Wood stock in neotropical streams: Quantifying and comparing instream wood among biomes and regions

Instream wood plays important chemical, physical and ecological functions in aquatic systems, benefiting biota directly and indirectly. However, human activities along river corridors have disrupted wood recruitment and retention, usually leading to reductions in the amount of instream wood. In the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0275464-e0275464
Hauptverfasser: Saraiva, Sarah O, Rutherfurd, Ian D, Kaufmann, Philip R, Leal, Cecília G, Macedo, Diego R, Pompeu, Paulo S
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0275464
container_issue 10
container_start_page e0275464
container_title PloS one
container_volume 17
creator Saraiva, Sarah O
Rutherfurd, Ian D
Kaufmann, Philip R
Leal, Cecília G
Macedo, Diego R
Pompeu, Paulo S
description Instream wood plays important chemical, physical and ecological functions in aquatic systems, benefiting biota directly and indirectly. However, human activities along river corridors have disrupted wood recruitment and retention, usually leading to reductions in the amount of instream wood. In the tropics, where wood is believed to be more transient, the expansion of agriculture and infrastructure might be reducing instream wood stock even more than in the better studied temperate streams. However, research is needed to augment the small amount of information about wood in different biomes and ecosystems of neotropical streams. Here we present the first extensive assessment of instream wood loads and size distributions in streams of the wet-tropical Amazon and semi-humid-tropical Cerrado (the Brazilian savanna). We also compare neotropical wood stocks with those in temperate streams, first comparing against data from the literature, and then from a comparable dataset from temperate biomes in the USA. Contrary to our expectations, Amazon and Cerrado streams carried similar wood loads, which were lower than the world literature average, but similar to those found in comparable temperate forest and savanna streams in the USA. Our results indicate that the field survey methods and the wood metric adopted are highly important when comparing different datasets. But when properly compared, we found that most of the wood in temperate streams is made-up of a small number of large pieces, whereas wood in neotropical streams is made up of a larger number of small pieces that produce similar total volumes. The character of wood volumes among biomes is linked more to the delivery, transport and decomposition mechanisms than to the total number of pieces. Future studies should further investigate the potential instream wood drivers in neotropical catchments in order to better understand the differences and similarities here detected between biomes and climatic regions.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0275464
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2721593409</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A721050744</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5dcb24059a4f49c5854ce389a78d9287</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A721050744</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c630t-a8b4d0284c13019ca721b258277f4a7c84e07ad6e915f00828e08d50867694c93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6DwQLgujFjGm-44WwLH4MLCx-X4YzadrJ2CZj0qr7701nquyIF-YmycnDe3LOeYviYYWWFRHV820Yo4duuQveLhEWjHJ6qzitFMELjhG5feN8UtxLaYsQI5Lzu8UJ4ZUSCovTwnwJoS7TEMzX0vnS2zDEsHMGuhyMFvr0onw3gh9cc-18W4KvSxP6HcTp5vwBKn9MKtCHHFu70Nu0B6NtXfDpfnGngS7ZB_N-Vnx6_erjxdvF5dWb1cX55cJwgoYFyDWtEZbUVARVyoDA1RoziYVoKAgjqUUCam5VxRqEJJYWyZohyQVX1ChyVjw66O66kPTcn6Rx1mGKUDQRqwNRB9jqXXQ9xGsdwOl9IMRWQxyc6axmtVljipgC2lBlmGTUWCIVCFkrLEXWejlnG9e9rY31Q4TuSPT4xbuNbsN3rRiheWWBp7NADN9Gmwbdu2Rs10Gewnj4NyccCZzRx3-h_65uplrIBTjf5FmCmUT1eaYQQ2Kf9tkRZYIf7M-hhTElvfrw_v_Zq8_H7JMb7MZCN2xS6MZhssAxSA-giSGlaJs_PauQnqz9uzg9WVvP1ia_AGb46Uo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2721593409</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Wood stock in neotropical streams: Quantifying and comparing instream wood among biomes and regions</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Saraiva, Sarah O ; Rutherfurd, Ian D ; Kaufmann, Philip R ; Leal, Cecília G ; Macedo, Diego R ; Pompeu, Paulo S</creator><creatorcontrib>Saraiva, Sarah O ; Rutherfurd, Ian D ; Kaufmann, Philip R ; Leal, Cecília G ; Macedo, Diego R ; Pompeu, Paulo S</creatorcontrib><description>Instream wood plays important chemical, physical and ecological functions in aquatic systems, benefiting biota directly and indirectly. However, human activities along river corridors have disrupted wood recruitment and retention, usually leading to reductions in the amount of instream wood. In the tropics, where wood is believed to be more transient, the expansion of agriculture and infrastructure might be reducing instream wood stock even more than in the better studied temperate streams. However, research is needed to augment the small amount of information about wood in different biomes and ecosystems of neotropical streams. Here we present the first extensive assessment of instream wood loads and size distributions in streams of the wet-tropical Amazon and semi-humid-tropical Cerrado (the Brazilian savanna). We also compare neotropical wood stocks with those in temperate streams, first comparing against data from the literature, and then from a comparable dataset from temperate biomes in the USA. Contrary to our expectations, Amazon and Cerrado streams carried similar wood loads, which were lower than the world literature average, but similar to those found in comparable temperate forest and savanna streams in the USA. Our results indicate that the field survey methods and the wood metric adopted are highly important when comparing different datasets. But when properly compared, we found that most of the wood in temperate streams is made-up of a small number of large pieces, whereas wood in neotropical streams is made up of a larger number of