annual growth rate), authorship and collaboration analysis (number of authors, co-authorships, international collaborations), publication impact (average citations per document) and content analysis (keywords, main topics). In addition, visualizations were generated to represent temporal trends, collaboration networks, and document type distributions.
The temporal analysis of scientific productivity was conducted by calculating annual publication trends and determining the average growth rate of the field over the study period. To assess article impact, a distinction was made between global citations and local citations, providing a dual perspective on scientific influence—both at the global level and within the specialized research domain. Content analysis was structured into several components: keyword frequency analysis to identify the most prevalent terms in the literature; temporal trend analysis of key concepts to detect emerging and declining topics; and the construction of keyword co-occurrence networks to reveal the conceptual structure of the field. These co-occurrence networks were analyzed using centrality metrics—including betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and PageRank—to identify core concepts and connectors between thematic areas [58,59].
The results were presented in figures and tables generated using the bibliometrix R package [56] within the R Core Team environment (2021) [57]. These outputs illustrate the main dynamics in AMF research related to the secondary topics described in the Methods section (Figure 1). Specialized visualizations were developed to represent multiple analytical dimensions, including temporal productivity trends, international collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence maps, and thematic maps [54,59,60].
Thematic maps were constructed using density and centrality metrics to classify research topics into four categories: motor topics (high centrality and density), basic topics (high density, low centrality), niche topics (high centrality, low density), and emerging or declining topics (low centrality and density).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Main Topics in Bibliometric Analysis (2001–2024)

The results indicate the distribution of documents based on the original databases corresponding to research conducted in the AMF field. Within the secondary search criteria, the term ‘Ecology’ was the most frequently used in the WoS and Scopus databases, followed by ‘Tropical Forest’ and ‘Mining’ (Table 1). Based on specific data, WoS displayed a higher number of documents in eight out of nine terms searched. The major differences between WoS and Scopus were found using the terms ‘tropical forest’ and ‘Mining’. An opposite trend was observed using the term ‘Bioremediation’ where the highest number of documents was found in Scopus. Emergent areas such as ‘tropical zones’ and ‘Landscape ecology’ showed a minimal representation in both databases. In this frame, scientific gaps were identified highlighting the need to strengthen these areas.
The low frequency of the terms “landscape ecology” and “tropical zones” suggests a fragmentation of knowledge, where research on AMF in tropical forest restoration is primarily focused on small spatial scales rather than at broader landscape levels. This pattern may reflect methodological, logistical, and funding limitations that constrain large-scale studies in remote tropical regions. Bridging this gap requires the integration of knowledge that connects local AMF processes with broader landscape dynamics, the strengthening of research capacity through increased funding and international collaboration networks, and the development of interdisciplinary approaches. These should combine AMF studies with spatial analysis, landscape modeling, and traditional ecological knowledge. Such integration is particularly critical given that tropical zones are key ecosystems for global biodiversity and ecological restoration efforts.
The findings in Table 1 offer valuable insights into the distribution of research efforts in the AMF field. The analyzed topics shed light on the areas that have received substantial attention and those that remain relatively unexplored, warranting increased research focus. Notably, the analysis reveals a concentration of research activities in specific geographic regions, such as tropical forests, with comparatively limited attention given to other tropical zones associated with human-impacted ecosystems. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the search term ‘Landscape ecology’ exhibited the lowest frequency across both analyzed databases. Additionally, some disciplines such as bioremediation and ecological restoration emerge as key domains requiring further research, underscoring their ecological significance in the rehabilitation of degraded environments.
This comprehensive analysis has elucidated the primary dynamics within the field, enabling the identification of emerging research perspectives and existing knowledge gaps. The study encompassed 3835 documents published between 2001 and 2024, primarily comprising scientific articles, book chapters, and books. Specifically, 3037 articles, 84 book chapters, and contributions from 10,868 authors were identified (Table 2). Key topics such as ecology, tropical forest, mining, degradation, landscape, bioremediation, ecological restoration, tropical zones, and landscape ecology suggest an interdisciplinary research context or a need for diverse perspectives to address complex scientific challenges.
These topics highlight a highly interdisciplinary research area, where the degradation of tropical ecosystems due to mining activities demands integrated solutions spanning ecology, environmental engineering, biotechnology, and social sciences. The convergence of bioremediation, ecological restoration, and landscape ecology underscores that contemporary environmental challenges cannot be addressed by a single discipline but require holistic approaches that consider both the complex biological processes of tropical forests and the socioeconomic realities of local communities.
This thematic integration points to emerging professional opportunities, the development of sustainable technologies, land management strategies, and public policy initiatives. In this context, the capacity to work effectively in multidisciplinary teams and to understand interactions between natural and human systems is essential for addressing the global environmental crisis through approaches that are scientifically rigorous and socially relevant.
The research presented herein offers a comprehensive overview of publication distribution and keyword trends within the AMF field, providing insights into active research areas, underexplored topics, and collaborative networks. These findings hold significant value for both the scientific community and policymakers, guiding future research directions and advancing understanding of the role of AMF in the ecological restoration of tropical forests.

3.2. Annual Production of Scientific Articles

There is an annual growth rate of ~9.45% in scientific production (38 articles in 2001 to 303 articles in 2024), indicating an important growth in studies related to ecology, tropical forest, mining, degradation, landscape, bioremediation, ecological restoration, tropical zones and landscape ecology during the evaluation period (Figure 2).

3.3. Most Relevant Sources

In the database examined, there are a total of 880 academic journals that have published articles related to the selected search topics. Among these journals, the top 20 most productive journals in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration research, account for 32.41% of all publications. Notably, Mycorrhiza stands out as the most prolific journal, with a total of 128 publications (3.34%) and an impact factor of 3.3. This journal focuses exclusively on mycorrhizae, encompassing topics ranging from molecular biology and interactions with other plant species to the effects of mycorrhizae on plant biodiversity and ecosystem structure.
Following closely, New Phytologist secures the second position with 115 publications (3.00%) and a notable impact factor of 8.3. It covers broader topics such as physiology, evolution, and environmental aspects. Applied Soil Ecology occupies the third spot with 107 articles (2.79%) and an impact factor of 5.48, while Science of the Total Environment is a close fourth with 106 articles and an impact factor of 8.28. It addresses general topics related to the environment. Plant and Soil, with 87 publications and an s impact factor of 4.42, addresses content exploring the interface of plant biology and soil sciences (Table 3).
The journals Soil Biology and Biochemistry and Journal of Ecology focus on soil science to explain biological processes between nutrients, roots, and microorganisms. On the other hand, Journal of Ecology, Ecology, Restoration Ecology, Fungal ecology, and Forest Ecology explore ecology-related topics, such as population dynamics, community studies, populations, and species, for managing the sustainability of ecosystems
The International Journal of Phytoremediation and Chemosphere are journals dedicated to phytoremediation, for the treatment and remediation of environmental contamination by toxic substances. Plos One, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, and Frontiers Ecology in Microbiology cover general research topics in various fields and disciplines. The journals with fewer publications are Microbial Ecology and Forests, with 30 and 29 publications, respectively, and an impact factor of 3.3 and 2.9. They address topics related to symbiotic interactions, ecological adaptations, evolutionary processes, and nutritional interactions.
The analysis of the most relevant scientific sources not only allowed the identification of journals with the highest volume of publications, but also provided key information about editorial dynamics, priority thematic approaches, and emerging trends in research on AMF applied to ecological restoration. The top journals such as Mycorrhiza, New Phytologist, Soil Biology & Biochemistry, and Applied Soil Ecology confirmed that the core of this research remains anchored in fields such as soil ecology, mycorrhizal symbiosis biology, and plant-microorganism interaction. However, the notable appearance of high-impact, cross-disciplinary journals such as Science of the Total Environment, Chemosphere, and Environmental Science and Pollution Research may reveal a thematic transition toward more applied, systemic, and multidisciplinary approaches.
Publications in journals such as Restoration Ecology, Forests, and Frontiers in Plant Science can also indicate a growing interest in using AMF as tools to restore degraded ecosystems, improve forest resilience, and increase the sustainability of ecological interventions. The presence of journals like Chemosphere and International Journal of Phytoremediation suggests an increase in studies exploring the use of AMF to mitigate contaminants in tropical soils, which opens new applications in urban environmental restoration, post-mining, or agro-industrial contexts.
The importance of journals such as Soil Biology & Biochemistry, Microbial Ecology, and Frontiers in Microbiology seems to indicate that AMF are increasingly studied as part of a broader microbial network, driving research in functional ecology, co-occurrence of microbial species, and design of symbiotic consortia.
In this sense, the identified sources not only reflect volume and academic impact but also function as indicators of scientific direction, allowing the recognition of promising areas such as the development of native bioinoculants, restoration of multifunctional landscapes, microbial monitoring of restored soils, and validation of ecological frameworks that integrate AMF as bioindicators of ecological success.
These results provide detailed insights into the evolution of scientific production in the field studied, the topics that have experienced significant growth, and the journals that have played a prominent role in disseminating research. These findings can help researchers understand current trends in the field and identify promising areas of focus for future research.

