Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ubirajara Oliveira
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: João Paulo Peixoto Pena Barbosa, João Renato Stehmann, John S. Ascher, Marcelo Ferreira de Vasconcelos, Paulo de Marco, Peter Löwenberg-neto, Viviane Gianluppi Ferro, Adalberto J. Santos, Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho, Adriano Pereira Paglia, Antonio D. Brescovit, Claudio J. B. de Carvalho, Daniel Paiva Silva, Daniella T. Rezende, Felipe Sá Fortes Leite, João Aguiar Nogueira Batista
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFMG
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.05.001
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/52203
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-5414
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9504-5441
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7887-2461
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-8198
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3628-6405
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5122-0247
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6491-806X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-946X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-5506
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1511-5324
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4539-4336
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4561-5634
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-0942
Resumo: Fonseca and Venticinque (2018) (hereafter FV) present a critical assessment of a paper in which we attempt to estimate the biodiversity coverage of the Brazilian conservation units (Oliveira et al., 2017). We appreciate their contribution to this important debate. We have no doubts that conservation planning should be based on a variety of information sources, including not only the coverage of species’ ranges but also the contribution of each area to the preservation of ecosystem services, landscape features and socioeconomic and cultural aspects. This systematic and integrative conservation planning is certainly a complex process, which requires the contribution of experts from different fields. However, we have shown, in this reply, that our paper (Oliveira et al., 2017) aims to quantify the knowledge and protection gaps of biodiversity in protected areas, not to propose priority areas or to test whether the current proposal of priority areas is efficient. Objectives and the conclusions of our paper. We hope this short response can clarify this debate.
id UFMG_f953595a8e0ef4528068e9679260face
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/52203
network_acronym_str UFMG
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFMG
repository_id_str
spelling 2023-04-18T21:30:25Z2023-04-18T21:30:25Z2018163166167https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.05.0012530-0644http://hdl.handle.net/1843/52203https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-5414https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9504-5441https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7887-2461https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-8198https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3628-6405https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5122-0247https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6491-806Xhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-946Xhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-5506https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1511-5324https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4539-4336https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4561-5634https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-0942Fonseca and Venticinque (2018) (hereafter FV) present a critical assessment of a paper in which we attempt to estimate the biodiversity coverage of the Brazilian conservation units (Oliveira et al., 2017). We appreciate their contribution to this important debate. We have no doubts that conservation planning should be based on a variety of information sources, including not only the coverage of species’ ranges but also the contribution of each area to the preservation of ecosystem services, landscape features and socioeconomic and cultural aspects. This systematic and integrative conservation planning is certainly a complex process, which requires the contribution of experts from different fields. However, we have shown, in this reply, that our paper (Oliveira et al., 2017) aims to quantify the knowledge and protection gaps of biodiversity in protected areas, not to propose priority areas or to test whether the current proposal of priority areas is efficient. Objectives and the conclusions of our paper. We hope this short response can clarify this debate.engUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisUFMGBrasilICB - DEPARTAMENTO DE BOTÂNICAICB - DEPARTAMENTO DE ZOOLOGIAIGC - DEPARTAMENTO DE CARTOGRAFIAPerspectives in Ecology and ConservationEcologiaBiodiversidade - ConservaçãoBrasilBiodiveristyBrazilConservation strategiesReply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planninginfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2530064418300403?via%3DihubUbirajara OliveiraJoão Paulo Peixoto Pena BarbosaJoão Renato StehmannJohn S. AscherMarcelo Ferreira de VasconcelosPaulo de MarcoPeter Löwenberg-netoViviane Gianluppi FerroAdalberto J. SantosBritaldo Silveira Soares FilhoAdriano Pereira PagliaAntonio D. BrescovitClaudio J. B. de CarvalhoDaniel Paiva SilvaDaniella T. RezendeFelipe Sá Fortes LeiteJoão Aguiar Nogueira Batistaapplication/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMGLICENSELicense.txtLicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82042https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/52203/1/License.txtfa505098d172de0bc8864fc1287ffe22MD51ORIGINALreplytobiodiversityconservation.pdfreplytobiodiversityconservation.pdfapplication/pdf136294https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/52203/2/replytobiodiversityconservation.pdfd52c680fb35db1875fd3a121e6f6596fMD521843/522032023-04-18 18:30:25.511oai:repositorio.ufmg.br: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Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oaiopendoar:2023-04-18T21:30:25Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
title Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