small pieces that produce similar total volumes. The character of wood volumes among biomes is linked more to the delivery, transport and decomposition mechanisms than to the total number of pieces. Future studies should further investigate the potential instream wood drivers in neotropical catchments in order to better understand the differences and similarities here detected between biomes and climatic regions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275464</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36197927</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Aquatic biota ; Aquatic environment ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biomes ; Biota ; Catchments ; Comparative analysis ; Creeks &amp; streams ; Datasets ; Deforestation ; Ecological function ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Ecosystems ; Environmental aspects ; Forests ; Morphology ; People and places ; Physical Sciences ; Riparian forests ; Rivers ; Savannahs ; Stream ecology ; Streams ; Temperate forests ; Transportation corridors ; Tropical environments ; Vegetation ; Wood</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0275464-e0275464</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c630t-a8b4d0284c13019ca721b258277f4a7c84e07ad6e915f00828e08d50867694c93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c630t-a8b4d0284c13019ca721b258277f4a7c84e07ad6e915f00828e08d50867694c93</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2888-6061 ; 0000-0003-4974-8549</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534444/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9534444/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79569,79570</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saraiva, Sarah O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutherfurd, Ian D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaufmann, Philip R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leal, Cecília G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macedo, Diego R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pompeu, Paulo S</creatorcontrib><title>Wood stock in neotropical streams: Quantifying and comparing instream wood among biomes and regions</title><title>PloS one</title><description>Instream wood plays important chemical, physical and ecological functions in aquatic systems, benefiting biota directly and indirectly. However, human activities along river corridors have disrupted wood recruitment and retention, usually leading to reductions in the amount of instream wood. In the tropics, where wood is believed to be more transient, the expansion of agriculture and infrastructure might be reducing instream wood stock even more than in the better studied temperate streams. However, research is needed to augment the small amount of information about wood in different biomes and ecosystems of neotropical streams. Here we present the first extensive assessment of instream wood loads and size distributions in streams of the wet-tropical Amazon and semi-humid-tropical Cerrado (the Brazilian savanna). We also compare neotropical wood stocks with those in temperate streams, first comparing against data from the literature, and then from a comparable dataset from temperate biomes in the USA. Contrary to our expectations, Amazon and Cerrado streams carried similar wood loads, which were lower than the world literature average, but similar to those found in comparable temperate forest and savanna streams in the USA. Our results indicate that the field survey methods and the wood metric adopted are highly important when comparing different datasets. But when properly compared, we found that most of the wood in temperate streams is made-up of a small number of large pieces, whereas wood in neotropical streams is made up of a larger number of small pieces that produce similar total volumes. The character of wood volumes among biomes is linked more to the delivery, transport and decomposition mechanisms than to the total number of pieces. Future studies should further investigate the potential instream wood drivers in neotropical catchments in order to better understand the differences and similarities here detected between biomes and climatic regions.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Aquatic biota</subject><subject>Aquatic environment</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomes</subject><subject>Biota</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Creeks &amp; streams</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Deforestation</subject><subject>Ecological function</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>People and places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Riparian forests</subject><subject>Rivers</subject><subject>Savannahs</subject><subject>Stream ecology</subject><subject>Streams</subject><subject>Temperate forests</subject><subject>Transportation corridors</subject><subject>Tropical environments</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Wood</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7rr6DwQLgujFjGm-44WwLH4MLCx-X4YzadrJ2CZj0qr7701nquyIF-YmycnDe3LOeYviYYWWFRHV820Yo4duuQveLhEWjHJ6qzitFMELjhG5feN8UtxLaYsQI5Lzu8UJ4ZUSCovTwnwJoS7TEMzX0vnS2zDEsHMGuhyMFvr0onw3gh9cc-18W4KvSxP6HcTp5vwBKn9MKtCHHFu70Nu0B6NtXfDpfnGngS7ZB_N-Vnx6_erjxdvF5dWb1cX55cJwgoYFyDWtEZbUVARVyoDA1RoziYVoKAgjqUUCam5VxRqEJJYWyZohyQVX1ChyVjw66O66kPTcn6Rx1mGKUDQRqwNRB9jqXXQ9xGsdwOl9IMRWQxyc6axmtVljipgC2lBlmGTUWCIVCFkrLEXWejlnG9e9rY31Q4TuSPT4xbuNbsN3rRiheWWBp7NADN9Gmwbdu2Rs10Gewnj4NyccCZzRx3-h_65uplrIBTjf5FmCmUT1eaYQQ2Kf9tkRZYIf7M-hhTElvfrw_v_Zq8_H7JMb7MZCN2xS6MZhssAxSA-giSGlaJs_PauQnqz9uzg9WVvP1ia_AGb46Uo</recordid><startdate>20221005</startdate><enddate>20221005</enddate><creator>Saraiva, Sarah O</creator><creator>Rutherfurd, Ian D</creator><creator>Kaufmann, Philip R</creator><creator>Leal, Cecília G</creator><creator>Macedo, Diego R</creator><creator>Pompeu, Paulo