3.4. Global Citations

Global citations encompass a broader approach, considering all citations a paper receives regardless of its context. This includes citations to papers in different journals, disciplines or even countries. Global citations are useful for measuring the overall impact of a paper in the scientific community worldwide and can reflect its relevance outside its immediate field.
It is important to consider that the publications related to the GLOBAL CITATION database have shown that the most relevant author is Wardle et al. (2004) [61] (Science) with 3337 citations, who in their article affirm that ecosystems have aerial and underground components that are part of the functionality of biodiversity; this characteristic must be taken into account at the time of attempting ecological restorations. The second and third most cited publications are Nguyen N et al. (2016) [62] (Fungal Ecology) and Philippot et al. (2010) [63] (authors from Nature Reviews Microbiology with 2974 and 2316 citations respectively. The former describes FUNGuild as a tool that classifies fungi into ecological guilds, facilitating the analysis of fungal communities; its effectiveness relies on scientific collaboration and the continuous improvement of its database; and the latter affirms that the rhizosphere and roots have a close link and knowing their dynamics could improve the productivity and functioning of ecosystems. Rillig & Mummey (2006) [64] received 1110 citations (New Phytology), whom in their study mention that AMF influence soil aggregations which could cause positive or negative feedbacks on soil structure; and Kuzyakov & Xu (2013) [65] (New Phytology) have 1019 citations in their study where they mention that microorganisms occur in the soil depending on the availability of nutrients, being beneficial for plants. It is important to consider that the publications related to the global citation database will allow establishing different conceptual elements which will shape the current state of global AMF research (Table 4).

3.5. Local Citations

Local citations are those that occur within a specific context, such as an article, a journal, or an institution. These citations focus on how a particular work is cited within its own field or in related documents. For example, if an article is cited by other articles belonging to the same journal or addressing similar topics, those citations are considered local. This type of analysis can help to understand the influence of a paper within its scientific community [78,79,80].
The highest number of local citations corresponds to Jeffries et al. [81], published in the journal Biology and Fertility of Soils, which highlights practical situations where AMF have a significant impact on restoring or maintaining soil health and fertility. In second place is Wang [82], published in Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, with 147 citations. This review explores the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in the ecological restoration of mining areas, analyzing 98 previous studies and demonstrating that over 80% of plants in these areas are colonized by AMF, and that a great diversity of fungal species persists even in such degraded environments.
Klironomos [71] examines the variability in plant growth responses to different AMF species as a key factor in shaping local plant diversity. To this end, the study cross-referenced numerous plant and fungal species coexisting in the same ecosystem to assess the range of possible responses and compared the performance of local versus exotic plant–fungus combinations. Meanwhile, Gianinazzi [83], in the journal Mycorrhiza, received 86 local citations for his review on the role of AMF as providers of ecosystem services essential for ensuring the productivity and quality of sustainable agriculture (Table 5).
Local citations highlight four main topics that reveal the most significant contributions to AMF research: the restoration of degraded soils, where AMF demonstrate direct impacts on soil health and fertility [81], the recovery of ecosystems in mining areas, showing that over 80% of plants in severely degraded environments maintain AMF colonization with high fungal diversity [82], the role of plant diversity, analyzed through the variability in growth responses between local and exotic plant–fungus combinations [72], and ecosystem services for sustainable agriculture, positioning AMF as key to ensuring agricultural productivity and quality [83]. These significant contributions demonstrate that research has evolved towards a comprehensive ecosystem-based approach, connecting the recovery of severely degraded environments with the maintenance of sustainable productive systems. They establish the specific interactions between local plant and fungal species as the critical determinant of success in any restoration strategy—from the rehabilitation of mining sites to the optimization of sustainable agricultural practices. These results reflect the importance of local and global journals and authors in the field of ecology, soil microbiology and biodiversity. Findings and citations indicate key focus areas and significant contributions for understanding and improving ecosystems and agricultural sustainability.

3.6. Most Relevant Keywords in the Literature on Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Tropical Forest Restoration

The bibliometric analysis of the specialized literature revealed patterns in keyword frequency (Figure 3). The specific term “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi” had the highest occurrence, exceeding 1750 appearances, directly reflecting the research focus and the search criteria employed. It is important to note that this distribution is characteristic of a review centered on AMF and does not necessarily represent the general distribution of terms in the broader scientific literature on fungi or forest ecology. The high frequency of this specific technical term, compared to more general terms such as “fungal” (which appeared over 100 times), can be explained by two main factors: first, the search methodology prioritized studies that explicitly identify AMF as a central component of their research; and second, within specialized literature on mycorrhizae, authors tend to use the full term as a keyword rather than its individual components.
Terms related to the application contexts and effects of AMF—such as “soil”, “plants”, “colonization”, and “growth”—showed significant frequencies (between 500 and 1000 occurrences), reflecting the main ecological and functional aspects studied in relation to these symbiotic fungi. This distribution underlines the importance of these concepts in the literature on AMF and tropical forest restoration. Terms with lower frequencies (between 200 and 250 occurrences or fewer) represent specific or emerging thematic areas, including “carbon”, “biomass”, “fungus”, “communities”, “forest”, and “heavy metal”. This distribution highlights the diversity of approaches and applications in the study of AMF for ecological restoration, ranging from fundamental microbiological aspects to targeted applications such as the bioremediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals. It is noteworthy that the term “fungus” appears less frequently than the compound term “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi”, reflecting the field’s tendency to specify the exact group studied rather than using generic terms. This aligns with the high degree of specialization within mycological literature applied to ecological restoration.
Collectively, this distribution suggests that research on AMF in ecological restoration has evolved from descriptive and taxonomic studies to more functional and applied approaches, exploring both fungal diversity and its impacts on plant performance, soil quality, and ecosystem resilience. These results point to two major challenges in the field: first, the need to deepen our functional understanding of native AMF communities in diverse tropical environments; and second, the effective integration of these organisms into large-scale restoration programs, considering factors such as plant–fungus compatibility, soil conditions, and the management of microbial biodiversity.

