4.5 Article

Research trends: Tropical dry forests: The neglected research agenda?

期刊

FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102333

关键词

Dry forests; Research policy; Forest management; Research analysis; Tropics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tropical dry forests, covering half the area of tropical moist forests, receive less international research attention despite their ecological and economic importance. Research priorities differ between the two forest biomes, with disturbance being a key topic for dry forests and biodiversity and conservation for humid forests. Calling for a stronger international research agenda for tropical dry forests is necessary to address the challenges in this environment.
Tropical dry forests covers 0.5 to 1.1 billion hectares which is about half of the tropical moist forest area. The forests fulfil many important ecological and economic functions and deliver manifold commodities for subsistence as well as for international demands. Despite their importance tropical dry forests seem to attain by far lesser attention than humid forests by the international research community. In an ISI web of knowledge and google scholar-based comparison of reviewed scientific articles on tropical dry versus tropical humid forests we found that the number of publications with focus on the dry biome is 3.6 times lower. The research topics differ partly. The topics carbon and climate change were for both biomes among the most prominent research subjects. Disturbance was a prioritized research topic for tropical dry forests, whereas biodiversity and conservation were highly relevant for tropical humid forests. This seems to be justified for several reasons. Nevertheless it appears to be urgent to call for a stronger international comprehensive strategic and applied research agenda for tropical dry forests to encounter the manifold forest-related problems in this disadvantaged environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据