4.3 Article

177 years of diatom studies in Brazil: knowledge, gaps, and perspectives

期刊

出版社

ACAD BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIAS
DOI: 10.1590/0001-3765202220210959

关键词

aquatic biodiversity; Brazil; ecology; scientometry; taxonomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a survey of diatom studies in non-marine aquatic environments in Brazil, summarizing and categorizing research topics, describing the evolution of related studies and journals, identifying the most studied regions and environments, and highlighting the main institutions and works addressing diatom research and interactions. The findings suggest that the biodiversity of diatoms in Brazil may be underestimated, which could have implications for conservation efforts.
The actual status of the progress and the main aspects of diatom studies in Brazil remain unknown. This paper describes a survey of published studies addressing material of Brazilian origin in non-marine aquatic environments. Our objectives are to (1) summarize and categorize diatom research topics, (2) to describe how related studies evolved and developed over time, as well as respective journals, (3) to identify the most studied regions and environments, and (4) to indicate the main institutions and works addressing diatom research and related interactions. We conducted a systematic review selecting 478 studies. Since the early studies, the approach on diatom floristic exclusively was the most frequent, even though, ecological studies have been increasing since the 2000s. However, these concentrate in the southern and southeastern. It was only in the last decades that other Brazilian regions became the setting of more extensive samplings, thus reflecting on the interactions between authors and institutions from the collection sites. However, the actual biodiversity scenario of diatoms in Brazil still seems to be underestimated, which may influence further conservation measures. Finally, we indicate some suggestions aimed at filling the sampling gaps presented/highlighted in this study.

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

4.3
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