CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Assessing the effects of agricultural intensification on natural habitats and biodiversity in Southern Amazonia

Open access
Göpel, Jan, Schüngel, Jan, Stuch, Benjamin, Schaldach, Rüdiger·2020·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0225914PMC PMC7688104

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The ongoing trend toward agricultural intensification in Southern Amazonia makes it essential to explore the future impacts of this development on the extent of natural habitats and biodiversity. This type of analysis requires information on future pathways of land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) under different socio-economic conditions and policy settings. For this purpose, the spatially explicit land-use change model LandSHIFT was applied to calculate a set of high-resolution land-use change scenarios for the Brazilian states Para and Mato Grosso. The period of the analysis were the years 2010–2030. The resulting land-use maps were combined with maps depicting vertebrate species diversity in order to examine the impact of natural habitat loss on species ranges as well as the overall LULCC-induced effect on vertebrate diversity as expressed by the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII). The results of this study indicate a general decrease in biodiversity intactness in all investigated scenarios. However, agricultural intensification combined with diversified environmental protection policies show least impact of LULCC on vertebrate species richness and conservation of natural habitats compared to scenarios with low agricultural intensification or scenarios with less effective conservation policies.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0225914

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Agricultural intensification overlooks augmented environmental impacts (e.g., from increased pesticide applications) and ignores how higher returns on investment encourage further expansion (the Jevons paradox), which has been observed in Latin America.

    “It not only overlooks augmented environmental impacts (e.g., from increased pesticide applications; Göpel et al., 2020) but also ignores how higher returns on investment encourage further expansionthe so-called Jevons paradox, which has been observed in Latin America (Ceddia et al., 2013).”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Göpel et al., 2020

