↓ Skip to main content

Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
blogs
12 blogs
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
292 X users
facebook
22 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
7 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
729 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1987 Mendeley
Title
Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation
Published in
Nature, June 2016
DOI 10.1038/nature18326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jos Barlow, Gareth D. Lennox, Joice Ferreira, Erika Berenguer, Alexander C. Lees, Ralph Mac Nally, James R. Thomson, Silvio Frosini de Barros Ferraz, Julio Louzada, Victor Hugo Fonseca Oliveira, Luke Parry, Ricardo Ribeiro de Castro Solar, Ima C. G. Vieira, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Rodrigo Anzolin Begotti, Rodrigo F. Braga, Thiago Moreira Cardoso, Raimundo Cosme de Oliveira, Carlos M. Souza Jr, Nárgila G. Moura, Sâmia Serra Nunes, João Victor Siqueira, Renata Pardini, Juliana M. Silveira, Fernando Z. Vaz-de-Mello, Ruan Carlo Stulpen Veiga, Adriano Venturieri, Toby A. Gardner

Abstract

Concerted political attention has focused on reducing deforestation, and this remains the cornerstone of most biodiversity conservation strategies. However, maintaining forest cover may not reduce anthropogenic forest disturbances, which are rarely considered in conservation programmes. These disturbances occur both within forests, including selective logging and wildfires, and at the landscape level, through edge, area and isolation effects. Until now, the combined effect of anthropogenic disturbance on the conservation value of remnant primary forests has remained unknown, making it impossible to assess the relative importance of forest disturbance and forest loss. Here we address these knowledge gaps using a large data set of plants, birds and dung beetles (1,538, 460 and 156 species, respectively) sampled in 36 catchments in the Brazilian state of Pará. Catchments retaining more than 69-80% forest cover lost more conservation value from disturbance than from forest loss. For example, a 20% loss of primary forest, the maximum level of deforestation allowed on Amazonian properties under Brazil's Forest Code, resulted in a 39-54% loss of conservation value: 96-171% more than expected without considering disturbance effects. We extrapolated the disturbance-mediated loss of conservation value throughout Pará, which covers 25% of the Brazilian Amazon. Although disturbed forests retained considerable conservation value compared with deforested areas, the toll of disturbance outside Pará's strictly protected areas is equivalent to the loss of 92,000-139,000 km(2) of primary forest. Even this lowest estimate is greater than the area deforested across the entire Brazilian Amazon between 2006 and 2015 (ref. 10). Species distribution models showed that both landscape and within-forest disturbances contributed to biodiversity loss, with the greatest negative effects on species of high conservation and functional value. These results demonstrate an urgent need for policy interventions that go beyond the maintenance of forest cover to safeguard the hyper-diversity of tropical forest ecosystems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 292 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,987 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 23 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 1942 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 340 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 321 16%
Researcher 275 14%
Student > Bachelor 215 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 124 6%
Other 283 14%
Unknown 429 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 642 32%
Environmental Science 548 28%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 82 4%
Engineering 28 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 1%
Other 131 7%
Unknown 528 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 579. 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 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#41,235
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#3,540
of 98,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#794
of 368,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#69
of 953 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 368,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 953 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.