|
|
Registros recuperados : 3 | |
1. | | JOUQUET, P.; BOTTINELLI, N.; ZANGERLÉ, A.; BRUNET, D.; HALLAIRE, V.; DUC, T. T. Relevance and limit of the Biogenic and Physicogenic classification. A multivariable fingerprinting approach to discriminate the origin of soil aggregates. In: INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON SOIL ZOOLOGY, 15; INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON APTERYGOTA, 12., 2008, Curitiba. Biodiversity, conservation and sustainabele management of soil animal: abstracts. Colombo: Embrapa Florestas. Editors: George Gardner Brown; Klaus Dieter Sautter; Renato Marques; Amarildo Pasini. 1 CD-ROM. Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Florestas. |
| |
2. | | PIRON, D.; PÉRÈS, G.; BELLIDO, A.; HALLAIRE, V.; BOTTINELLI, N.; MENASSEREI, S.; CLUZEAU, D. Soil tillage practices and the spatial organisation of earthworm biostructures. In: INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON SOIL ZOOLOGY, 15; INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUIUM ON APTERYGOTA, 12., 2008, Curitiba. Biodiversity, conservation and sustainabele management of soil animal: abstracts. Colombo: Embrapa Florestas. Editors: George Gardner Brown; Klaus Dieter Sautter; Renato Marques; Amarildo Pasini. 1 CD-ROM. Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Florestas. |
| |
3. | | GANAULT, P.; RISTOK, C.; PHILLIPS, H. R. P.; HEDDE, M.; CAPOWIEZ, Y.; BOTTINELLI, N.; DECAËNS, T.; MARCHAN, D.; GÉRARD, S.; MATHIEU, J.; POTAPOV, A.; CAMERON, E. K.; BROWN, G. G.; BARTZ, M.; ZEISS, R.; ZI, Y.; TSIAFOULI, M.; RUSSELL, D. J.; GUERRA, C.; EISENHAUER, N. Soil BON earthworm: a global initiative on earthworm distribution, traits, and spatiotemporal diversity patterns. Soil Organisms, v. 96, n. 1, p. 47-60, 2024. Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Florestas. |
| |
Registros recuperados : 3 | |
|
|
| Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Florestas. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpf.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Florestas. |
Data corrente: |
13/03/2024 |
Data da última atualização: |
13/03/2024 |
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 3 |
Autoria: |
FRANCO, A. C. S.; ROCHA, R. M. da; PIVELLO, V. R.; MAGALHÃES, A. L. B.; CASTRO, C. F. de; CRUZ NETO, C. C. da; MATOS, D. M. da S.; BROWN, G. G.; HERINGER, G.; SAULINO, H. H. L.; OLIVEIRA, I.; BRAGA, R. R.; MIRANDA, R. J.; MORMUL, R. P.; VITULE, J. R. S. |
Afiliação: |
ANA CLARA SAMPAIO FRANCO, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ESTADO DO RIO DE JANEIRO; ROSANA MOREIRA DA ROCHA, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARANÁ; VANIA R. PIVELLO, UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO; ANDRÉ LINCOLN BARROSO MAGALHÃES, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE OURO PRETO; CAMILA FEDIUK DE CASTRO, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARANÁ; CLAUDIANO C. DA CRUZ NETO, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RECÔNCAVO DA BAHIA; DALVA M. DA SILVA MATOS, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE S ̃AO CARLOS; GEORGE GARDNER BROWN, CNPF; GUSTAVO HERINGER, NÜRTINGEN-GEISLINGEN UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERALDE LAVRAS; HUGO HENRIQUE LANZI SAULINO, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SÃO CARLOS; IGOR OLIVEIRA, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO ACRE; RAUL RENNÓ BRAGA, UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE LONDRINA; RICARDO JESSOUROUN MIRANDA, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE ALAGOAS; ROGER PAULO MORMUL, UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE MARINGÁ; JEAN RICARDO SIMÕES VITULE, UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARANÁ. |
Título: |
Dataset of the impacts of invasive alien species in Brazil. |
Ano de publicação: |
2024 |
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Ecological Research, p. 1-11, 2024. |
Idioma: |
Português |
Notas: |
Online first. |
Conteúdo: |
