Cited by 122Amazonian Archaeology and EthnohistoryArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesSoil and Environmental Studies

Amazonian exploitation revisited: ecological asymmetry and the policy pendulum

Bush, Mark B., Silman, Miles R.·2007·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Abstract

The influence of pre-Columbian human populations on Amazonian ecosystems is being actively debated. The longstanding view that Amazonia was only minimally impacted by human actions has been challenged, and a new paradigm of Amazonia as a “manufactured landscape” is emerging. If such disturbance was the norm until just 500 years ago, Amazonian ecosystems could be far more ecologically resilient to disturbance than previously supposed. Alternatively, if the “manufactured landscape” label is an overstatement, then policy that assumes such resilience may cause substantial and long-lasting ecological damage. We present paleoecological data suggesting a middle path, in which some areas were heavily modified, but most of Amazonia was minimally impacted. Bluffs adjacent to main river channels and highly seasonal areas appear to have been the most extensively settled locations. Away from areas where humans lived, their influence on ecosystems was very local. Consequently, we see no evidence suggesting that large areas at a distance from rivers or in the less seasonal parts of Amazonia were substantially altered by human activity. Extrapolating from sites of known human occupation to infer Amazon-wide landscape disturbance may therefore potentially lead to unrealistic projections of human impact and misguided policy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/070018

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The paleohistory of anthropogenic change across much of the Americas is especially unclear and controversial and may be exceptional compared with other continents.

    “The paleohistory of anthropogenic change across much of the Americas is especially unclear and controversial (e.g., refs. 74, 82, and 125) and may be exceptional compared with other continents.”

    From Used planet: a global history (2013) · cites this paper as [125]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bush, M. B., & Silman, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Florida Institute of Technology (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
Corresponding author
Bush, Mark B.
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-11
Volume
5
Issue
9
Pages
457-465
ISSN
1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981618295
Cited by
122
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
122.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Wake Forest University
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil and Environmental Studies
Keywords
paleoecology, landscape disturbance, ecosystem resilience, river bluffs, seasonal habitat, human settlement patterns, environmental policy, Amazon deforestation

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