Palavras-chave
Proteção da biodiversidade
Déficit linneano
Déficit Wallaceano
Levantamentos de campo
Fator de impacto
Taxonomia
Como Citar
Resumo
Apesar dos recentes avanços em ecologia, evolução e biodiversidade, lacunas taxonômicas permanecem em muitas espécies de plantas. Se não conhecermos as espécies de plantas com confiança, onde elas ocorrem e com qual abundância, aconservação da diversidade vegetal não será possível. Assim, o esforço dos taxonomistas é importante para o planejamento de ações de conservação. Aqui, argumentamos que a ciência deveria olhar para o trabalho taxonômico com mais atenção. Este assunto tem sido debatido há muito tempo, mas, uma vez que a taxonomia tenha sido considerada uma ciência em crise, esse debate precisa continuar ativo. Usando o fator de impacto (IF) de periódicos,não advogamos sobrecarregar o trabalho de taxonomistas, mas enfatizamos como ele tem sido subestimado.Comparamos o IF entre periódicos com foco em ecologia, área florestal, genética e taxonomia. Embora a taxonomia seja a base de todas as demais áreas biomédicas, os periódicos que tratam dela têm os menoresIFs. Ao mesmo tempo, enfatizamos a importância dos levantamentos fitossociológicos e florísticos e concluímos que sem eles a estratégia de proteção das espécies vegetaisnão será eficiente nem possível de ser completada.
Referências
AGNARSSON, I.; KUNTNER, M. Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Systematic Biology, v. 56, n. 3, p. 531–539, 2007.
ALEIXO, A. Conceitos de espécie eo eterno conflito entre continuidade e operacionalidade: uma proposta de normatização de critérios para o reconhecimento de espécies pelo Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, v. 15, n. 2, p. 297–310, 2007.
ALROY, J. Taxonomic inflation and body mass distributions in North American fossil mammals. Journal of mammalogy, v. 84, n. 2, p. 431–443, 2003.
BAKER, T. R. et al. Maximising synergy among tropical plant systematists, ecologists, and evolutionary biologists. Trends in ecology & evolution, v. 32, n. 4, p. 258–267, 2017.
BATES, H. W. Contributions to an insect fauna of the Amazon valley (Lepidoptera: Heliconidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 16, n. 1, p. 41–54, 1981.
BEBBER, D. P. et al. Herbaria are a major frontier for species discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 107, n. 51, p. 22169–22171, 2010.
BROWN, J. H.; LOMOLINO, M. V. Biogeografia. In: Biogeografia. 2° edição. Ribeirão Preto: Editora FUNPEC, 2006.
BUELA-CASAL, G.; ZYCH, I. What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics, v. 92, n. 2, p. 281–292, 2012.
CAIAFA, A. N.; MARTINS, F. R. Taxonomic identification, sampling methods, and minimum size of the tree sampled: implications and perspectives for studies in the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest. Functional Ecosystems and Communities, v. 1, n. 2, p. 95–104, 2007.
CARVALHO, F. A.; FILER, D.; RENNER, S. S. II. Taxonomy in the Electronic Age: An e-Monograph of the Papaya Family (Caricaceae) as an Example §. In: Molecular Phylogeny, Biogeography and an e-Monograph of the Papaya Family (Caricaceae) as an Example of Taxonomy in the Electronic Age. [s.l.] Springer, 2015. p. 13–31.
CASTRO, A. et al. How rich is the flora of Brazilian cerrados? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, p. 192–224, 1999.
CBOL Plant Working Group. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 106, p. 12794–12797, 2009.
CORLETT, R. T. Plant diversity in a changing world: status, trends, and conservation needs. Plant Diversity, v. 38, n. 1, p. 10–16, 2016.
DAMASCO, G. et al. Reestablishment of Protium cordatum (Burseraceae) based on integrative taxonomy. TAXON, v. 68, n. 1, p. 34–46, 2019.
DARWIN, C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: Murray, 1859.
DE ARAUJO, F. D. A review of Caryocar brasiliense (Caryocaraceae)—an economically valuable species of the central Brazilian cerrados. Economic botany, v. 49, n. 1, p. 40–48, 1995.