S</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2888-6061</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-8549</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221005</creationdate><title>Wood stock in neotropical streams: Quantifying and comparing instream wood among biomes and regions</title><author>Saraiva, Sarah O ; Rutherfurd, Ian D ; Kaufmann, Philip R ; Leal, Cecília G ; Macedo, Diego R ; Pompeu, Paulo S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c630t-a8b4d0284c13019ca721b258277f4a7c84e07ad6e915f00828e08d50867694c93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Aquatic biota</topic><topic>Aquatic environment</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomes</topic><topic>Biota</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Creeks &amp; streams</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Deforestation</topic><topic>Ecological function</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>People and places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Riparian forests</topic><topic>Rivers</topic><topic>Savannahs</topic><topic>Stream ecology</topic><topic>Streams</topic><topic>Temperate forests</topic><topic>Transportation corridors</topic><topic>Tropical environments</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Wood</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saraiva, Sarah O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutherfurd, Ian D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaufmann, Philip R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leal, Cecília G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Macedo, Diego R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pompeu, Paulo S</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale in Context : Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saraiva, Sarah O</au><au>Rutherfurd, Ian D</au><au>Kaufmann, Philip R</au><au>Leal, Cecília G</au><au>Macedo, Diego R</au><au>Pompeu, Paulo S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Wood stock in neotropical streams: Quantifying and comparing instream wood among biomes and regions</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2022-10-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0275464</spage><epage>e0275464</epage><pages>e0275464-e0275464</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Instream wood plays important chemical, physical and ecological functions in aquatic systems, benefiting biota directly and indirectly. However, human activities along river corridors have disrupted wood recruitment and retention, usually leading to reductions in the amount of instream wood. In the tropics, where wood is believed to be more transient, the expansion of agriculture and infrastructure might be reducing instream wood stock even more than in the better studied temperate streams. However, research is needed to augment the small amount of information about wood in different biomes and ecosystems of neotropical streams. Here we present the first extensive assessment of instream wood loads and size distributions in streams of the wet-tropical Amazon and semi-humid-tropical Cerrado (the Brazilian savanna). We also compare neotropical wood stocks with those in temperate streams, first comparing against data from the literature, and then from a comparable dataset from temperate biomes in the USA. Contrary to our expectations, Amazon and Cerrado streams carried similar wood loads, which were lower than the world literature average, but similar to those found in comparable temperate forest and savanna streams in the USA. Our results indicate that the field survey methods and the wood metric adopted are highly important when comparing different datasets. But when properly compared, we found that most of the wood in temperate streams is made-up of a small number of large pieces, whereas wood in neotropical streams is made up of a larger number of small pieces that produce similar total volumes. The character of wood volumes among biomes is linked more to the delivery, transport and decomposition mechanisms than to the total number of pieces. Future studies should further investigate the potential instream wood drivers in neotropical catchments in order to better understand the differences and similarities here detected between biomes and climatic regions.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>36197927</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0275464</doi><tpages>e0275464</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2888-6061</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-8549</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0275464-e0275464
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2721593409
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
subjects Agriculture
Aquatic biota
Aquatic environment
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomes
Biota
Catchments
Comparative analysis
Creeks & streams
Datasets
Deforestation
Ecological function
Ecology and Environmental Sciences
Ecosystems
Environmental aspects
Forests
Morphology
People and places
Physical Sciences
Riparian forests
Rivers
Savannahs
Stream ecology
Streams
Temperate forests
Transportation corridors
Tropical environments
Vegetation
Wood
title Wood stock in neotropical streams: Quantifying and comparing instream wood among biomes and regions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T20%3A00%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Wood%20stock%20in%20neotropical%20streams:%20Quantifying%20and%20comparing%20instream%20wood%20among%20biomes%20and%20regions&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Saraiva,%20Sarah%20O&rft.date=2022-10-05&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0275464&rft.epage=e0275464&rft.pages=e0275464-e0275464&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0275464&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA721050744%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2721593409&rft_id=info:pmid/36197927&rft_galeid=A721050744&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_5dcb24059a4f49c5854ce389a78d9287&rfr_iscdi=true