|
|
Registro Completo |
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril. |
Data corrente: |
09/02/2024 |
Data da última atualização: |
09/02/2024 |
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
Autoria: |
MONTEIRO, A.; MENDES, L. B.; FANCHONE, A.; MORGAVI, D. P.; PEDREIRA, B. C. e; MAGALHÃES, C. A. de S.; ABDALLA, A. L.; EUGÈNE, M. |
Afiliação: |
ALYCE MONTEIRO, UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO; LUCIANO BARRETO MENDES, UNIVERSITÉ CLERMONT AUVERGNE; AUDREY FANCHONE, UNIVERSITÉ CLERMONT AUVERGNE; DIEGO PEER MORGAVI, UNIVERSITÉ CLERMONT AUVERGNE; BRUNO CARNEIRO E PEDREIRA, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE; CIRO AUGUSTO DE SOUZA MAGALHAES, CPAMT; ADIBE LUIZ ABDALLA, UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO; MAGUY EUGÈNE, UNIVERSITÉ CLERMONT AUVERGNE. |
Título: |
Crop-livestock-forestry systems as a strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of forage-based livestock systems in the Amazon biome. |
Ano de publicação: |
2024 |
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Science of the Total Environment, v. 906, 167396, 2024. |
ISSN: |
0048-9697 |
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167396 |
Idioma: |
Inglês |
Conteúdo: |
Abstract: Intensification of livestock systems becomes essential to meet the food demand of the growing world population, but it is important to consider the environmental impact of these systems. To assess the potential of forage-based livestock systems to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the net carbon (C) balance of four systems in the Brazilian Amazon Biome was estimated: livestock (L) with a monoculture of Marandu palisade grass [Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster]; livestock-forestry (LF) with palisade grass intercropped with three rows of eucalyptus at 128 trees/ha; crop-livestock (CL) with soybeans and then corn + palisade grass, rotated with livestock every two years; and crop-livestock-forestry (CLF) with CL + one row of eucalyptus at 72 trees/ha. Over the four years studied, the systems with crops (CL and CLF) produced more human-edible protein than those without them (L and LF) (3010 vs. 755 kg/ha). Methane contributed the most to total GHG emissions: a mean of 85 % for L and LF and 67 % for CL and CLF. Consequently, L and LF had greater total GHG emissions (mean of 30 Mg CO2eq/ha/year). Over the four years, the system with the most negative net C balance (i.e., C storage) was LF when expressed per ha (−53.3 Mg CO2eq/ha), CLF when expressed per kg of carcass (−26 kg CO2eq/kg carcass), and LF when expressed per kg of human-edible protein (−72 kg CO2eq/kg human-edible protein). Even the L system can store C if well managed, leading to benefits such as increased meat as well as improved soil quality. Moreover, including crops and forestry in these livestock systems enhances these benefits, emphasizing the potential of integrated systems to offset GHG emissions. MenosAbstract: Intensification of livestock systems becomes essential to meet the food demand of the growing world population, but it is important to consider the environmental impact of these systems. To assess the potential of forage-based livestock systems to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the net carbon (C) balance of four systems in the Brazilian Amazon Biome was estimated: livestock (L) with a monoculture of Marandu palisade grass [Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster]; livestock-forestry (LF) with palisade grass intercropped with three rows of eucalyptus at 128 trees/ha; crop-livestock (CL) with soybeans and then corn + palisade grass, rotated with livestock every two years; and crop-livestock-forestry (CLF) with CL + one row of eucalyptus at 72 trees/ha. Over the four years studied, the systems with crops (CL and CLF) produced more human-edible protein than those without them (L and LF) (3010 vs. 755 kg/ha). Methane contributed the most to total GHG emissions: a mean of 85 % for L and LF and 67 % for CL and CLF. Consequently, L and LF had greater total GHG emissions (mean of 30 Mg CO2eq/ha/year). Over the four years, the system with the most negative net C balance (i.e., C storage) was LF when expressed per ha (−53.3 Mg CO2eq/ha), CLF when expressed per kg of carcass (−26 kg CO2eq/kg carcass), and LF when expressed per kg of human-edible protein (−72 kg CO2eq/kg human-edible protein). Even the L system can store C if well managed, leading to be... Mostrar Tudo |