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 81

  1. [1]Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J et al Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 2011; 478(7369): 378 10.1038/nature10425 21918513 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Newbold T, Hudson LN, Arnell AP, Contu S, Palma de A, Ferrier S et al Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 2016; 353(6296): 288– 91. 10.1126/science.aaf2201 27418509 · DOI
  3. [3]Barlow J, Lennox GD, Ferreira J, Berenguer E, Lees AC, Mac Nally R et al Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 2016; 535(7610): 144 10.1038/nature18326 27362236 · DOI
  4. [4]Martinelli LA, Naylor R, Vitousek PM, Moutinho P. Agriculture in Brazil: Impacts, costs, and opportunities for a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010; 2(5–6): 431– 8.
  5. [5]Jenkins CN, Alves MAS, Uezu A, Vale MM. Patterns of vertebrate diversity and protection in Brazil. PLOS ONE 2015; 10(12): e0145064 10.1371/journal.pone.0145064 26679348 PMC4682992 · DOI
  6. [7]Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA et al Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015; 520(7545): 45 10.1038/nature14324 25832402 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Dalla-Nora EL, Aguiar de APD, Lapola DM, Woltjer G. Why have land use change models for the Amazon failed to capture the amount of deforestation over the last decade? Land Use Policy 2014; 39: 403– 11.
  8. [10]WTO. World Trade Statistical Review 2017 2016.
  9. [11]Vieira ICG, Toledo Pd, Silva Jd, Higuchi H. Deforestation and threats to the biodiversity of Amazonia. Brazilian Journal of Biology 2008; 68(4): 949– 56. 10.1590/s1519-69842008000500004 19197467 · DOI
  10. [13]Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF et al Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010; 327(5967): 812– 8. 10.1126/science.1185383 20110467 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [14]Godfray HCJ, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Nisbett N et al. The future of the global food system: The Royal Society; 2010. PMC2935131 20713383
  12. [15]Laurance WF, Sayer J, Cassman KG. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2014; 29(2): 107– 16. 10.1016/j.tree.2013.12.001 24388286 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [16]Grafton RQ, Daugbjerg C, Qureshi ME. Towards food security by 2050. Food Security 2015; 7(2): 179– 83.
  14. [17]Lapola DM, Martinelli LA, Peres CA, Ometto J, PHB, Ferreira ME, Nobre CA et al Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nature Climate Change 2014; 4(1): 27– 35.
  15. [18]Cohn AS, Mosnier A, Havlík P, Valin H, Herrero M, Schmid E et al Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111(20): 7236– 41. 10.1073/pnas.1307163111 24778243 PMC4034253 · DOI
  16. [19]Strassburg BBN, Latawiec AE, Barioni LG, Nobre CA, Da Silva VP, Valentim JF et al When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 2014; 28: 84– 97.
  17. [20]Barretto AG, Berndes G, Sparovek G, Wirsenius S. Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land‐use patterns: An analysis of the 1975–2006 period. Global Change Biology 2013; 19(6): 1804– 15. 10.1111/gcb.12174 23505132 · DOI
  18. [21]Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011; 108(9): 3465– 72. PMC3048112 21321211
  19. [22]Nepstad D, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F, Lima A, Moutinho P, Carter J et al The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 2009; 326(5958): 1350– 1. 10.1126/science.1182108 19965742 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [23]Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA et al Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 2006; 440(7083): 520 10.1038/nature04389 16554817 · DOI
  21. [25]Aguiar APD, Câmara G, Escada MIS. Spatial statistical analysis of land-use determinants in the Brazilian Amazonia: Exploring intra-regional heterogeneity. Ecological Modelling 2007; 209(2–4): 169– 88.
  22. [26]Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C et al Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010; 107(8): 3388– 93. 10.1073/pnas.0907318107 20142492 PMC2840431 · DOI
  23. [28]Arvor D, Dubreuil V, Simões M, Bégué A. Mapping and spatial analysis of the soybean agricultural frontier in Mato Grosso, Brazil, using remote sensing data. GeoJournal 2013; 78(5): 833– 50.
  24. [29]Gollnow F, Lakes T. Policy change, land use, and agriculture: The case of soy production and cattle ranching in Brazil, 2001–2012. Applied Geography 2014; 55: 203– 11.
  25. [30]Soares‐Filho B, Alencar A, Nepstad D, Cerqueira G, Vera Diaz MdC, Rivero S et al Simulating the response of land‐cover changes to road paving and governance along a major Amazon highway: The Santarém–Cuiabá corridor. Global Change Biology 2004; 10(5): 745– 64.
  26. [31]Heckenberger MJ, Christian Russell J, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ. The legacy of cultural landscapes in the Brazilian Amazon: Implications for biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2007; 362(1478): 197– 208. 10.1098/rstb.2006.1979 17255029 PMC2311456 · DOI
  27. [32]Gentili S, Sigura M, Bonesi L. Decreased small mammals species diversity and increased population abundance along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 2014; 25(1): 39– 44.
  28. [33]Castro Solar de RR, Barlow J, Andersen AN, Schoereder JH, Berenguer E, Ferreira JN et al Biodiversity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance in the Amazon: A multi-scale assessment using ant communities. Biological Conservation 2016; 197: 98– 107.
  29. [34]Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp RP, Mandle L, Sim S, Johnson J, Butnar I et al Spatial patterns of agricultural expansion determine impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015; 112(24): 7402– 7. 10.1073/pnas.1406485112 26082547 PMC4475955 · DOI
