Reply to Biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: A role for systematic conservation planning

OLIVEIRA, UBIRAJARA; SOARES-FILHO, BRITALDO SILVEIRA; BRESCOVIT, ANTONIO D.; DE CARVALHO, CLAUDIO J.B.; REZENDE, DANIELLA T.; LEITE, FELIPE SÁ FORTES; BARBOSA, JOÃO PAULO PEIXOTO PENA; STEHMANN, JOÃO RENATO; VASCONCELOS, MARCELO FERREIRA DE; DE MARCO, PAULO; FERRO, VIVIANE GIANLUPPI; SANTOS, ADALBERTO J.; PAGLIA, ADRIANO PEREIRA; SILVA, DANIEL PAIVA; BATISTA, JOÃO AGUIAR NOGUEIRA; ASCHER, JOHN S.; LÖWENBERG-NETO, PETER

Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

Associacao Brasileira de Ciencia Ecologica e Conservacao

Año: 2018 vol. 16 p. 166 - 167

2530-0644

Previous article in issueNext article in issue Fonseca and Venticinque (2018) (hereafter FV) present a critical assessment of a paper in which we attempt to estimate the biodiversity coverage of the Brazilian conservation units (Oliveira et al., 2017). We appreciate their contribution to this important debate. We have no doubts that conservation planning should be based on a variety of information sources, including not only the coverage of species? ranges but also the contribution of each area to the preservation of ecosystem services, landscape features and socioeconomic and cultural aspects. This systematic and integrative conservation planning is certainly a complex process, which requires the contribution of experts from different fields. However, we have shown, in this reply, that our paper (Oliveira et al., 2017) aims to quantify the knowledge and protection gaps of biodiversity in protected areas, not to propose priority areas or to test whether the current proposal of priority areas is efficient. Objectives and the conclusions of our paper. We hope this short response can clarify this debate.