info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Reply to Biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: A role for systematic conservation planning
Fecha
2018-07Registro en:
Oliveira, Ubirajara; Soares Filho, Britaldo Silveira; Paglia, Adriano Pereira; Brescovit, Antonio Domingos; de Carvalho, Claudio J. B.; et al.; Reply to Biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: A role for systematic conservation planning; Associacao Brasileira de Ciencia Ecologica e Conservacao; Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation; 16; 3; 7-2018; 166-167
2530-0644
CONICET Digital
CONICET
Autor
Oliveira, Ubirajara
Soares Filho, Britaldo Silveira
Paglia, Adriano Pereira
Brescovit, Antonio Domingos
de Carvalho, Claudio J. B.
Silva, Daniel Paiva
Teixeira de Rezende, Daniella
Leite, Felipe Sá Fortes
Batista, João Aguiar Nogueira
Barbosa, João Paulo Peixoto Pena
Stehmann, João Renato
Ascher, John S.
Vasconcelos, Marcelo Ferreira de
De Marco, Paulo
Löwenberg-Neto, Peter
Ferro, Viviane Gianluppi
Santos, Adalberto J.
Resumen
Previous article in issueNext article in issue 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.