3.7. Keywords Dynamics

From the initial years of the evaluated period (2001–2007), occurrences of key terms such as “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi”, “fungi”, “soil” and “colonization” were scarce (<100), reflecting an early stage in the field characterized by descriptive approaches focused on basic aspects of mycorrhizal symbiosis, taxonomy, and preliminary colonization trials in degraded soils (Figure 4).
From 2008 onward, a phase of scientific consolidation is observed, evidenced by a sustained increase in the frequency of terms such as “diversity”, “growth”, “root” and “ecology”. This stage, which extends approximately until 2015, suggests an expansion of studies into the functional dimensions of AMF, including their impact on plant biomass, restoration of microbial communities, and the reactivation of essential ecological processes in tropical soils.
In the most recent phase (2016–2024), the data reveal an accelerated multidisciplinary expansion, with exponential growth in the frequencies of all analyzed keywords. The term “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi” reached 1260 occurrences in 2024, establishing itself as the central descriptor of the field. Similarly, “fungi” (891), “diversity” (696), “soil” (592), and “growth” (567) exhibited a consistent upward trend. The sustained emergence of terms such as “nitrogen”, “ecology” and “roots” in recent years reflects a conceptual shift from a purely symbiotic focus to more integrative perspectives, in which AMF are studied as key functional agents in the recovery of complex ecosystem processes.
These results suggest three relevant developments: (1) a thematic maturation of the field, evolving from studies focused on the basic biology of AMF to applied research with an ecosystem-based approach, (2) a diversification of associated ecological variables, progressively incorporating elements such as nitrogen cycling, soil microbiome structure, and plant succession and (3) increasing disciplinary integration, positioning AMF as strategic components in restoration frameworks based on nature-based solutions. Together, this thematic evolution reflects not only a quantitative increase in scientific output but also a qualitative reconfiguration of research priorities aligned with current challenges in ecological restoration in tropical regions.

3.8. Networks of Co-Occurrence Among Keywords

Keyword co-occurrence networks are visual tools that reveal the conceptual structure of a research field by identifying connections between terms based on their co-occurrence. This method is particularly useful for understanding the topics addressed by specialists (the research front) and identifying the most relevant and current areas of study [96,97]. The analysis of keyword co-occurrence enabled the identification of two main thematic clusters in the literature related to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). Each cluster represents a set of interrelated terms that frequently co-appear in the studies analyzed (Figure 5).
Cluster 1, composed of 28 terms, encompasses the concepts with the greatest presence and interconnectivity within the network, including arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, soil, growth, colonization, nitrogen, and ecology. This group exhibited the highest average betweenness centrality (4.77), highlighting its role as a connector between different research areas. Similarly, the high closeness (0.0178) and PageRank (0.0184) values reflect the centrality of these terms in the conceptual structure of the field, suggesting that they form the dominant thematic core in studies on mycorrhizae and ecological restoration.
Cluster 2, consisting of 22 terms, includes concepts related to more specific or recent aspects of the field, such as microbial community, mycorrhizal symbiosis, biomass, and functional diversity. Although this group shows lower average betweenness values (2.69), its slightly higher PageRank score (0.0221) suggests that these terms, while less connective across thematic areas, hold strong influence within subsets of the literature. This cluster may be interpreted as an emerging thematic group, characterized by a more functional and ecological focus on microbial and plant interactions.
Taken together, the co-occurrence network reveals a coherent and evolving thematic structure in AMF research. While the symbiotic core remains central, it is increasingly complemented by integrative, applied, and ecologically oriented approaches—reflecting the dynamic and interdisciplinary development of the field.

3.9. Trending Topics

The data reveals a clear transition from early biological and taxonomic approaches toward more integrative, multidisciplinary, and environmentally contextualized lines of research. In the initial phase (2002–2010), the predominance of terms such as Glomales, Gigaspora, Acaulospora, Glomus, infection, and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae reflects a scientific focus on the biology and systematics of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). Research during this period centered on the symbiotic and physiological characterization of AMF, particularly in relation to model plant species such as Medicago, Zea mays and clover.
Beginning in 2010, a phase of thematic consolidation emerges, marked by the rise of terms related to functional ecological processes, such as colonization, revegetation, restoration ecology, seedling, growth, biodiversity, and soil degradation. This shift signals a broadening of the scientific perspective, with growing interest in the application of AMF in real-world restoration scenarios—especially regarding their role in soil regeneration, plant growth promotion, and the establishment of functional soil communities.
The most recent phase (2018–2024) is characterized by the emergence and consolidation of terms reflecting a strongly interdisciplinary focus. Keywords such as plant growth, enzyme activities, growth-promoting rhizobacteria, ecological restoration, carbon, nitrogen, stoichiometry, saline soil, abiotic, anthropogenic, and phytohormone illustrate new research directions that position AMF within broader conceptual frameworks. These include ecosystem resilience, nature-based solutions (NBS), and responses to soil or climate-related stress factors.
This thematic evolution indicates a shift in AMF research from a focus on isolated symbiotic phenomena toward a holistic understanding of their role as key agents in complex ecological processes. This transition is particularly evident in the growing emphasis on functional soil restoration, interactions with other beneficial microbiota, and the adaptation of ecosystems to extreme or degraded conditions. The consolidation of topics such as ecological restoration, bacterial interactions, and abiotic stress in recent years suggests that the field is currently in a stage of integrative expansion, with considerable potential to contribute applied solutions to contemporary environmental challenges (Figure 6).
Overall, these findings reflect the evolution and emerging trends in AMF research. Analysis of keywords, their temporal dynamics, co-occurrence networks, and thematic relevance provides a comprehensive view of the field’s progression and highlights the major focal points in the scientific literature.

3.10. Geographic Clusters

In Figure 7, the nodes represent countries involved in research on AMF in the context of tropical forest restoration. The size of each node indicates its level of influence and participation within the global scientific network. Group 1 includes countries such as Mexico, Spain, Japan, Poland, and Sweden, among others. Within this group, Spain and Japan stand out for their strategic roles as intermediaries, facilitating scientific collaboration across different geographic regions. Mexico, demonstrates notable connectivity, maintaining direct links with numerous countries—suggesting a strategic position for fostering diverse collaborations in this field of research. Group 2 primarily consists of leading scientific nations such as the United States, China, Brazil, and Germany, along with other countries characterized by high scientific output. The United States emerges as a central actor within the global network, serving as a key bridge between distinct scientific communities. Brazil, with its vast coverage of tropical forests, also holds a significant position, likely due to its role as a major research site for ecological restoration involving AMF.
This structure of international collaboration reflects the globalized nature of research on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the restoration of tropical ecosystems. The formation of these groups points to the existence of established networks of scientific exchange and institutional collaboration—key drivers for advancing knowledge in this specialized field.