This dataset summarizes the research onthe impacts of Invasive Alien Species(IAS) documented in Brazil from 1981 to 2022 and was used to subsidize theBrazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Impacts of non-nativeplants and animals, but not microorganisms and fungi, on terrestrial and aquatic(freshwater and marine) environments were included in this review. Most of theliterature reviewed consisted of published articles, plus a few book chapters, dis-sertations, theses, and reports. We found 1003 records of ecological and economic impacts (970 negative and 33 positive) caused by 239 different species, as well aseffects on people's well-being. Understanding and assessing all ecological interac-tions of IAS in nature, as well as evaluating their contributions to humans, can bea complex task. However, the current scientific evidence from Brazil suggests thatnegative impacts of IAS are far more common than positive impacts, highlightingthe importance of avoiding novel introductions. From a conservationist perspec-tive, the simple presence of IAS may cause the negative impact of changing theoriginal structure and processes of nature. This is of special concern in megadi-verse countries like Brazil, where interactions among species are multiple andcomplex. Therefore, we believe this extensive review is an important contributionto the national knowledge of IAS and the improvement of global databases, whichmust be periodically reviewed. The complete dataset for this abstract published inthe Data Article section of the journal isavailable in electronic format in MetaCatin JaLTER athttp://db.cger.nies.go.jp/JaLTER/metacat/metacat/ERDP-2024-01.1/jalter-en. MenosThis dataset summarizes the research onthe impacts of Invasive Alien Species(IAS) documented in Brazil from 1981 to 2022 and was used to subsidize theBrazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Impacts of non-nativeplants and animals, but not microorganisms and fungi, on terrestrial and aquatic(freshwater and marine) environments were included in this review. Most of theliterature reviewed consisted of published articles, plus a few book chapters, dis-sertations, theses, and reports. We found 1003 records of ecological and economic impacts (970 negative and 33 positive) caused by 239 different species, as well aseffects on people's well-being. Understanding and assessing all ecological interac-tions of IAS in nature, as well as evaluating their contributions to humans, can bea complex task. However, the current scientific evidence from Brazil suggests thatnegative impacts of IAS are far more common than positive impacts, highlightingthe importance of avoiding novel introductions. From a conservationist perspec-tive, the simple presence of IAS may cause the negative impact of changing theoriginal structure and processes of nature. This is of special concern in megadi-verse countries like Brazil, where interactions among species are multiple andcomplex. Therefore, we believe this extensive review is an important contributionto the national knowledge of IAS and the improvement of global databases, whichmust be periodically reviewed. The complete dataset for this ... Mostrar Tudo |
Palavras-Chave: |
Ecological effects; Economic effects; Espécies Exóticas Invasoras; Invasion science; Nvasive Alien Species; Serviços ecossistêmicos; Social effects. |
Thesagro: |
Biodiversidade. |
Thesaurus NAL: |
Biodiversity; Ecosystem services. |
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
Marc: |
LEADER 02864naa a2200421 a 4500 001 2162788 005 2024-03-13 008 2024 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 100 1 $aFRANCO, A. C. S. 245 $aDataset of the impacts of invasive alien species in Brazil.$h[electronic resource] 260 $c2024 500 $aOnline first. 520 $aThis dataset summarizes the research onthe impacts of Invasive Alien Species(IAS) documented in Brazil from 1981 to 2022 and was used to subsidize theBrazilian Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Impacts of non-nativeplants and animals, but not microorganisms and fungi, on terrestrial and aquatic(freshwater and marine) environments were included in this review. Most of theliterature reviewed consisted of published articles, plus a few book chapters, dis-sertations, theses, and reports. We found 1003 records of ecological and economic impacts (970 negative and 33 positive) caused by 239 different species, as well aseffects on people's well-being. Understanding and assessing all ecological interac-tions of IAS in nature, as well as evaluating their contributions to humans, can bea complex task. However, the current scientific evidence from Brazil suggests thatnegative impacts of IAS are far more common than positive impacts, highlightingthe importance of avoiding novel introductions. From a conservationist perspec-tive, the simple presence of IAS may cause the negative impact of changing theoriginal structure and processes of nature. This is of special concern in megadi-verse countries like Brazil, where interactions among species are multiple andcomplex. Therefore, we believe this extensive review is an important contributionto the national knowledge of IAS and the improvement of global