Thesaurus Nal: |
Agroecology; Agroforestry; Climate change; Ecosystem services; Grazing; Ruminants. |
Categoria do assunto: |
L Ciência Animal e Produtos de Origem Animal |
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/doc/1161903/1/2023-cpamt-casm-crop-livestock-forestry-system-strategy-mitigating-greenhouse-sustainability-forage-based-amazon-biome.pdf
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02697naa a2200301 a 4500 001 2161903 005 2024-02-09 008 2024 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 022 $a0048-9697 024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167396$2DOI 100 1 $aMONTEIRO, A. 245 $aCrop-livestock-forestry systems as a strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of forage-based livestock systems in the Amazon biome.$h[electronic resource] 260 $c2024 520 $aAbstract: Intensification of livestock systems becomes essential to meet the food demand of the growing world population, but it is important to consider the environmental impact of these systems. To assess the potential of forage-based livestock systems to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the net carbon (C) balance of four systems in the Brazilian Amazon Biome was estimated: livestock (L) with a monoculture of Marandu palisade grass [Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster]; livestock-forestry (LF) with palisade grass intercropped with three rows of eucalyptus at 128 trees/ha; crop-livestock (CL) with soybeans and then corn + palisade grass, rotated with livestock every two years; and crop-livestock-forestry (CLF) with CL + one row of eucalyptus at 72 trees/ha. Over the four years studied, the systems with crops (CL and CLF) produced more human-edible protein than those without them (L and LF) (3010 vs. 755 kg/ha). Methane contributed the most to total GHG emissions: a mean of 85 % for L and LF and 67 % for CL and CLF. Consequently, L and LF had greater total GHG emissions (mean of 30 Mg CO2eq/ha/year). Over the four years, the system with the most negative net C balance (i.e., C storage) was LF when expressed per ha (−53.3 Mg CO2eq/ha), CLF when expressed per kg of carcass (−26 kg CO2eq/kg carcass), and LF when expressed per kg of human-edible protein (−72 kg CO2eq/kg human-edible protein). Even the L system can store C if well managed, leading to benefits such as increased meat as well as improved soil quality. Moreover, including crops and forestry in these livestock systems enhances these benefits, emphasizing the potential of integrated systems to offset GHG emissions. 650 $aAgroecology 650 $aAgroforestry 650 $aClimate change 650 $aEcosystem services 650 $aGrazing 650 $aRuminants 700 1 $aMENDES, L. B. 700 1 $aFANCHONE, A. 700 1 $aMORGAVI, D. P. 700 1 $aPEDREIRA, B. C. e 700 1 $aMAGALHÃES, C. A. de S. 700 1 $aABDALLA, A. L. 700 1 $aEUGÈNE, M. 773 $tScience of the Total Environment$gv. 906, 167396, 2024.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
Registro original: |
Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril (CPAMT) |
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
Registro Completo
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Pantanal. |
Data corrente: |
19/05/1998 |
Data da última atualização: |
14/09/2020 |
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
Autoria: |