3.11. Relevance and Development of the Research Topics

The analysis of the thematic map enabled the organization of key terms based on their density and centrality, allowing their classification into four categories: motor topics, basic topics, niche topics, and emerging or declining topics. This taxonomy offers a strategic perspective on the evolution and cognitive structure of the field of study concerning arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) (Figure 8).
Motor topics are characterized by both high centrality and high density, indicating well-established, robust topics that are strongly connected to other thematic clusters. This group includes terms such as phytoremediation, heavy metals, bioremediation, and mycorrhiza. These concepts not only represent the conceptual core of the field but also link multiple research lines related to symbiosis, soil ecology, and functional biodiversity. Their role is crucial to the cohesion of the thematic domain.
Basic topics show high density but lower centrality within the network. These terms are fundamental in theoretical and methodological terms, as they underpin much of the scientific output in the field, even if they do not always lead current debates. Terms such as diversity, Glomeromycota, tropical forest, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, rhizosphere, and fungi are grouped here, forming the knowledge base for understanding the role of AMF in plant development, soil fertility, and ecological restoration.
Niche topics include terms with high centrality but low density, suggesting that while these topics are thematically relevant, they are less structurally developed. These represent specialized subfields or emerging areas with growth potential. Examples include Rhizophagus irregularis, photosynthesis, mycorrhizal fungi, microbial ecology, and plant-soil feedback, which point to research focused on specific microbial communities or symbiotic processes.
Finally, emerging or declining topics—with both low centrality and low density—correspond to areas either in early stages of development or those whose relevance has diminished in recent years. This group includes terms such as PLFA, soil organic carbon, and dark septate endophytes, which may represent frontiers of underexplored knowledge, emerging methodologies, or research lines undergoing re-evaluation in the current scientific context.
The distribution of terms across these four thematic quadrants suggests that the field of mycorrhizal research has reached structural maturity, with a consolidated core of motor and basic topics, while also offering space for specialization and the emergence of new research directions. This balance between consolidation and innovation reflects an active, dynamic scientific domain with broad potential for interdisciplinary development. In the last two decades, studies on AMF and ecological restoration have highlighted those topics like mycorrhiza-symbiosis-fungi, and phytoremediation-heavy metals-bioremediation are both highly relevant and developed, as indicated by their proximity to the upper-right quadrant of Figure 7. Recent research confirms the significant role of AMF in plant restoration in native ecosystems, contributing to plant growth and protection, especially in tropical forests [98]. Moreover, the colonization by AM fungi has shown to improve the growth of tropical tree species, demonstrating effectiveness for large-scale reforestation of degraded tropical forests [99].
Topics such as mycorrhizal fungi-microbial ecology-plant-soil feedback and diversity-glomeromycota-tropical forest are also notable but to a lesser extent. Highlighting mycorrhiza and fungi as the motor topics of this field (Figure 7). Studies have shown that restored tropical dry forest areas with hydrogel addition exhibit higher AMF species richness and diversity, contributing to natural regeneration in ecosystems where water is crucial [100]. Additionally, the high diversity and variation in AMF communities suggest they are ecologically distinct and may influence recruitment and host composition in tropical forests [90].
Interestingly, the topic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-arbuscular mycorrhizal-rhizosphere ranks as highly relevant but is among the least developed (Figure 7). Research in this area reveals that AM fungal communities can differentially influence seedling recruitment among host species and affect community composition in tropical forests [101]. In contrast, the topic rhizophagus irregularis-photosynthesis, despite being the most developed, appears less relevant within the current research landscape. This discrepancy suggests a potential shift in research focus towards more emerging and pressing ecological concerns in tropical forest restoration.
The topics of Plfa-microbial biomass-soil organic are clearly identified as both irrelevant and undeveloped, reflecting a decline in these topics over recent years (Figure 7). This topic aligns with research showing a varied response of AM fungal communities to changes in nutrient availability and forest management practices, indicating a need for more focused studies in these areas [102]. The evolving nature of AMF research in tropical forest restoration underscores the importance of adapting research priorities to address current ecological challenges.

4. Future Perspectives

Since mycorrhizal fungi are an integral part of ecosystems—due to their diverse ecological functions as symbionts—biologists, mycorrhizologists, and ecologists have increased their awareness and interest in this major group of microorganisms. There is growing recognition that the ecological roles of these fungi must be further studied and better understood. In this context, scientific advances—particularly the development of more precise molecular tools—have been key to revealing the vast range of microorganism–plant interactions occurring below ground, many of which remain only partially understood.
Research on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) is progressing toward applications that enhance the resilience of tropical ecosystems in the face of climate change. The development of methodologies for large-scale implementation represents a critical frontier, evolving from controlled experiments to practical solutions for landscape-scale restoration. Methodological innovations, such as molecular biology techniques and long-term ecological studies, are improving our understanding of mycorrhizal dynamics in ecosystem recovery. AMF offer a nature-based solution for restoration, harnessing one of the planet’s oldest symbiotic relationships to address pressing environmental challenges in threatened tropical ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

Biologists, mycorrhizologists, and ecologists have shown increasing awareness and interest in this major group of microorganisms, affirming the need to study and deepen our understanding of their ecological functions. Scientific approaches, particularly the development of precise molecular tools, have been key to uncovering the wide range of microorganism–plant interactions occurring below ground—many of which remain only partially elucidated.
This bibliometric study reveals that scientific research on AMF in ecosystem restoration has grown annually at a rate of 2.85%. Articles have been published in 741 academic journals, including Mycorrhiza, New Phytologist, and Science of the Total Environment. Keyword dynamics show a marked increase in the use of terms such as “Diversity” and “Symbiosis” (notable since 2002). The main countries contributing to this field of research during the analyzed period were China, Brazil, Germany, and the United States, which leads international research collaborations.
Research on AMF in tropical forest restoration has significantly expanded over the past two decades. Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of AMF in ecological restoration, particularly for their contributions to plant growth and protection. Co-occurrence keyword analysis reveals that topics related to symbiosis, phytoremediation, and bioremediation are highly relevant and well-developed. However, areas requiring further investigation have also been identified, such as the interaction between AMF and the rhizosphere.
This study faced certain limitations due to the use of the Web of Science and Scopus databases, which may exclude local research published in regional journals, graduate and undergraduate theses, university publications, local conferences, and documents indexed in other databases. The high volume of data in this bibliometric analysis required prioritizing documents based on individual citation metrics. As a result, studies from smaller or emerging laboratories may have been underrepresented. Future research should aim to incorporate these sources to provide a more comprehensive view of the ecological relevance and broad applications of mycorrhizal fungi.