databases, whichmust be periodically reviewed. The complete dataset for this abstract published inthe Data Article section of the journal isavailable in electronic format in MetaCatin JaLTER athttp://db.cger.nies.go.jp/JaLTER/metacat/metacat/ERDP-2024-01.1/jalter-en. 650 $aBiodiversity 650 $aEcosystem services 650 $aBiodiversidade 653 $aEcological effects 653 $aEconomic effects 653 $aEspécies Exóticas Invasoras 653 $aInvasion science 653 $aNvasive Alien Species 653 $aServiços ecossistêmicos 653 $aSocial effects 700 1 $aROCHA, R. M. da 700 1 $aPIVELLO, V. R. 700 1 $aMAGALHÃES, A. L. B. 700 1 $aCASTRO, C. F. de 700 1 $aCRUZ NETO, C. C. da 700 1 $aMATOS, D. M. da S. 700 1 $aBROWN, G. G. 700 1 $aHERINGER, G. 700 1 $aSAULINO, H. H. L. 700 1 $aOLIVEIRA, I. 700 1 $aBRAGA, R. R. 700 1 $aMIRANDA, R. J. 700 1 $aMORMUL, R. P. 700 1 $aVITULE, J. R. S. 773 $tEcological Research, p. 1-11, 2024.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
Registro original: |
Embrapa Florestas (CNPF) |
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
|
Registro completo
Biblioteca(s): |
Catálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Algodão; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Arroz e Feijão; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Meio-Norte; Embrapa Pantanal; Embrapa Rondônia; Embrapa Semiárido; Embrapa Soja; Embrapa Trigo; Embrapa Uva e Vinho. MenosCatálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Algodão; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Arroz e Feijão; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Meio-Norte; Embrapa Pantanal; Embrapa Rondônia... Mostrar Todas |
Identificador: |
2826 |
Data corrente: |
09/05/2002 |
Data da última atualização: |
09/05/2002 |
Código do título: |
0900592 |
ISSN: |
0100-6967 |
Código CCN: |
027582-4 |
Título e Subtítulo: |
DIVULGACAO AGRONOMICA |
Entidade: |
Shell Quimica S.A. |
Local de publicação: |
Sao Paulo-SP |
Periodicidade: |
irregular |
Inicio de publicação: |
1959 |
Coleções da unidade: |
Embrapa Algodão 1961/79 (3,5-9,11,13,14-19,21-46) Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Amapá 1966 (22); 1969 (27); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1975 (36); 1976 (39-41); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (46)
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental 1959 (1); 1960 (2); 1961 (3-4); 1962 (5-8); 1963 (10); 1964 (11-13); 1965 (14-17); 1966 (18-22); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (38-41); 1977 (42); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (45-46); 1980 (47) Classificação: 632.05D518
Embrapa Arroz e Feijão 1960 (1); 1962 (6); 1963 (10); 1964 (12-13,15); 1965 (16-17); 1966 (19,22); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (38-40); 1977 (42); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (45)
Embrapa Cerrados 1959-60 (1-2); 1961 (4); 1962 (6); 1964 (11); 1965; 1966 (18-22); 1968 (24,26); 1969 (27); 1970-80 (28-47) Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura 1960(1-2); 1961(3-4); 1962(5-8); 1963(9-10); 1964(11-13); 1965(14-17); 1966(18-22); 1967(23); 1968(24-26); 1969(27); 1970(28-29); 1971(30-31); 1972(32); 1973(33); 1974(34-35); 1975(36-37); 1976(38-41); 1977(42); 1978(43-44); 1979(45-46); 1980(47);
Embrapa Meio-Norte 1961 (4); 1964 (12); 1965 (14-17); 1966 (18-21); 1967 (23); 1968/78 (25-44); 1979 (45) Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Pantanal 1971-80 (30,33,38-40,42-47) Classificação: 23A
Embrapa Rondônia 1967 (23); 1969-71 (27-30); 1973-74 33-35; 1976 (39); 1978 (43-44); 1979-80 (45-47); Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Semiárido 1960 (2); 1961 (1,3); 1962 (7-8); 1965 (14-16); 1966 (20); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (39-41); 1978 (43-44); 1979 (45-46); 1980 (47);
Embrapa Soja 1965 (17); 1966(20); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34-35); 1975 (36-37); 1976 (38-41); 1977 (42); 1978(43-44); 1979 (46); 1980 (47) Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Trigo 1960/80 (1-2) 1960; (3-4) 1961; (5-8) 1962; (9-10) 1963; (11-13) 1964; (15-16) 1965; (18-22) 1966; (23) 1967; (24-26) 1968; (27) 1969; (28-29) 1970; (30-31) 1971; (32) 1972; (33) 1973; (34-35) 1974; (36-37) 1975; (38-41) 1976; (42) 1977; (43-44) 1978; (45-46) 1979; (47) 1980. Classificação: 632.05
Embrapa Uva e Vinho 1961 (1); 1962 (8); 1963 (10); 1964 (11-13); 1965 (14-17); 1966 (18-22); 1967 (23); 1968 (24-26); 1969 (27); 1970 (28-29); 1971 (30-31); 1972 (32); 1973 (33); 1974 (34); 1975 (35-37); 1976 (38-41); 1977 (42); 1978 (44); 1979 (45-46); 1980 (47) Classificação: 632.05 |
|
Fechar
|
|
|