DEXTER, K. G.; PENNINGTON, T. D.; CUNNINGHAM, C. W. Using DNA to assess errors in tropical tree identifications: How often are ecologists wrong and when does it matter? Ecological Monographs, v. 80, n. 2, p. 267–286, 2010.
FEELEY, K. Are we filling the data void? An assessment of the amount and extent of plant collection records and census data available for tropical South America. PLoS One, v. 10, n. 4, p. e0125629, 2015.
FILARDI, F. L. R. et al. Brazilian Flora 2020: innovation and collaboration to meet Target 1 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC). Rodriguésia, v. 69, n. 4, p. 1513–1527, 2018.
FLORA E FUNGA DO BRASIL. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Disponível em: https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br. Acesso em: 8 out. 2023.
FORZZA, R. C. et al. New Brazilian floristic list highlights conservation challenges. BioScience, v. 62, n. 1, p. 39–45, 2012.
FRANÇOSO, R. D.; HAIDAR, R. F.; MACHADO, R. B. Tree species of South America central savanna: endemism, marginal areas and the relationship with other biomes. Acta Botanica Brasilica, v. 30, n. 1, p. 78–86, 2016.
FUJITA, M. K. et al. Coalescent-based species delimitation in an integrative taxonomy. Trends in ecology & evolution, v. 27, n. 9, p. 480–488, 2012.
HAMPTON, S. E.; PARKER, J. N. Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. BioScience, v. 61, n. 11, p. 900–910, 2011.
ISAAC, N. J. B.; COWLISHAW, G. How species respond to multiple extinction threats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, v. 271, n. 1544, p. 1135–1141, 7 jun. 2004.
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2023-1. Disponível em: https://www.iucnredlist.org/. Acesso em: 1 mar. 2024.
JANSEN, F.; DENGLER, J. Plant names in vegetation databases–a neglected source of bias. Journal of Vegetation Science, v. 21, n. 6, p. 1179–1186, 2010.
JOPPA, L. N.; ROBERTS, D. L.; PIMM, S. L. How many species of flowering plants are there? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, p. rspb20101004, 2010.
KAVIC, M.S.; SATAVA, R.M. Scientific literature and evaluation metrics: impact factor, usage metrics, and altmetrics. JSLS, v.25, n. 3, e2021.00010, 2021.
LANGAN, L.; HIGGINS, S. I.; SCHEITER, S. Climate‐biomes, pedo‐biomes or pyro‐biomes: which world view explains the tropical forest–savanna boundary in South America? Journal of Biogeography, v. 44, n. 10, p. 2319–2330, 2017.
LÜCKING, R. Three challenges to contemporaneous taxonomy from a licheno-mycological perspective. Megataxa, v. 1, n. 1, p. 78–103, 2020.
MACE, G. M. The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, v. 359, n. 1444, p. 711–719, 2004.
MALLET, J. Wallace and the species concept of the early darwinians. In: SMITH, C.R., BECCLONI, G. W. (Ed.). . Natural selection and beyond: the intellectual legacy of Alfred Russell Wallace. [s.l.] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 102–113.
MARGULES, C. R.; PRESSEY, R. L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, v. 405, n. 6783, p. 243–253, 2000.
MARSHALL, E. et al. What are we measuring? A review of metrics used to describe biodiversity in offsets exchanges. Biological Conservation, v. 241, p. 108250, 2020.
MAYR, E. The biological species concept. Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: a debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.
NABOUT, J. C. et al. Global climate change and the production of “Pequi” fruits (Caryocar brasiliense) in the Brazilian Cerrado. Natureza e Conservação, v. 9, n. 1, p. 55–60, 2011.
NOSS, R. F. The naturalists are dying off. Conservation Biology, v. 10, n. 1, p. 1–3, 1996.
PADIAL, J. M.; DE LA RIVA, I. Taxonomic inflation and the stability of species lists: the perils of ostrich’s behavior. Systematic Biology, v. 55, n. 5, p. 859–867, 2006.
PANTE, E.; SCHOELINCK, C.; PUILLANDRE, N. From integrative taxonomy to species description: one step beyond. Systematic Biology, v. 64, n. 1, p. 152–160, 2015.
PEREIRA, H. M. et al. Global biodiversity monitoring. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 8, n. 9, p. 459–460, 2010.
PEREIRA, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science, v. 339, n. 6117, p. 277–278, 2013.
PETERS, D. P. C.; OKIN, G. S. A toolkit for ecosystem ecologists in the time of Big Science. Ecosystems, v. 20, n. 2, p. 259–266, 2017.
PIMM, S. L.; JOPPA, L. N. How many plant species are there, where are they, and at what rate are they going extinct? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, v. 100, n. 3, p. 170–176, 2015.
POSSINGHAM, H. P.; GRANTHAM, H.; RONDININI, C. How can you conserve species that haven’t been found? Journal of Biogeography, v. 34, n. 5, p. 758–759, 2007.
PRATA, E. M. B. et al. Towards integrative taxonomy in Neotropical botany: disentangling the Pagamea guianensis species complex (Rubiaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 188, n. 2, p. 213–231, 2018.
PRATHER, L. A. et al. The decline of plant collecting in the United States: a threat to the infrastructure of biodiversity studies. Systematic Botany, v. 29, n. 1, p. 15–28, 2004.
REJMÁNEK, M.; BREWER, S. W. Vegetative Identification of Tropical Woody Plants: State of the Art and Annotated Bibliography 1. Biotropica, v. 33, n. 2, p. 214–228, 2001.
RÍOS-SALDAÑA, C. A.; DELIBES-MATEOS, M.; FERREIRA, C. C. Are fieldwork studies being relegated to second place in conservation science? Global Ecology and Conservation, v. 14, p. e00389, 2018.
ROUHAN, G. et al. The time has come for Natural History Collections to claim co-authorship of research articles. Taxon, 2017.
SCHAEFER, H. et al. The Linnean shortfall in oceanic island biogeography: a case study in the Azores. Journal of Biogeography, v. 38, n. 7, p. 1345–1355, 2011.
SCHOLES, R. J. et al. Building a global observing system for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, v. 4, n. 1, p. 139–146, 2012.
SIMIONI, P. F. et al. Elucidating adaptive strategies from leaf anatomy: do Amazonian savannas present xeromorphic characteristics? Flora, v. 226, p. 38–46, 2017.
SIMÓ-RIUDALBAS, M. et al. Cryptic diversity in Ptyodactylus (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) from the northern Hajar Mountains of Oman and the United Arab Emirates uncovered by an integrative taxonomic approach. PloS one, v. 12, n. 8, p. e0180397, 2017.
TAHSEEN, Q. Taxonomy–the crucial yet misunderstood and disregarded tool for studying biodiversity. Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, v. 2, p. 128, 2014.
WALLACE, A. R. On the phenomena of variation and geographical distribution as illustrated by the Papilionidae of the Malayan region. Transactions of the Royal Society of London, v. 25, p. 1–71, 1865.
WALSH, B. D. On phytophagic varieties and phytophagic species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, v. 3, p. 403–430, 1861.
WALTMAN, L.; TRAAG, V.A. Use of journal impact factor for assessing individual articles: statitically flawed or not? F1000 Research, v.9, 366, 2021.
WARD, D. F.; LESCHEN, R. A.; BUCKLEY, T. R. More from ecologists to support natural history museums. Trends in ecology & evolution, v. 30, n. 7, p. 373, 2015.
WERNER, Y. L. The case of impact factor versus taxonomy: a proposal. Journal of Natural History, v. 40, n. 21–22, p. 1285–1286, 2006.
WHEELER, Q. Blank canvas: The case for descriptive taxonomy. Integrative and comparative biology, v. 58, n. 6, p. 1118–1121, 2018.
ZAPPI, D. C. et al. Growing knowledge: an overview of seed plant diversity in Brazil. Rodriguésia, v. 66, n. 4, p. 1085–1113, 2015.
ZIJLSTRA, H.; MCCULLOUGH, R. CiteScore: A new metric to help you track journal performance and make decisions. Disponível em: <https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/journal-metrics/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal.>.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 BioEns@ios