NOONAN, M. J.; FLEMING, C. H.; TUCKER, M. A.; KAYS, R.; HARRISON, AUTUMN-LYNN; CROFOOT, M. C.; ABRAHMS, B.; ALBERTS, S.; ALI, A. H.; ALTMANN, J.; ANTUNES, P. C.; ATTIAS, N.; BELANT, J. L.; BEYER JUNIOR, D. E.; BIDNER, L. R.; BLAUM, N.; BOONE, R. B.; CAILLAUD, D.; PAULA, R. C. de; DE LA TORRE, J. A.; DEKKER, J.; DEPERNO, C. S.; FARHADINIA, M.; FENNESSY, J.; FICHTEL, C.; FISCHER, C.; FORD, A.; GOHEEN, J. R.; HAVMØLLER, R. W.; HIRSCH, B. T.; HURTADO, C.; ISBELL, L. A.; JANSSEN, R.; JELTSCH, F.; KACZENSKY, P.; KANEKO, Y.; KAPPELER, P.; KATNA, A.; KAUFFMAN, M.; KOCH, F.; KULKARNI, A; LAPOINT, S.; LEIMGRUBER, P.; MACDONALD, D. W.; MARKHAM, A. C.; MCMAHON, L.; MERTES, K.; MOORMAN, C. E.; MORATO, R. G.; MOßBRUCKER, A. M.; MOURAO, G.; O'CONNOR, D.; OLIVEIRA-SANTOS, L. G. R.; PASTORINI, J.; PATTERSON, B. D.; RACHLOW, J.; RANGLACK, D. H.; REID, N.; SCANTLEBURY, D. M.; SCOTT, D. M.; SELVA, N.; SERGIEL, A.; SONGER, M.; SONGSASEN, N.; STABACH, J. A.; STACY-DAWES, J.; SWINGEN, M. B.; THOMPSON, J. J.; ULLMANN, W.; VANAK, A. T.; THAKER, M.; WILSON, J. W.; YAMAZAKI, K.; YARNELL, R. W.; ZIEBA, F.; ZWIJACZ-KOZICA, T.; FAGAN, W. F.; MUELLER, T.; CALABRESE, J. M. |
Afiliação: |
MICHAEL J. NOONAN, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park; CHRISTEN H. FLEMING, University of Maryland; MARLEE A. TUCKER, Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre; ROLAND KAYS, Museum of Natural Sciences, Biodiversity Lab, Raleigh; AUTUMN-LYNN HARRISON, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, D.C; MARGARET C. CROFOOT, University of California, Davis; BRIANA ABRAHMS, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center; SUSAN C. ALBERTS, Duke University, Durham; ABDULLAHI H. ALI, Hirola Conservation Programme, Garissa; JEANNE ALTMANN, Princeton University; PAMELA CASTRO ANTUNES, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS; NINA ATTIAS, Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande; JERROLD L. BELANT, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse; DEAN E. BEYER JUNIOR, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; LAURA R. BIDNER, Mpala Research Centre, Nanyuki; NIELS BLAUM, University of Potsdam, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation; RANDALL B. BOONE, Colorado State University, Fort Collins; DAMIEN CAILLAUD, Colorado State University; ROGERIO CUNHA DE PAULA, Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity; J. ANTONIO DE LA TORRE, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico and CONACyT; JASJA DEKKER, Jasja Dekker Dierecologie; CHRISTOPHER S. DEPERNO, University of Oxford, Tubney House; MOHAMMAD FARHADINIA, Future4Leopards Foundation, Tehran; JULIAN FENNESSY, Giraffe Conservation Foundation, PO; CLAUDIA FICHTEL, German Primate Center, Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology Unit; CHRISTINA FISCHER, Restoration Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management; ADAM FORD, The University of British Columbia; JACOB R. GOHEEN, University of Wyoming, Laramie; RASMUS W. HAVMØLLER, University of California, Davis; BEN T. HIRSCH, James Cook University, Townsville; CINDY HURTADO, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima; LYNNE A. ISBELL, Mpala Research Centre, Nanyuki; RENÉ JANSSEN, 6Bionet Natuuronderzoek, Valderstraat; FLORIAN JELTSCH, University of Potsdam, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation; PETRA KACZENSKY, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research - NINA; YAYOI KANEKO, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Tokyo; PETER KAPPELER, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE); ANJAN KATNA, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore; MATTHEW KAUFFMAN, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY; FLAVIA KOCH, German Primate Center, Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology Unit; ABHIJEET KULKARNI, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE); SCOTT LAPOINT, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal; PETER LEIMGRUBER, University of Wyoming; DAVID W. MACDONALD, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology; A. CATHERINE