Author Contributions

Y.A. and C.B.-S. proposed the research topic; Y.A. and C.B.-S. collected data; Y.A., C.B.-S., P.L., M.E.A.-S., N.A. and N.U.-G. analyzed and wrote the manuscript; Y.A. and C.B.-S. validated the results; Y.A., C.B.-S., M.E.A.-S., P.L., N.A., D.P.-C. and N.U.-G. edited the manuscript; Y.A., C.B.-S., M.E.A.-S., P.L. and N.U.-G. contributed to manuscript revision and conceptualized literature. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This publication was financially supported by Dirección de Investigación de la Universidad Central del Ecuador.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in this study were obtained from databases and publicly available literature.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Universidad Nacional de Loja, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, and Universidad Central del Ecuador for their institutional support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Balvanera, P. Los Servicios Ecosistémicos Que Ofrecen Los Bosques Tropicales. Ecosistemas 2012, 21, 136–147. [Google Scholar]
  2. Boyd, J.; Banzhaf, S. What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lamb, D.; Erskine, P.D.; Parrotta, J.A. Restoration of Degraded Tropical Forest Landscapes. Science (1979) 2005, 310, 1628–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benayas, J.; Newton, A.; Diaz, A.; Bullock, J.M. Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis. Science (1979) 2009, 325, 1121–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Smith, S.E.E.; Read, D.J.J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Academic Press; Elsevier: Great Britain, UK, 2008; Volume 3, ISBN 9780123705266. [Google Scholar]
  6. Parniske, M. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza: The Mother of Plant Root Endosymbioses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008, 6, 763–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schüβler, A.; Schwarzott, D.; Walker, C. A New Fungal Phylum, the Glomeromycota: Phylogeny and Evolution. Mycol. Res. 2001, 105, 1413–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Koide, R.T.; Mosse, B. A History of Research on Arbuscular Mycorrhiza. Mycorrhiza 2004, 14, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Clark, R.; Zeto, S. Mineral Acquisition by Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Plants. J. Plant Nutr. 2000, 23, 867–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Martin, F.M.; Selosse, M.A.; Sanders, I.R. Mycorrhizal Ecology and Evolution: The Past, the Present, and the Future. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1406–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Lee, E.-H.; Eo, J.-K.; Ka, K.-H.; Eom, A.-H. Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Their Roles in Ecosystems. Mycobiology 2013, 41, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Messa, V.; Savioli, M. Improving Sustainable Agriculture with Arbuscular Mycorrhizae. Rhizosphere 2021, 19, 100412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, W.; Pan, L. Applications of Mycorrhizal Fungi in Agriculture and Forestry. In Microbial Bioprocesses; Shukla, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duarte, A.G.; Maherali, H. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Climate Change on the Mutualism between Plants and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Han, S.; Wang, X.; Cheng, Y.; Wu, G.; Dong, X.; He, X.; Zhao, G. Multidimensional Analysis Reveals Environmental Factors That Affect Community Dynamics of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Poplar Roots. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 13, 1068527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cayuela, L.; Granzow-De La Cerda, I. Biodiversidad y Conservación de Bosques Neotropicales. Ecosistemas 2012, 21, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  17. Olson, D.M.; Dinerstein, E. The Global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global Conservation. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2002, 89, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Marinho, F.; Da Silva, I.; Oehl, F.; Maia, L. Checklist of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Tropical Forests. Sydowia 2018, 70, 107–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Maherali, H.; Klironomos, J.N. Influence of Phylogeny on Fungal Community Assembly and Ecosystem Functioning. Science (1979) 2007, 316, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. van der Heijden, M.; Boller, T.; Wiemken, A.; Sanders, I. Different Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Species Are Potential Determinants of Plant Community Structure. Ecology 1998, 79, 2082–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Watson-Guido, W.; Rivera-Méndez, W. Comunicación En Las Asociaciones Simbióticas: Mecanismos Entre Hongos Micorrícicos Arbusculares, Plantas y Organismos Edáficos. Agron. Mesoam. 2024, 35, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wrigth, S.F.; Upadhyaya, A. A Survey of Soils for Aggregate Stability and Glomalin, a Glycoprotein Produced by Hyphae of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Plant Soil. 1998, 198, 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  23. Rillig, M.C.; Wright, S.F.; Nichols, K.A.; Schmidt, W.F.; Torn, M.S. Large Contribution of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Soil Carbon Pools in Tropical Forest Soils. Plant Soil. 2001, 233, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reinhart, K.; Callaway, R. Soil Biota and Invasive Plants. New Phytol. 2006, 170, 445–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bunn, R.A.; Ramsey, P.W.; Lekberg, Y. Do Native and Invasive Plants Differ in Their Interactions with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi? A Meta-Analysis. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 1547–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Simard, S.W.; Perry, D.A.; Jones, M.D.; Myrold, D.D.; Durall, D.M.; Molina, R. Net Transfer of Carbon between Ectomycorrhizal Tree Species in the Field. Nature 1997, 388, 579–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Avila-Salem, M.; Montesdeoca, F.; Orellana, M.; Pacheco, K.; Alvarado, S.; Becerra, N.; Marín, C.; Borie, F.; Aguilera, P.; Cornejo, P. Soil Biological Properties and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities of Representative Crops Established in the Andean Region from Ecuadorian Highlands. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 2156–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Asmelash, F.; Bekele, T.; Birhane, E. The Potential Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Restoration of Degraded Lands. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schultz, P.A.; Michael Miller, R.; Jastrow, J.D.; Rivetta, C.V.; Bever, J.D.; Miller, R.M.; Jastrow, J.D.; Rivetta, C.V.; Bever, J.D.; Michael Miller, R.; et al. Evidence of a Mycorrhizal Mechanism for the Adaptation of Andropogon Gerardii (Poaceae) to High- and Low-nutrient Prairies. Am. J. Bot. 2001, 88, 1650–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Mangan, S.A.; Adler, G.H. Seasonal Dispersal of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi by Spiny Rats in a Neotropical Forest. Oecologia 2002, 131, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kardol, P.; Cornips, N.; Van Kempen, M.; Bakx-Schotman, J.; Van Der Putten, W. Microbe-Mediated Plant-Soil Feedback Causes Historical Contingency Effects in Plant Community Assembly. Ecol. Monogr. 2007, 77, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Koziol, L.; Schultz, P.A.; House, G.L.; Bauer, J.T.; Middleton, E.L.; Bever, J.D. The Plant Microbiome and Native Plant Restoration: The Example of Native Mycorrhizal Fungi. Bioscience 2018, 68, 996–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tonietto, R.K.; Larkin, D.J. Habitat Restoration Benefits Wild Bees: A Meta-Analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Figueiredo, A.; Boy, J.; Guggenberger, G. Common Mycorrhizae Network: A Review of the Theories and Mechanisms Behind Underground Interactions. Front. Fungal Biol. 2021, 2, 735299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pozo, M.J.; Azcón-Aguilar, C. Unraveling Mycorrhiza-Induced Resistance. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jung, S.C.; Martinez-Medina, A.; Lopez-Raez, J.A.; Pozo, M.J. Mycorrhiza-Induced Resistance and Priming of Plant Defenses. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 651–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Barto, E.K.; Hilker, M.; Müller, F.; Mohney, B.K.; Weidenhamer, J.D.; Rillig, M.C. The Fungal Fast Lane: Common Mycorrhizal Networks Extend Bioactive Zones of Allelochemicals in Soils. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e27195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cantor, A.; Hale, A.; Aaron, J.; Traw, M.B.; Kalisz, S. Low Allelochemical Concentrations Detected in Garlic Mustard-Invaded Forest Soils Inhibit Fungal Growth and AMF Spore Germination. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 3015–3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Achatz, M.; Morris, E.K.; Müller, F.; Hilker, M.; Rillig, M.C. Soil Hypha-Mediated Movement of Allelochemicals: Arbuscular Mycorrhizae Extend the Bioactive Zone of Juglone. Funct. Ecol. 2014, 28, 1020–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cipollini, D.; Rigsby, C.M.; Barto, E.K. Microbes as Targets and Mediators of Allelopathy in Plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Callaway, R.; Thelen, G.; Rodriguez, A.; Holben, W. Soil Biota and Exotic Plant Invasion. Nature 2004, 427, 731–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Javaid, A. Allelopathic Interactions in Mycorrhizal Associations. Allelopath. J. 2007, 20, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  43. Callaway, R.M.; Cipollini, D.; Barto, K.; Thelen, G.C.; Hallett, S.G.; Prati, D.; Stinson, K.; Klironomos, J. Novel Weapons: Invasive Plant Suppresses Fungal Mutualists in America but Not in Its Native Europe. Ecology 2008, 89, 1043–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lekberg, Y.; Gibbons, S.M.; Rosendahl, S.; Ramsey, P.W. Severe Plant Invasions Can Increase Mycorrhizal Fungal Abundance and Diversity. ISME J. 2013, 7, 1424–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shah, M.A.; Reshi, Z.A.; Khasa, D. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Status of Some Kashmir Himalayan Alien Invasive Plants. Mycorrhiza 2009, 20, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vogelsang, K.M.; Bever, J.D. Mycorrhizal Densities Decline in Association with Normative Plants and Contribute to Plant Invasion. Ecology 2009, 90, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ohsowski, B.M.; Klironomos, J.N.; Dunfield, K.E.; Hart, M.M. The Potential of Soil Amendments for Restoring Severely Disturbed Grasslands. Applied Soil. Ecology 2012, 60, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pagano, M.; Gupta, V. Overview of the Recent Advances in Mycorrhizal Fungi. In Recent Advances on Mycorrhizal Fungi; Pagano, M.C., Ed.; Fungal Biology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 8–17. ISBN 978-3-319-24353-5. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tedersoo, L.; Nilsson, R.H.; Abarenkov, K.; Jairus, T.; Sadam, A.; Saar, I.; Bahram, M.; Bechem, E.; Chuyong, G.; Kõljalg, U. 454 Pyrosequencing and Sanger Sequencing of Tropical Mycorrhizal Fungi Provide Similar Results but Reveal Substantial Methodological Biases. New Phytol. 2010, 188, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Brundrett, M.C. Mycorrhizal Associations and Other Means of Nutrition of Vascular Plants: Understanding the Global Diversity of Host Plants by Resolving Conflicting Information and Developing Reliable Means of Diagnosis. Plant Soil. 2009, 320, 37–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory Field. J. Informetr. 2011, 5, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chang, Y.-W.; Huang, M.-H.; Lin, C.-W. Evolution of Research Subjects in Library and Information Science Based on Keyword, Bibliographical Coupling, and Co-Citation Analyses. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 2071–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Z.; Qi, F.; Liu, L.; Chen, M.; Sun, D.; Nan, J. How Do Urban Rainfall-Runoff Pollution Control Technologies Develop in China? A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Summary. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 148045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Su, Y.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, N. Carbon Emissions and Environmental Management Based on Big Data and Streaming Data: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 733, 138984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. R Core Team. A Languaje and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Viena, Austria, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  58. Agnusdei, G.P.; Coluccia, B. Sustainable Agrifood Supply Chains: Bibliometric, Network and Content Analyses. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 824, 153704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Colares, G.S.; Dell’Osbel, N.; Wiesel, P.G.; Oliveira, G.A.; Lemos, P.H.Z.; da Silva, F.P.; Lutterbeck, C.A.; Kist, L.T.; Machado, Ê.L. Floating Treatment Wetlands: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Niu, L.; Zhao, X.; Wu, F.; Tang, Z.; Lv, H.; Wang, J.; Fang, M.; Giesy, J.P. Hotpots and Trends of Covalent Organic Frameworks (COFs) in the Environmental and Energy Field: Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wardle, D.A.; Bardgett, R.D.; Klironomos, J.N.; Setälä, H.; van der Putten, W.H.; Wall, D.H. Ecological Linkages between Aboveground and Belowground Biota. Science (1979) 2004, 304, 1629–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nguyen, N.H.; Song, Z.; Bates, S.T.; Branco, S.; Tedersoo, L.; Menke, J.; Schilling, J.S.; Kennedy, P.G. FUNGuild: An Open Annotation Tool for Parsing Fungal Community Datasets by Ecological Guild. Fungal Ecol. 2016, 20, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Philippot, L.; Raaijmakers, J.M.; Lemanceau, P.; Van Der Putten, W.H. Going Back to the Roots: The Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 789–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rillig, M.C.; Mummey, D.L. Mycorrhizas and Soil Structure. New Phytol. 2006, 171, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kuzyakov, Y.; Xu, X. Competition between Roots and Microorganisms for Nitrogen: Mechanisms and Ecological Relevance. New Phytol. 2013, 198, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wang, B.; Qiu, Y.L. Phylogenetic Distribution and Evolution of Mycorrhizas in Land Plants. Mycorrhiza 2006, 16, 299–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. De Boer, W.; Folman, L.B.; Summerbell, R.C.; Boddy, L.; De Boer, W.; Folman, L.B.; Summerbell, R.C.; Boddy, L.; De Boer, W.; Folman, L.B.; et al. Living in a Fungal World: Impact of Fungi on Soil Bacterial Niche Development. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2005, 29, 795–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gadd, G.M. Metals, Minerals and Microbes: Geomicrobiology and Bioremediation. Microbiology 2010, 156, 609–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Warnock, D.D.; Lehmann, J.; Kuyper, T.W.; Rillig, M.C. Mycorrhizal Responses to Biochar in Soil—Concepts and Mechanisms. Plant Soil. 2007, 300, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Leff, J.; Jones, S.; Prober, S.; Barberán, A.; Borer, E.; Firn, J.; Harpole, W.; Hobbie, S.; Hofmockel, K.; Knops, J.; et al. Consistent Responses of Soil Microbial Communities to Elevated Nutrient Inputs in Grasslands across the Globe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 10967–10972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Klironomos, J.N. Variation in Plant Response to Native and Exotic Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Ecology 2003, 84, 2292–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Haider, F.U.; Liqun, C.; Coulter, J.A.; Cheema, S.A.; Wu, J.; Zhang, R.; Wenjun, M.; Farooq, M. Cadmium Toxicity in Plants: Impacts and Remediation Strategies. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 211, 111887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hoeksema, J.D.; Chaudhary, V.B.; Gehring, C.A.; Johnson, N.C.; Karst, J.; Koide, R.T.; Pringle, A.; Zabinski, C.; Bever, J.D.; Moore, J.C.; et al. A Meta-Analysis of Context-Dependency in Plant Response to Inoculation with Mycorrhizal Fungi. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 394–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gadd, G.M. Geomycology: Biogeochemical Transformations of Rocks, Minerals, Metals and Radionuclides by Fungi, Bioweathering and Bioremediation. Mycol. Res. 2007, 111, 3–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Emamverdian, A.; Ding, Y.; Mokhberdoran, F.; Xie, Y. Heavy Metal Stress and Some Mechanisms of Plant Defense Response. Sci. World J. 2015, 2015, 756120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Averill, C.; Turner, B.L.; Finzi, A.C. Mycorrhiza-Mediated Competition between Plants and Decomposers Drives Soil Carbon Storage. Nature 2014, 505, 543–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Phillips, R.P.; Brzostek, E.; Midgley, M.G. The Mycorrhizal-Associated Nutrient Economy: A New Framework for Predicting Carbon-Nutrient Couplings in Temperate Forests. New Phytol. 