| Title |
Keystone Species, Forest and Landscape: A Model to Select Protected Areas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-017-0832-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniela Barbosa da Silva Lins, Fernando Ravanini Gardon, João Frederico da Costa Azevedo Meyer, Rozely Ferreira dos Santos |
| Abstract |
The selection of forest fragments for conservation is usually based on spatial parameters as forest size and canopy integrity. This strategy assumes that chosen fragments present high conservation status, ensuring biodiversity and ecological functions. We argue that a well-preserved forest fragment that remains connected by the landscape structure, does not necessarily hold attributes that ensure the presence of keystone species. We also discuss that the presence of keystone species does not always mean that it has the best conditions for its occurrence and maintenance. We developed a model to select areas in forest landscapes to be prioritized for protection based on suitability curves that unify and compare spatial indicators of three categories: forest fragment quality, landscape quality, and environmental conditions for the occurrence of a keystone species. We use a case study to compare different suitability degrees for Euterpe edulis presence, considered an important functional element in Atlantic Forest (São Paulo, Brazil) landscapes and a forest resource for local people. The results show that the identification of medium or advanced stage fragments as singular indicator of forest quality does not guarantee the existence or maintenance of this keystone species. Even in some well-preserved forest fragments, connected to others and with palm presence, the reverse J-shaped distribution of the population size structure is not sustained and these forests continue to be threatened due to human disturbances. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 13 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,820
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#367,776
of 427,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#22
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.