MARKHAM, Black Rock Forest; LAURA MCMAHON, Office of Applied Science, Department of Natural Resources; KATHERINE MERTES, Institute for the Conservation of Neotropical Carnivores; CHRISTOPHER E. MOORMAN, Frankfurt Zoological Society, Bernhard-Grzimek-Allee; RONALDO G. MORATO, National Research Center for Carnivores Conservation; ALEXANDER M. MOßBRUCKER, Frankfurt Zoological Society, Bernhard-Grzimek-Allee; GUILHERME DE MIRANDA MOURAO, CPAP; DAVID O'CONNOR, San Diego Zoo Institute of Conservation Research; LUIZ GUSTAVO R. OLIVEIRA-SANTOS, National Geographic Partners; JENNIFER PASTORINI, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul; BRUCE D. PATTERSON, Centre for Conservation and Research, Sri Lanka; JANET RACHLOW, Anthropologisches Institut, Switzerland; DUSTIN H. RANGLACK, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney; NEIL REID, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast; DAVID M. SCANTLEBURY, Queen's University Belfast; DAWN M. SCOTT, Keele University, Keele; NURIA SELVA, Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences; AGNIESZKA SERGIEL, Treaty Authority, Duluth; MELISSA SONGER, Asociación Guyra Paraguay-CONACYT; NUCHARIN SONGSASEN, Instituto Saite, Paraguay; JARED A. STABACH, Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, Hyderabad, India; JENNA STACY-DAWES, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville, Durban; MORGAN B. SWINGEN, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India; JEFFREY J. THOMPSON, University of Pretoria; WIEBKE ULLMANN, Ibaraki Nature Museum, Osaki; ABI TAMIM VANAK, University of Agriculture, Tokyo; MARIA THAKER, Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst Campus; JOHN W. WILSON, University of Pretoria, Pretoria; KOJI YAMAZAKI, Ibaraki Nature Museum, Osaki; RICHARD W. YARNELL, Nottingham Trent University, Brackenhurst Campus; FILIP ZIEBA, Tatra National Park, Zakopane; TOMASZ ZWIJACZ-KOZICA, Tatra National Park, Zakopane; WILLIAM F. FAGAN, University of Maryland, College Park; THOMAS MUELLER, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Frankfurt; JUSTIN M. CALABRESE, National Zoological Park, Front Royal. |
Título: |
Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements. |
Ano de publicação: |
2020 |
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Conservation Biology, v.34, n. 4, p. 1017-1028, 2020. |
DOI: |
10.1111/cobi.13495 |
Idioma: |
Inglês |
Conteúdo: |
Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied blockcross validation to quantify bias in empirical home range estimates. Area requirements of mammals < 10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately 15%, and species weighing approximately 100 kg were underestimatedby approximately 50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, theallometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with theleast accurate home range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation informedhome range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning requiredan approximately 93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, nota viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation informed home range estimation resulted in consistently accurateestimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting forautocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changedsubstantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum. MenosAccurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied blockcross validation to quantify bias in empirical home range estimates. Area requirements of mammals < 10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately 15%, and species weighing approximately 100 kg were underestimatedby approximately 50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, theallometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with theleast accurate home range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation informedhome range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on ar... Mostrar Tudo |