2013, 199, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yan, E.; Ding, Y. Weighted Citation: An Indicator of an Article’s Prestige. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2010, 61, 1635–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ding, Y.; Cronin, B. Popular and/or Prestigious? Measures of Scholarly Esteem. Inf. Process Manag. 2011, 47, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rafols, I.; Meyer, M. Diversity and Network Coherence as Indicators of Interdisciplinarity: Case Studies in Bionanoscience. Scientometrics 2010, 82, 263–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jeffries, P.; Gianinazzi, S.; Perotto, S.; Turnau, K.; Barea, J.M. The Contribution of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Sustainable Maintenance of Plant Health and Soil Fertility. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2003, 37, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, F. Occurrence of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Mining-Impacted Sites and Their Contribution to Ecological Restoration: Mechanisms and Applications. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 47, 1901–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gianinazzi, S.; Gollotte, A.; Binet, M.N.; van Tuinen, D.; Redecker, D.; Wipf, D. Agroecology: The Key Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizas in Ecosystem Services. Mycorrhiza 2010, 20, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hart, M.M.; Reader, R.J. Taxonomic Basis for Variation in the Colonization Strategy of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. New Phytol. 2002, 153, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hazard, C.; Gosling, P.; Van Der Gast, C.J.; Mitchell, D.T.; Doohan, F.M.; Bending, G.D. The Role of Local Environment and Geographical Distance in Determining Community Composition of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi at the Landscape Scale. ISME J. 2013, 7, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rillig, M.C. Arbuscular Mycorrhizae, Glomalin, and Soil Aggregation. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 2004, 84, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Allen, M.F.; Swenson, W.; Querejeta, J.I.; Egerton-Warburton, L.M.; Treseder, K.K. Ecology of Mycorrhizae: A Conceptual Framework for Complex Interactions among Plants and Fungi. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2003, 41, 271–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lekberg, Y.; Koide, R.T.; Rohr, J.R.; Aldrich-Wolfe, L.; Morton, J.B. Role of Niche Restrictions and Dispersal in the Composition of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities. J. Ecol. 2007, 95, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Allen, M.F.; Allen, E.B.; Gómez-Pompa, A. Effects of Mycorrhizae and Nontarget Organisms on Restoration of a Seasonal Tropical Forest in Quintana Roo, Mexico: Factors Limiting Tree Establishment. Restor. Ecol. 2005, 13, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Husband, R.; Herre, E.A.; Turner, S.L.; Gallery, R.; Young, J.P.W. Molecular Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Patterns of Host Association over Time and Space in a Tropical Forest. Mol. Ecol. 2002, 11, 2669–2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Tchabi, A.; Coyne, D.; Hountondji, F.; Lawouin, L.; Wiemken, A.; Oehl, F. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities in Sub-Saharan Savannas of Benin, West Africa, as Affected by Agricultural Land Use Intensity and Ecological Zone. Mycorrhiza 2008, 18, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rillig, M.C. Arbuscular Mycorrhizae and Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 740–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jansa, J.; Erb, A.; Oberholzer, H.R.; Šmilauer, P.; Egli, S. Soil and Geography Are More Important Determinants of Indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Communities than Management Practices in Swiss Agricultural Soils. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23, 2118–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Zangaro, W.; Rostirola, L.V.; de Souza, P.B.; de Almeida Alves, R.; Lescano, L.E.A.M.; Rondina, A.B.L.; Nogueira, M.A.; Carrenho, R. Root Colonization and Spore Abundance of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Distinct Successional Stages from an Atlantic Rainforest Biome in Southern Brazil. Mycorrhiza 2013, 23, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cornejo, P.; Meier, S.; Borie, G.; Rillig, M.C.; Borie, F. Glomalin-Related Soil Protein in a Mediterranean Ecosystem Affected by a Copper Smelter and Its Contribution to Cu and Zn Sequestration. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 406, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science Mapping Software Tools: Review, Analysis, and Cooperative Study among Tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nichols, K. Mycorrhizae: Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry. In Mycorrhizae: Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry; Siddiqui, Z.A., Akhtar, M.S., Futai, K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 177–194. ISBN 978-1-4020-8769-1. [Google Scholar]
  99. Tawaraya, K.; Turjaman, M. Use of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi for Reforestation of Degraded Tropical Forests. In Mycorrhizal Fungi: Use in Sustainable Agriculture and Land Restoration; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 357–373. [Google Scholar]
  100. Fajardo, L.; Lovera, M.; Arrindell, P.; Aguilar, V.H.; Hasmy, Z.; Cuenca, G. Morphotype-Based Characterization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities in a Restored Tropical Dry Forest, Margarita Island-Venezuela. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2015, 63, 859–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Kiers, E.; Lovelock, C.; Krueger, E.; Herre, E. Differential Effects of Tropical Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inocula on Root Colonization and Tree Seedling Growth: Implications for Tropical Forest Diversity. Ecol. Lett. 2000, 3, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sheldrake, M.; Rosenstock, N.; Revillini, D.; Olsson, P.; Mangan, S.; Sayer, E.; Wallander, H.; Turner, B.; Tanner, E. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Community Composition Is Altered by Long-term Litter Removal but Not Litter Addition in a Lowland Tropical Forest. New Phytol. 2017, 214, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 16 01266 g001
Figure 1. Workflow diagram illustrating the systematic methodology for bibliometric analysis of AMF publications retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus databases (2001–2024).
Figure 1. Workflow diagram illustrating the systematic methodology for bibliometric analysis of AMF publications retrieved from Web of Science and Scopus databases (2001–2024).
Forests 16 01266 g001
Forests 16 01266 g002
Figure 2. Annual production trends of scientific articles on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in ecological restoration research (2001–2024).
Figure 2. Annual production trends of scientific articles on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in ecological restoration research (2001–2024).
Forests 16 01266 g002
Forests 16 01266 g003
Figure 3. Top 20 most frequent keywords identified in the bibliometric analysis, showing the most prominent terms used across the selected scientific publications.
Figure 3. Top 20 most frequent keywords identified in the bibliometric analysis, showing the most prominent terms used across the selected scientific publications.
Forests 16 01266 g003
Forests 16 01266 g004
Figure 4. Evolution of keyword usage from 2001 to 2024, based on annual frequency data extracted from bibliometric analysis.
Figure 4. Evolution of keyword usage from 2001 to 2024, based on annual frequency data extracted from bibliometric analysis.
Forests 16 01266 g004
Forests 16 01266 g005
Figure 5. Network visualization of keyword co-occurrence, illustrating thematic clusters and conceptual linkages among the most frequently used terms in the analyzed.
Figure 5. Network visualization of keyword co-occurrence, illustrating thematic clusters and conceptual linkages among the most frequently used terms in the analyzed.
Forests 16 01266 g005
Forests 16 01266 g006
