Institution
Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi
Archive•Belém, Brazil•
About: Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi is a archive organization based out in Belém, Brazil. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Species richness & Amazon rainforest. The organization has 1050 authors who have published 2626 publications receiving 60203 citations. The organization is also known as: MPEG & Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi.
Topics: Species richness, Amazon rainforest, Biodiversity, Genus, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources1, Conservation International2, Sapienza University of Rome3, Texas A&M University4, Instituto Superior Técnico5, University of Cambridge6, Zoological Society of London7, Arizona State University8, Columbia University9, National Scientific and Technical Research Council10, Wildlife Conservation Society11, Imperial College London12, National University of Tucumán13, University of the Philippines Los Baños14, University of Tasmania15, University of Edinburgh16, Earthwatch Institute17, Drexel University18, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais19, Global Environment Facility20, University of Alberta21, Smithsonian Institution22, Université de Sherbrooke23, University of Virginia24, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources25, University of Calgary26, James Cook University27, NatureServe28, University of St Andrews29, Australian National University30, University of Montana31, General Post Office32, University of Otago33, Field Museum of Natural History34, Wildlife Institute of India35, Tokyo Woman's Christian University36, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration37, University of Aberdeen38, University of the Witwatersrand39, University of Oxford40, University Centre in Svalbard41, Norwegian Polar Institute42, Copenhagen Zoo43, San Diego State University44, University of Alaska Fairbanks45, Manchester Metropolitan University46, National Autonomous University of Mexico47, University of Kent48, City University of New York49, Victoria University of Wellington50, California Academy of Sciences51, Mote Marine Laboratory52, Osmania University53, White Oak Conservation54, Aaranyak55, University of California, Davis56, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi57, University of Stirling58
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals, including marine mammals, using data collected by 1700+ experts, covering all 5487 species.
Abstract: Knowledge of mammalian diversity is still surprisingly disparate, both regionally and taxonomically. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals. Data, compiled by 1700+ experts, cover all 5487 species, including marine mammals. Global macroecological patterns are very different for land and marine species but suggest common mechanisms driving diversity and endemism across systems. Compared with land species, threat levels are higher among marine mammals, driven by different processes (accidental mortality and pollution, rather than habitat loss), and are spatially distinct (peaking in northern oceans, rather than in Southeast Asia). Marine mammals are also disproportionately poorly known. These data are made freely available to support further scientific developments and conservation action.
1,383 citations
Naturalis1, Utrecht University2, Duke University3, Institut de recherche pour le développement4, Institut national de la recherche agronomique5, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi6, University of California, Berkeley7, University of Leeds8, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária9, National Institute of Amazonian Research10, National University of Saint Anthony the Abbot in Cuzco11, University of Exeter12, World Wide Fund for Nature13, Universidad Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno14, Norwegian University of Life Sciences15, Max Planck Society16, James Cook University17, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso18, University of Amsterdam19, Silver Spring Networks20, State University of Campinas21, University of Edinburgh22, University of Los Andes23, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute24, National University of Colombia25, University of East Anglia26, Central University of Ecuador27, Centre national de la recherche scientifique28, Humboldt State University29, New York Botanical Garden30, Universidade Federal do Acre31, Paul Sabatier University32, Missouri Botanical Garden33, Amazon.com34, University of Texas at Austin35, University of Florida36, Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research37, Environmental Change Institute38, Federal Rural University of Amazonia39, University of São Paulo40, State University of Norte Fluminense41, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee42, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute43, Northern Arizona University44, Aarhus University45, Tropenbos International46, University of Kent47, Royal Botanic Gardens48, University of Missouri–St. Louis49, Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía Peruana50, Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden51, Florida International University52, Wake Forest University53
TL;DR: The finding that Amazonia is dominated by just 227 tree species implies that most biogeochemical cycling in the world’s largest tropical forest is performed by a tiny sliver of its diversity.
Abstract: The vast extent of the Amazon Basin has historically restricted the study of its tree communities to the local and regional scales. Here, we provide empirical data on the commonness, rarity, and richness of lowland tree species across the entire Amazon Basin and Guiana Shield (Amazonia), collected in 1170 tree plots in all major forest types. Extrapolations suggest that Amazonia harbors roughly 16,000 tree species, of which just 227 (1.4%) account for half of all trees. Most of these are habitat specialists and only dominant in one or two regions of the basin. We discuss some implications of the finding that a small group of species—less diverse than the North American tree flora—accounts for half of the world’s most diverse tree community.
963 citations
William F. Laurance1, William F. Laurance2, D. Carolina Useche1, Julio Rendeiro1 +213 more•Institutions (101)
TL;DR: These findings suggest that tropical protected areas are often intimately linked ecologically to their surrounding habitats, and that a failure to stem broad-scale loss and degradation of such habitats could sharply increase the likelihood of serious biodiversity declines.
Abstract: The rapid disruption of tropical forests probably imperils global biodiversity more than any other contemporary phenomenon(1-3). With deforestation advancing quickly, protected areas are increasingly becoming final refuges for threatened species and natural ecosystem processes. However, many protected areas in the tropics are themselves vulnerable to human encroachment and other environmental stresses(4-9). As pressures mount, it is vital to know whether existing reserves can sustain their biodiversity. A critical constraint in addressing this question has been that data describing a broad array of biodiversity groups have been unavailable for a sufficiently large and representative sample of reserves. Here we present a uniquely comprehensive data set on changes over the past 20 to 30 years in 31 functional groups of species and 21 potential drivers of environmental change, for 60 protected areas stratified across the world's major tropical regions. Our analysis reveals great variation in reserve 'health': about half of all reserves have been effective or performed passably, but the rest are experiencing an erosion of biodiversity that is often alarmingly widespread taxonomically and functionally. Habitat disruption, hunting and forest-product exploitation were the strongest predictors of declining reserve health. Crucially, environmental changes immediately outside reserves seemed nearly as important as those inside in determining their ecological fate, with changes inside reserves strongly mirroring those occurring around them. These findings suggest that tropical protected areas are often intimately linked ecologically to their surrounding habitats, and that a failure to stem broad-scale loss and degradation of such habitats could sharply increase the likelihood of serious biodiversity declines.
