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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-10, Vol.17 (10), p.e0275464-e0275464 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & 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 |