Thesagro: |
Comportamento Animal; Conservação; Mamífero. |
Thesaurus NAL: |
Animal behavior; Conservation status; Home range; Mammals. |
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/215878/1/BodySizeEstimation2020.pdf
|
Marc: |
LEADER 04945naa a2201153 a 4500 001 1792404 005 2020-09-14 008 2020 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 024 7 $a10.1111/cobi.13495$2DOI 100 1 $aNOONAN, M. J. 245 $aEffects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements. 260 $c2020 520 $aAccurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied blockcross validation to quantify bias in empirical home range estimates. Area requirements of mammals < 10 kg were underestimated by a mean approximately 15%, and species weighing approximately 100 kg were underestimatedby approximately 50% on average. Thus, we found area estimation was subject to autocorrelation induced bias that was worse for large species. Combined with the fact that extinction risk increases as body mass increases, theallometric scaling of bias we observed suggests the most threatened species are also likely to be those with theleast accurate home range estimates. As a correction, we tested whether data thinning or autocorrelation informedhome range estimation minimized the scaling effect of autocorrelation on area estimates. Data thinning requiredan approximately 93% data loss to achieve statistical independence with 95% confidence and was, therefore, nota viable solution. In contrast, autocorrelation informed home range estimation resulted in consistently accurateestimates irrespective of mass. When relating body mass to home range size, we detected that correcting forautocorrelation resulted in a scaling exponent significantly >1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changedsubstantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum. 650 $aAnimal behavior 650 $aConservation status 650 $aHome range 650 $aMammals 650 $aComportamento Animal 650 $aConservação 650 $aMamífero 700 1 $aFLEMING, C. H. 700 1 $aTUCKER, M. A. 700 1 $aKAYS, R. 700 1 $aHARRISON, AUTUMN-LYNN 700 1 $aCROFOOT, M. C. 700 1 $aABRAHMS, B. 700 1 $aALBERTS, S. 700 1 $aALI, A. H. 700 1 $aALTMANN, J. 700 1 $aANTUNES, P. C. 700 1 $aATTIAS, N. 700 1 $aBELANT, J. L. 700 1 $aBEYER JUNIOR, D. E. 700 1 $aBIDNER, L. R. 700 1 $aBLAUM, N. 700 1 $aBOONE, R. B. 700 1 $aCAILLAUD, D. 700 1 $aPAULA, R. C. de 700 1 $aDE LA TORRE, J. A. 700 1 $aDEKKER, J. 700 1 $aDEPERNO, C. S. 700 1 $aFARHADINIA, M. 700 1 $aFENNESSY, J. 700 1 $aFICHTEL, C. 700 1 $aFISCHER, C. 700 1 $aFORD, A. 700 1 $aGOHEEN, J. R. 700 1 $aHAVMØLLER, R. W. 700 1 $aHIRSCH, B. T. 700 1 $aHURTADO, C. 700 1 $aISBELL, L. A. 700 1 $aJANSSEN, R. 700 1 $aJELTSCH, F. 700 1 $aKACZENSKY, P. 700 1 $aKANEKO, Y. 700 1 $aKAPPELER, P. 700 1 $aKATNA, A. 700 1 $aKAUFFMAN, M. 700 1 $aKOCH, F. 700 1 $aKULKARNI, A 700 1 $aLAPOINT, S. 700 1 $aLEIMGRUBER, P. 700 1 $aMACDONALD, D. W. 700 1 $aMARKHAM, A. C. 700 1 $aMCMAHON, L. 700 1 $aMERTES, K. 700 1 $aMOORMAN, C. E. 700 1 $aMORATO, R. G. 700 1 $aMOßBRUCKER, A. M. 700 1 $aMOURAO, G. 700 1 $aO'CONNOR, D. 700 1 $aOLIVEIRA-SANTOS, L. G. R. 700 1 $aPASTORINI, J. 700 1 $aPATTERSON, B. D. 700 1 $aRACHLOW, J. 700 1 $aRANGLACK, D. H. 700 1 $aREID, N. 700 1 $aSCANTLEBURY, D. M. 700 1 $aSCOTT, D. M. 700 1 $aSELVA, N. 700 1 $aSERGIEL, A. 700 1 $aSONGER, M. 700 1 $aSONGSASEN, N. 700 1 $aSTABACH, J. A. 700 1 $aSTACY-DAWES, J. 700 1 $aSWINGEN, M. B. 700 1 $aTHOMPSON, J. J. 700 1 $aULLMANN, W. 700 1 $aVANAK, A. T. 700 1 $aTHAKER, M. 700 1 $aWILSON, J. W. 700 1 $aYAMAZAKI, K. 700 1 $aYARNELL, R. W. 700 1 $aZIEBA, F. 700 1 $aZWIJACZ-KOZICA, T. 700 1 $aFAGAN, W. F. 700 1 $aMUELLER, T. 700 1 $aCALABRESE, J. M. 773 $tConservation Biology$gv.34, n. 4, p. 1017-1028, 2020.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
Registro original: |
Embrapa Pantanal (CPAP) |
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|