962 citations
West Virginia University1, Yale University2, Food and Agriculture Organization3, Landcare Research4, University of Udine5, Max Planck Society6, University of Alaska Fairbanks7, Technische Universität München8, Université du Québec à Montréal9, University of the French West Indies and Guiana10, University of Freiburg Faculty of Biology11, Cornell University12, Wageningen University and Research Centre13, University of Sydney14, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro15, Polytechnic Institute of Viseu16, University of Göttingen17, Russian Academy of Sciences18, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research19, Lakehead University20, University of La Frontera21, Seoul National University22, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg23, University of Cambridge24, Center for International Forestry Research25, James Cook University26, University of Zurich27, University of Yaoundé I28, University of Wisconsin-Madison29, Queensland Government30, Institut national de la recherche agronomique31, Florida International University32, Forest Research Institute33, University of Minnesota34, Polish Academy of Sciences35, Warsaw University of Life Sciences36, Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava37, University of Florence38, University of Warsaw39, King Juan Carlos University40, Spanish National Research Council41, National Scientific and Technical Research Council42, National University of Austral Patagonia43, International Trademark Association44, Wildlife Conservation Society45, College of African Wildlife Management46, University of York47, Durham University48, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources49, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador50, Centre national de la recherche scientifique51, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi52, University College London53, University of Leeds54
TL;DR: A consistent positive concave-down effect of biodiversity on forest productivity across the world is revealed, showing that a continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide.
Abstract: The biodiversity-productivity relationship (BPR) is foundational to our understanding of the global extinction crisis and its impacts on ecosystem functioning. Understanding BPR is critical for the accurate valuation and effective conservation of biodiversity. Using ground-sourced data from 777,126 permanent plots, spanning 44 countries and most terrestrial biomes, we reveal a globally consistent positive concave-down BPR, showing that continued biodiversity loss would result in an accelerating decline in forest productivity worldwide. The value of biodiversity in maintaining commercial forest productivity alone-US$166 billion to 490 billion per year according to our estimation-is more than twice what it would cost to implement effective global conservation. This highlights the need for a worldwide reassessment of biodiversity values, forest management strategies, and conservation priorities.
889 citations
University of Leeds1, University of Exeter2, James Cook University3, Imperial College London4, Environmental Change Institute5, University College London6, University of Kent7, Duke University8, National Institute of Amazonian Research9, National Institute for Space Research10, Universidad Autónoma Gabriel René Moreno11, Wageningen University and Research Centre12, University of Amsterdam13, Florida International University14, Institut national de la recherche agronomique15, Universidade Federal do Acre16, Tropenbos International17, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária18, National Chung Hsing University19, Paul Sabatier University20, National Park Service21, Amazon.com22, Federal University of Pará23, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso24, University of Texas at Austin25, Smithsonian Institution26, World Wide Fund for Nature27, Universidad Mayor28, Field Museum of Natural History29, Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía Peruana30, University of Los Andes31, National University of Colombia32, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi33, Naturalis34, Utrecht University35, Northumbria University36, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee37, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute38, State University of Campinas39
TL;DR: It is confirmed that Amazon forests have acted as a long-term net biomass sink, but the observed decline of the Amazon sink diverges markedly from the recent increase in terrestrial carbon uptake at the global scale, and is contrary to expectations based on models
Abstract: Atmospheric carbon dioxide records indicate that the land surface has acted as a strong global carbon sink over recent decades, with a substantial fraction of this sink probably located in the tropics, particularly in the Amazon. Nevertheless, it is unclear how the terrestrial carbon sink will evolve as climate and atmospheric composition continue to change. Here we analyse the historical evolution of the biomass dynamics of the Amazon rainforest over three decades using a distributed network of 321 plots. While this analysis confirms that Amazon forests have acted as a long-term net biomass sink, we find a long-term decreasing trend of carbon accumulation. Rates of net increase in above-ground biomass declined by one-third during the past decade compared to the 1990s. This is a consequence of growth rate increases levelling off recently, while biomass mortality persistently increased throughout, leading to a shortening of carbon residence times. Potential drivers for the mortality increase include greater climate variability, and feedbacks of faster growth on mortality, resulting in shortened tree longevity. The observed decline of the Amazon sink diverges markedly from the recent increase in terrestrial carbon uptake at the global scale, and is contrary to expectations based on models.
767 citations
Authors
Showing all 1055 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carlos A. Peres | 101 | 434 | 33582 |
| Jos Barlow | 64 | 245 | 15975 |
| Toby A. Gardner | 56 | 141 | 15640 |
| Ima Célia Guimarães Vieira | 50 | 127 | 10146 |
| Michael J. Balick | 41 | 148 | 6780 |
| Hans ter Steege | 41 | 109 | 9190 |
| Alexandre Aleixo | 40 | 168 | 5369 |
| Leandro Valle Ferreira | 37 | 96 | 9411 |
| Richard E. Bodmer | 36 | 111 | 4628 |
| Otto R. Gottlieb | 36 | 325 | 6011 |
| Stephen F. Ferrari | 34 | 182 | 4033 |
| Alexander C. Lees | 33 | 106 | 4824 |
| Rafael de Paiva Salomão | 33 | 85 | 6855 |
| Dilce de Fátima Rossetti | 32 | 155 | 3604 |
| Walter Alves Neves | 32 | 137 | 3188 |