spellingShingle Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
Ubirajara Oliveira
Biodiveristy
Brazil
Conservation strategies
Ecologia
Biodiversidade - Conservação
Brasil
title_short Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
title_full Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
title_fullStr Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
title_full_unstemmed Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
title_sort Reply to biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: a role for systematic conservation planning
author Ubirajara Oliveira
author_facet Ubirajara Oliveira
João Paulo Peixoto Pena Barbosa
João Renato Stehmann
John S. Ascher
Marcelo Ferreira de Vasconcelos
Paulo de Marco
Peter Löwenberg-neto
Viviane Gianluppi Ferro
Adalberto J. Santos
Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho
Adriano Pereira Paglia
Antonio D. Brescovit
Claudio J. B. de Carvalho
Daniel Paiva Silva
Daniella T. Rezende
Felipe Sá Fortes Leite
João Aguiar Nogueira Batista
author_role author
author2 João Paulo Peixoto Pena Barbosa
João Renato Stehmann
John S. Ascher
Marcelo Ferreira de Vasconcelos
Paulo de Marco
Peter Löwenberg-neto
Viviane Gianluppi Ferro
Adalberto J. Santos
Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho
Adriano Pereira Paglia
Antonio D. Brescovit
Claudio J. B. de Carvalho
Daniel Paiva Silva
Daniella T. Rezende
Felipe Sá Fortes Leite
João Aguiar Nogueira Batista
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ubirajara Oliveira
João Paulo Peixoto Pena Barbosa
João Renato Stehmann
John S. Ascher
Marcelo Ferreira de Vasconcelos
Paulo de Marco
Peter Löwenberg-neto
Viviane Gianluppi Ferro
Adalberto J. Santos
Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho
Adriano Pereira Paglia
Antonio D. Brescovit
Claudio J. B. de Carvalho
Daniel Paiva Silva
Daniella T. Rezende
Felipe Sá Fortes Leite
João Aguiar Nogueira Batista
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Biodiveristy
Brazil
Conservation strategies
topic Biodiveristy
Brazil
Conservation strategies
Ecologia
Biodiversidade - Conservação
Brasil
dc.subject.other.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Ecologia
Biodiversidade - Conservação
Brasil
description Fonseca and Venticinque (2018) (hereafter FV) present a critical assessment of a paper in which we attempt to estimate the biodiversity coverage of the Brazilian conservation units (Oliveira et al., 2017). We appreciate their contribution to this important debate. We have no doubts that conservation planning should be based on a variety of information sources, including not only the coverage of species’ ranges but also the contribution of each area to the preservation of ecosystem services, landscape features and socioeconomic and cultural aspects. This systematic and integrative conservation planning is certainly a complex process, which requires the contribution of experts from different fields. However, we have shown, in this reply, that our paper (Oliveira et al., 2017) aims to quantify the knowledge and protection gaps of biodiversity in protected areas, not to propose priority areas or to test whether the current proposal of priority areas is efficient. Objectives and the conclusions of our paper. We hope this short response can clarify this debate.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2018
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2023-04-18T21:30:25Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2023-04-18T21:30:25Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/1843/52203
dc.identifier.doi.pt_BR.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.05.001
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 2530-0644
dc.identifier.orcid.pt_BR.fl_str_mv https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-5414
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9504-5441
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7887-2461
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-8198
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3628-6405
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5122-0247
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6491-806X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-946X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-5506
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1511-5324
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4539-4336
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4561-5634
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-0942
url https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.05.001
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/52203
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-5414
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9504-5441
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7887-2461
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4146-8198
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3628-6405
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5122-0247
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6491-806X
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-946X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-5506
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1511-5324
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4539-4336
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4561-5634
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-0942
identifier_str_mv 2530-0644
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv UFMG
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv Brasil
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv ICB - DEPARTAMENTO DE BOTÂNICA
ICB - DEPARTAMENTO DE ZOOLOGIA
IGC - DEPARTAMENTO DE CARTOGRAFIA
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMG
instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
instacron:UFMG
instname_str Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
instacron_str UFMG
institution UFMG
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UFMG
collection Repositório Institucional da UFMG
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/52203/1/License.txt
https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/52203/2/replytobiodiversityconservation.pdf
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv fa505098d172de0bc8864fc1287ffe22
d52c680fb35db1875fd3a121e6f6596f
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1797971328152633344