Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/54462
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.creatorBastos-Pereira, Rafaela-
dc.creatorChagas, Tássia Rayane Ferreira-
dc.creatorCarvalho, Débora Reis de-
dc.creatorRabello, Ananza Mara-
dc.creatorBeiroz, Wallace-
dc.creatorTavares, Karla Palmieri-
dc.creatorLima, Karen Cristina Braga-
dc.creatorRabelo, Lucas Mendes-
dc.creatorValenzuela, Silvia-
dc.creatorCorrea, César M. A.-
dc.creatorPompeu, Paulo Santos-
dc.creatorRibas, Carla Rodrigues-
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-05T18:13:01Z-
dc.date.available2022-09-05T18:13:01Z-
dc.date.issued2022-07-
dc.identifier.citationBASTOS-PEREIRA, R. et al. Are the functional diversity terms functional? The hindrances of functional diversity understanding in the Brazilian scientific community. Ecological Research, Tsukuba, v. 37, n. 4, p. 505-521, July 2022. DOI: 10.1111/1440-1703.12306.pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12306pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/54462-
dc.description.abstractInterest in functional diversity has grown in recent years, indicating that knowledge on ecosystem functions gain importance. However, the incongruent use of terms may lead to misunderstandings and incomparable results. We aimed to review terms used in functional diversity among the Brazilian scientific community to identify if there is a lack of consensus in the terminology used. We applied online surveys to assess how these terms have been used by the Brazilian academics and searched for their definitions in the scientific literature. The definition of “ecological function” by Brazilian academics is like that of the niche, but we only found two articles defining such a term in the literature. Thus, it seems that “ecosystem function” is a more commonly used term outside of Brazil. The definition of “guilds” coincided with that used in the literature, although we still observed a lack of consensus in the latter. For “traits,” “functional group,” and “functional diversity” concepts, we found some discrepancy between the literature and questionnaires. These inconsistencies can be related to the use of different organizational levels for the definition of traits and to the practice of replacing species with functional groups in standard taxonomic diversity metrics, considering them as measurements of functional diversity. The adoption of cohesive terminology is crucial to ensure the comparability of scientific results in the scientific literature. However, finding a consensus in ecology represents a hard task; therefore, we encourage that, at least, researchers make clear which key concepts they adopted in their research to avoid misunderstandings.pt_BR
dc.languageen_USpt_BR
dc.publisherThe Ecological Society of Japanpt_BR
dc.rightsrestrictAccesspt_BR
dc.sourceEcological Researchpt_BR
dc.subjectEcological functionpt_BR
dc.subjectFunctional ecologypt_BR
dc.subjectFunctional grouppt_BR
dc.subjectBiological diversitypt_BR
dc.subjectFunção ecológicapt_BR
dc.subjectEcologia funcionalpt_BR
dc.subjectGrupo funcionalpt_BR
dc.subjectDiversidade biológicapt_BR
dc.titleAre the functional diversity terms functional? The hindrances of functional diversity understanding in the Brazilian scientific communitypt_BR
dc.typeArtigopt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:DBI - Artigos publicados em periódicos

Arquivos associados a este item:
Não existem arquivos associados a este item.


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.