  30. [35]Ritter CD, Faurby S, Bennett DJ, Naka LN, Ter Steege H, Zizka A et al The pitfalls of biodiversity proxies: Differences in richness patterns of birds, trees and understudied diversity across Amazonia. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1): 19205 10.1038/s41598-019-55490-3 31844092 PMC6915760 · DOI
  31. [36]Monroy‐Gamboa AG, Briones‐Salas MÁ, Sarkar S, Sánchez‐Cordero V. Terrestrial vertebrates as surrogates for selecting conservation areas in a biodiversity hotspot in Mexico. Conservation Science and Practice 2019; 1(3): e12.
  32. [37]Alkemade A, Schnitzler A, Forstmann BU. Topographic organization of the human and non-human primate subthalamic nucleus. Brain Struct Funct 2015; 220(6): 3075– 86. 10.1007/s00429-015-1047-2 25921975 PMC4575692 · DOI
  33. [39]Biggs R, Simons H, Bakkenes M, Scholes RJ, Eickhout B, van Vuuren D et al Scenarios of biodiversity loss in southern Africa in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change 2008; 18(2): 296– 309.
  34. [40]Koch J, Schaldach R, Göpel J. Can agricultural intensification help to conserve biodiversity? A scenario study for the African continent. J Environ Manage 2019; 247: 29– 37. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.015 31229783 · DOI
  35. [41]Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015; 347(6223): 1259855 10.1126/science.1259855 25592418 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [42]Lamb EG, Bayne E, Holloway G, Schieck J, Boutin S, Herbers J et al Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: Are some more effective than others? Ecological Indicators 2009; 9(3): 432– 44.
  37. [43]ROUGET M, COWLING RM, VLOK JAN, THOMPSON M, BALMFORD A. Getting the biodiversity intactness index right: The importance of habitat degradation data. Global Change Biology 2006; 12(11): 2032– 6.
  38. [44]Spera SA, Galford GL, Coe MT, Macedo MN, Mustard JF. Land‐use change affects water recycling in Brazil’s last agricultural frontier. Global Change Biology 2016; 22(10): 3405– 13. 10.1111/gcb.13298 27028754 · DOI
  39. [45]Dias LCP, Pimenta FM, Santos AB, Costa MH, Ladle RJ. Patterns of land use, extensification, and intensification of Brazilian agriculture. Global Change Biology 2016; 22(8): 2887– 903. 10.1111/gcb.13314 27170520 · DOI
  40. [47]Coy M, Klingler M. Pionierfronten im brasilianischen Amazonien zwischen alten Problemen und neuen Dynamiken. Das Beispiel des „Entwicklungskorridors “Cuiabá (Mato Grosso)–Santarém (Pará). Innsbrucker Jahresbericht 2008; 2010: 109– 29.
  41. [48]Friedl MA, Sulla-Menashe D, Tan B, Schneider A, Ramankutty N, Sibley A et al MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sensing of Environment 2010; 114(1): 168– 82.
  42. [50]Barona E, Ramankutty N, Hyman G, Coomes OT. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 2010; 5(2): 24002.
  43. [51]VanWey LK, Spera S, Sa de R, Mahr D, Mustard JF. Socioeconomic development and agricultural intensification in Mato Grosso. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2013; 368(1619): 20120168 10.1098/rstb.2012.0168 23610174 PMC3638434 · DOI
  44. [52]Spera SA, Cohn AS, VanWey LK, Mustard JF, Rudorff BF, Risso J et al Recent cropping frequency, expansion, and abandonment in Mato Grosso, Brazil had selective land characteristics. Environmental Research Letters 2014; 9(6): 64010.
  45. [53]Klink CA, Machado RB. Conservation of the Brazilian cerrado. Conservation Biology 2005; 19(3): 707– 13.
  46. [54]Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Koch J, Kölking C, Lapola DM, Schüngel J et al An integrated approach to modelling land-use change on continental and global scales. Environmental Modelling & Software 2011; 26(8): 1041– 51.
  47. [55]Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Msangi S, Priess JA et al Impacts of climate change and the end of deforestation on land use in the Brazilian Legal Amazon. Earth Interactions 2011; 15(16): 1– 29.
  48. [56]Göpel J, Schüngel J, Schaldach R, Meurer KHE, Jungkunst HF, Franko U et al Future land use and land cover in Southern Amazonia and resulting greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils. Regional Environmental Change 2018; 18(1): 129– 42.
  49. [58]Göpel J, Barros Viana Hissa de L, Schüngel J, Schaldach R. Sensitivity assessment and evaluation of a spatially explicit land-use model for Southern Amazonia. Ecological Informatics 2018; 48: 69– 79.
  50. [60]Alcamo J. Environmental futures: The practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier; 2008.
  51. [64]Arvor Damien, Margareth Meirelles, Dubreuil Vincent, Begue Agnes. Analyzing the agricultural transition in Mato Grosso, Brazil, using satellite-derived indices. Applied Geography 2012; 32: 702– 13.
  52. [65]Wint W, Robinson T. Gridded livestock of the world 2007. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2007. 20422554
  53. [66]Srinivasan CS, Irz X, Shankar B. An assessment of the potential consumption impacts of WHO dietary norms in OECD countries. Food Policy 2006; 31(1): 53– 77.
  54. [68]NatureServe BIa. Bird species distribution maps of the world. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International 2014.
  55. [69]IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2014.1. IUCN 2014; 12:20.
  56. [71]Colwell RK, Lees DC. The mid-domain effect: Geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2000; 15(2): 70– 6. 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01767-x 10652559 · DOI
  57. [73]Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM. The future of biodiversity. Science 1995; 269(5222): 347– 50. 10.1126/science.269.5222.347 17841251 · DOI · Paper page
  58. [74]Alkemade R, van Oorschot M, Miles L, Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, Brink B ten. GLOBIO3: A framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 2009; 12(3): 374– 90.
  59. [75]Alkemade R, Reid RS, van den Berg M, Leeuw de J, Jeuken M. Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013; 110(52): 20900– 5. 10.1073/pnas.1011013108 22308313 PMC3876242 · DOI
  60. [76]Eaton DP, Santos SA, Santos MdCA, Lima JVB, Keuroghlian A. Rotational grazing of native pasturelands in the Pantanal: An effective conservation tool. Tropical Conservation Science 2011; 4(1): 39– 52.
  61. [79]Pereira PAA, Martha GB, Am Santana C, Alves E. The development of Brazilian agriculture: Future technological challenges and opportunities. Agriculture & Food Security 2012; 1(1): 4.
  62. [80]Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC, Stickler CM, Galford GL, Shimabukuro YE. Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012; 109(4): 1341– 6. 10.1073/pnas.1111374109 22232692 PMC3268292 · DOI · Paper page
  63. [81]Latawiec AE, Strassburg BBN, Valentim JF, Ramos F, Alves-Pinto HN. Intensification of cattle ranching production systems: Socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil. Animal 2014; 8(8): 1255– 63. 10.1017/S1751731114001566 26263189 · DOI · Paper page
  64. [82]Arima EY, Barreto P, Araújo E, Soares-Filho B. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: Lessons and challenges from Brazil. Land Use Policy 2014; 41: 465– 73.
  65. [83]Ceddia MG, Bardsley NO, Gomez-y-Paloma S, Sedlacek S. Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111(20): 7242– 7. PMC4034233 24799696
  66. [84]Strassburg BBN, Latawiec AE, Barioni LG, Nobre CA, Da Silva VP, Valentim JF et al When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 2014; 28: 84– 97.
  67. [85]Sparovek G, Barretto AGdOP, Matsumoto M, Berndes G. Effects of Governance on Availability of Land for Agriculture and Conservation in Brazil. Environ Science & Technology 2015; 49(17): 10285– 93. 10.1021/acs.est.5b01300 26241204 · DOI
  68. [86]Bento de Souza Ferreira Filho J, Ribera L, Horridge M. Deforestation Control and Agricultural Supply in Brazil. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2015; 97(2): 589– 601.
  69. [87]Alkimim A, Sparovek G, Clarke KC. Converting Brazil’s pastures to cropland: An alternative way to meet sugarcane demand and to spare forestlands. Applied Geography 2015; 62: 75– 84.
  70. [88]Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Vasconcelos HL, Bruna EM, Didham RK, Stouffer PC et al Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22‐year investigation. Conservation Biology 2002; 16(3): 605– 18.
  71. [89]Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J, Davies KF, Gonzalez A, Holt RD et al Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances 2015; 1(2): e1500052 10.1126/sciadv.1500052 26601154 PMC4643828 · DOI · Paper page
  72. [90]Figueira JEC, Cintra R, Viana LR, Yamashita C. Spatial and temporal patterns of bird species diversity in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil: Implications for conservation. Brazilian Journal of Biology 2006; 66(2A): 393– 404. 10.1590/s1519-69842006000300003 16862292 · DOI
  73. [91]Jenkins CN, Alves MAS, Uezu A, Vale MM. Patterns of Vertebrate Diversity and Protection in Brazil. PLOS ONE 2015; 10(12): e0145064 10.1371/journal.pone.0145064 26679348 PMC4682992 · DOI
  74. [92]Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, Haasnoot M. Coping with the Wickedness of Public Policy Problems: Approaches for Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 2016; 142(3): 1816001.
  75. [94]Oliveira LJC, Costa MH, Soares-Filho BS, Coe MT. Large-scale expansion of agriculture in Amazonia may be a no-win scenario. Environmental Research Letters 2013; 8(2): 24021.
  76. [95]Marengo JA, Chou SC, Kay G, Alves LM, Pesquero JF, Soares WR et al Development of regional future climate change scenarios in South America using the Eta CPTEC/HadCM3 climate change projections: Climatology and regional analyses for the Amazon, São Francisco and the Paraná River basins. Climate Dynamics 2012; 38(9–10): 1829– 48.
  77. [96]Rosenzweig C, Elliott J, Deryng D, Ruane AC, Müller C, Arneth A et al Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111(9): 3268– 73. PMC3948251 24344314
  78. [97]Geiger F, Bengtsson J, Berendse F, Weisser WW, Emmerson M, Morales MB et al Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology 2010; 11(2): 97– 105.
  79. [98]Schiesari L, Waichman A, Brock T, Adams C, Grillitsch B. Pesticide use and biodiversity conservation in the Amazonian agricultural frontier. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2013; 368(1619): 20120378 10.1098/rstb.2012.0378 23610177 PMC3638437 · DOI
  80. [100]Emmerson M, Morales MB, Oñate JJ, Batáry P, Berendse F, Liira J et al How Agricultural Intensification Affects Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services In: Kordas R, Dumbrell AJ, Woodward G, editors. Large-scale ecology: Model systems to global perspectives / volume editor, Rebecca Kordas, Alex Dumbrell, Guy Woodward. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2016 p. 43– 97 (Advances in Ecological Research; vol. 55).
  81. [102]Herrero M, Thornton PK, Gerber P, Reid RS. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: Understanding the trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2009; 1(2): 111– 20.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Göpel, J., Schüngel, J., Stuch, B., & Schaldach, R.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Corresponding author
Göpel, Jan
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2020-11-25
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
e0225914
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0225914
PMC
PMC7688104
OpenAlex
W3107244840
Cited by
23
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
BMBF (01LL0902A-01LL0902N)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
agricultural intensification, land use and land cover change, natural habitat loss, Biodiversity Intactness Index, conservation policy, environmental policy, scenario analysis, Paraíba, Mato Grosso, southern Amazon
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Brazil, Conservation of Natural Resources, Social Conditions, Ecosystem, Biodiversity, Environmental Policy

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