How sustainable is the use of natural resources in Brazil?

Natureza a Conservacao

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 77-82

  Fernandez, Fernando Antonio dos Santos ^a   Antunes, Pâmela Castro ^a   Macedo, Leandro ^a   Zucco, Carlos André ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Hunting; Non timber forest products; Sustainability; Sustainable use; Timber

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875187762     PISSN: 16790073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4322/natcon.2012.013     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Barlow J et al., 2006. The responses of understorey birds to forest fragmentation, logging and wildfires: an Amazonian synthesis. Biological Conservation, 128:182-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.028.
2. o 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000, que dispõe sobre o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza-SNUC, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília (2002 ago. 23).
3. Castro-Arellano I et al., 2007. Effects of reduced impact logging on bat biodiversity in terra firme forest of lowland Amazonia. Biological Conservation, 138:269-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.025.
4. Castro-Arellano I et al., 2009. Reduced-impact logging and temporal activity of understorey bats in lowland Amazonia. Biological Conservation, 142:2131-2139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.013.
5. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior-CAPES. Banco de Teses, 2010. Brasília. Available from:. Access in: june 2010.
6. Costa FRC & Magnusson WE, 2003. Effects of selective logging on the diversity and abundance of flowering and fruiting understory plants in a central Amazonian Forest. Biotropica, 35:103-114.
7. Cullen Junior L et al., 2000. Effects of hunting in habitat fragments of the Atlantic forests, Brazil. Biological Conservation, 95:49-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00011-2.
8. Dias MS et al., 2009. Effects of reduced-impact logging on fish assemblages in central Amazonia. Conservation Biology, 24:278-286. PMid:19681987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01299.x.
9. Domínio Público, 2010. Brasília. Available from: . Access in: june 2010.
10. Hurlbert SH, 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs, 54:187-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1942661.
11. Inyang HI et al., 2009. Sustaining sustainability: approaches and contexts. Journal of Environmental Management, 90:3687-3689. PMid:19497658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.024.
12. Jerozolimski A & Peres CA, 2003. Bringing home the biggest bacon: a cross-site analysis of the structure of hunter-kill profiles in Neotropical forests. Biological Conservation, 111:415-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00310-5.
13. Parry L et al., 2009. Hunting for sustainability in tropical secondary forests. Conservation Biology, 23:1270-1280. PMid:19765039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01224.x.
14. Peres CA, 1996. Population status of white-lipped Tayassu pecari and collared peccaries T. tajacu in hunted and unhunted Amazonian Forest. Biological Conservation, 77:115-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(96)00010-9.
15. Peres CA, 2001. Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conservation Biology, 15:1490-1505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.01089.x.
16. Peres CA, 2010. Overexploitation. In: Sodhi NJ. & Ehrlich PR (eds.). Conservation biology for all. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 107-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554232.003.0007.
17. Peres CA & Dolman PM, 2000. Density compensation in neotropical primate communities: evidence from 56 hunted and nonhunted Amazonian forests of varying productivity. Oecologia, 122:175-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00008845.
18. Peres CA & Palacios E, 2007. Basin-wide effects of game harvest on vertebrate population densities in Amazonian. Biotropica, 39:304-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00272.x.
19. Peres CA et al., 2003. Demographic threats to the sustainability of Brazil nut exploitation. Science, 302:2112-2114. PMid:14684819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1091698.
20. Plowden C. et al., 2003. The ecology and harvest potential of titica vine roots (Heteropsis flexuosa: Araceae) in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 182:59-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00030-6.
21. Redford KH, 1992. The empty forest. BioScience, 42:412-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1311860.
22. Robinson J & Redford KH, 1991. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Schulze M et al., 2008a. How rare is too rare to harvest? Management challenges posed by timber species occurring at low densities in the Brazilian Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 256:1443-1457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.02.051.
24. Schulze M et al., 2008b. Evaluating ipê (Tabebuia, Bignoniaceae) logging in Amazonia: sustainable management or catalystic for forest degradation? Biological Conservation, 141:2071-2085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.003.
25. Sist P & Ferreira FN, 2007. Sustainability of reduced-impact logging in the Eastern Amazon. Forest Ecology and Management, 243:199-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.014.
26. Sutherland WJ, 2001. Sustainable exploitation: a review of principles and methods. Wildlife Biology, 7:131-140.
27. Wadt LHO et al., 2008. Sustainable forest use in Brazilian extractive reserves: natural regeneration of Brazil nut in exploited populations. Biological Conservation, 141:332-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.007.
28. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Brundtland Report: Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Zar JH, 1999. Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.