Figure 6. Trends in main topics over time: an analysis of high-impact keywords in literature. In black, the initial and final periods of the topic’s significance, in blue, the year with the highest number of appearances.
Figure 6. Trends in main topics over time: an analysis of high-impact keywords in literature. In black, the initial and final periods of the topic’s significance, in blue, the year with the highest number of appearances.
Forests 16 01266 g006
Forests 16 01266 g007
Figure 7. Country collaboration clusters identified through co-authorship analysis, illustrating regional and international scientific partnerships in the field of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Figure 7. Country collaboration clusters identified through co-authorship analysis, illustrating regional and international scientific partnerships in the field of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Forests 16 01266 g007
Forests 16 01266 g008
Figure 8. Thematic map on the degree of relevance and development of the research about the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration.
Figure 8. Thematic map on the degree of relevance and development of the research about the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration.
Forests 16 01266 g008
Table 1. Search topics and keywords used for bibliometric analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi research in tropical forest restoration (2001–2024).
Table 1. Search topics and keywords used for bibliometric analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi research in tropical forest restoration (2001–2024).
Main Topic Secondary Topic WoS Scopus
AMFEcology994 798
Tropical forest556 310
Mining603 317
Degradation618 449
Landscape263 119
Bioremediation283 384
Ecological restoration326 252
Tropical Zones40 36
Landscape ecology36 28
Table 2. Main information obtained from bibliometric analysis.
Table 2. Main information obtained from bibliometric analysis.
Description Results
Timespan2001–2024
Sources880
Documents3835
Document Average Age 8.42
Average citations per year per doc45.55
References243,986
Article3037
Article: proceedings paper36
Book6
Book chapter84
Other documents672
Keywords Plus (ID)9388
Author’s Keywords (DE)8693
Authors10,868
Table 3. Top 20 most productive journals in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration research, showing publication frequency, percentage distribution, and 2023 impact factors.
Table 3. Top 20 most productive journals in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration research, showing publication frequency, percentage distribution, and 2023 impact factors.
Sources Articles Percentage % Impact Factor 2023
Mycorrhiza1283.343.3
New Phytologist1153.008.3
Applied Soil Ecology1072.795.48
Science of the Total Environment1062.768.2
Plant and Soil872.274.42
Soil Biology & Biochemistry872.279.8
Journal of Ecology631.645.72
International Journal of Phytoremediation591.544.16
Environmental Science and Pollution Research551.435.8
Frontiers in Microbiology521.364.00
Restoration Ecology481.253.51
Frontiers in Plant Science441.154.1
Plos one441.152.9
Ecology431.124.4
Forest Ecology and Management411.074.02
Fungal Ecology380.991.9
Symbiosis360.942.1
Chemosphere310.818.1
Microbial Ecology300.783.3
Forests290.762.9
Table 4. Top 20 most cited publications on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration research.
Table 4. Top 20 most cited publications on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and ecological restoration research.
Author Year Journal DOI Total Global Citations TC per Year
Wardle et al. [61]2004Science10.1126/science.10948753337151.68
Nguyen et al. [62]2016Fungal Ecology10.1016/j.funeco.2015.06.0062974297.40
Philippot et al. [63]2013Nature Reviews Microbiology10.1038/nrmicro31092316178.15
Wang & Qiu [66]2006Mycorrhiza10.1007/s00572-005-0033-6134267.10
Boer et al. [67]2005FEMS Microbiology Reviews10.1016/j.femsre.2004.11.005134063.81
van der Heijden et al. [10]2015New Phytologist10.1111/nph.132881334121.27
Gadd [68]2010Microbiology (SGM)10.1099/mic.0.037143-0130581.56
Schüβler et al. [7]2001Mycological Research10.1017/S0953756201005196128251.28
Rillig & Mummey [64]2006New Phytologist10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01750.x111055.50
Warnock et al. [69]2007Plant and Soil10.1007/s11104-007-9391-5104655.05
Kuzyakov & Xu [65]2013New Phytologist10.1111/nph.12235101978.38
Leff et al. [70]2015Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)10.1073/pnas.1508382112100090.91
Brundrett [50]2009Plant and Soil10.1007/s11104-008-9877-995155.94
Klironomos [71]2003Ecology10.1890/02-041387638.09
Haider et al. [72]2021Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111887864172.80
Hoeksema et al. [73]2010Ecology Letters10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x86454.00
Gadd [74]2007Mycological Research10.1016/j.mycres.2006.12.00186345.42
Emamverdian A [75]2015The Scientific World Journal10.1155/2015/75612084877.09
Averill et al. [76]2014Nature10.1038/nature1290178565.42
Phillips et al. [77]2013New Phytologist10.1111/nph.1222177959.92
Table 5. Core publications with highest local citation impact in AMF and ecological restoration research, ranked by within-database citations.
Table 5. Core publications with highest local citation impact in AMF and ecological restoration research, ranked by within-database citations.
Author Year Journal DOI Total Local Citations Global Citations
Jeffries et al. [81]2003Biology and Fertility of Soils10.1007/s00374-002-0546-5303826
Wang [82]2017Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology10.1080/10643389.2017.1400853147171
Klironomos [71]2003Ecology10.1890/02-0413131951
Rillig & Mummey [64]2006New Phytologist10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01750.x1291302
Hart & Reader [84]2002New Phytologist10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00312.x119618
Hazard et al. [85]2013ISME Journal10.1038/ismej.2012.127116272
Hoeksema et al. [73]2010Ecology Letters10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x113925
Rillig [86]2004Canadian Journal of Soil Science10.4141/S04-003109806
Allen et al. [87]2003Ecological Applications10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095518 108116
Brundrett [50]2009Plant Soil10.1007/s11104-008-9877-91071061
Lekberg et al. [88]2007Journal of Ecology10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01193.x97325
Allen et al. [89]2005Restoration Ecology10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00041.x9573
Husband et al. [90]2002Molecular Ecology10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01647.x90330
Gianinazzi et al. [83]2010Mycorrhiza10.1007/s00572-010-0333-386751
Tchabi et al. [91]2008Mycorrhiza10.1007/s00572-008-0171-882144
Rillig [92]2004Ecology Letters10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00620.x78492
Jansa et al. [93]2014Molecular Ecology10.1111/mec.1270674197
Zangaro et al. [94]2013Mycorrhiza10.1007/s00572-012-0464-974100
van der Heijden et al. [10]2015New Phytologist10.1111/nph.13288731514
Cornejo et al. [95]2008Science of the Total Environment10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.07.04568225
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arévalo, Y.; Avila-Salem, M.E.; Loján, P.; Urgiles-Gómez, N.; Pucha-Cofrep, D.; Aguirre, N.; Benavidez-Silva, C. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Ecological Restoration of Tropical Forests: A Bibliometric Review. Forests 2025, 16, 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16081266

AMA Style

Arévalo Y, Avila-Salem ME, Loján P, Urgiles-Gómez N, Pucha-Cofrep D, Aguirre N, Benavidez-Silva C. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Ecological Restoration of Tropical Forests: A Bibliometric Review. Forests. 2025; 16(8):1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16081266

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arévalo, Yajaira, María Eugenia Avila-Salem, Paúl Loján, Narcisa Urgiles-Gómez, Darwin Pucha-Cofrep, Nikolay Aguirre, and César Benavidez-Silva. 2025. "Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Ecological Restoration of Tropical Forests: A Bibliometric Review" Forests 16, no. 8: 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16081266

APA Style

Arévalo, Y., Avila-Salem, M. E., Loján, P., Urgiles-Gómez, N., Pucha-Cofrep, D., Aguirre, N., & Benavidez-Silva, C. (2025). Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Ecological Restoration of Tropical Forests: A Bibliometric Review. Forests, 16(8), 1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/f16081266

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop