Cited by 388Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesOil Palm Production and Sustainability

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Statistical confirmation of indirect land use change in the Brazilian Amazon

Open access
Arima, Eugenio Y, Richards, Peter, Walker, Robert, Caldas, Marcellus M·2011·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

Expansion of global demand for soy products and biofuel poses threats to food security and the environment. One environmental impact that has raised serious concerns is loss of Amazonian forest through indirect land use change (ILUC), whereby mechanized agriculture encroaches on existing pastures, displacing them to the frontier. This phenomenon has been hypothesized by many researchers and projected on the basis of simulation for the Amazonian forests of Brazil. It has not yet been measured statistically, owing to conceptual difficulties in linking distal land cover drivers to the point of impact. The present article overcomes this impasse with a spatial regression model capable of linking the expansion of mechanized agriculture in settled agricultural areas to pasture conversions on distant, forest frontiers. In an application for a recent period (2003–2008), the model demonstrates that ILUC is significant and of considerable magnitude. Specifically, a 10% reduction of soy in old pasture areas would have decreased deforestation by as much as 40% in heavily forested counties of the Brazilian Amazon. Evidently, the voluntary moratorium on primary forest conversions by Brazilian soy farmers has failed to stop the deforestation effects of expanding soy production. Thus, environmental policy in Brazil must pay attention to ILUC, which can complicate efforts to achieve its REDD targets.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024010

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 10.1017/CBO9780511493454 · DOI
  2. 2003, Anuário da Pecuária Brasileira
  3. 2009, Anuário da Pecuária Brasileira
  4. Arima E Y, 2006, Cattle Ranching in the Amazon: Trends and Implications for Environmental Conservation
  5. 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00519.x · DOI
  6. Babcock B, 2009, Iowa Ag Rev. Summer, 15, 4
  7. Barona E, 2010, Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 024002, 10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024002 · DOI
  8. 10.1104/pp.124.2.487 · DOI
  9. Brown J C, 2005, Ambio, 34, 462, 10.1579/0044-7447-34.6.462 · DOI
  10. 10.1017/S1355770X03001165 · DOI
  11. Chomitz K M, 2003, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 1016, 10.1111/1467-8276.00504 · DOI
  12. Hecht S B, 2008, Fortune, 92
  13. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.003 · DOI
  14. 10.1073/pnas.0907318107 · DOI
  15. 10.1201/9781420064254 · DOI
  16. Margulis S, 2004, Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon
  17. 10.1126/science.1117856 · DOI
  18. 10.1126/science.1182108 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1006/jeem.1998.1056 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00425.x · DOI
  21. Richards P, 2011, J. Land Use Sci.
  22. Walker R, 2011, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geograph., 101
  23. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.10.009 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Walker R, 2009, Amazonia and Global Change, 61, 10.1029/2008GM000735 · DOI
  25. 10.1073/pnas.0806059106 · DOI
  26. Wooldridge J, 2002, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arima, E. Y., Richards, P., Walker, R., & Caldas, M. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Kansas State University (US)
Corresponding author
Caldas, Marcellus M
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
024010
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098439912
Cited by
388
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 24
FWCI
21.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX07AF16G)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Oil Palm Production and Sustainability
Keywords
indirect land use change, Brazilian Amazon, deforestation, soybean production, agricultural mechanization, pasture conversion, forest frontier, spatial regression, REDD+, biofuels, food security

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review