Wikipedia

User talk:Mariabiacortez/sandbox

< User talk:Mariabiacortez
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Bludgeon4U in topic OVERALL COMMENTS:
Learn more about this page

WIKIPDEIA PEER REVIEW

Heading text

edit

Review by Indah B. Huegele.

COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS:

edit

Campro rupestre (opening paragraph)

edit

• Semi-colon not necessary in the first sentence. Try breaking the sentence up or use a word like “including” instead. • Rather than “currently” try “recently”. • A map would be very nice indeed. Thank you.

Abiotic Aspects

edit

• (1st paragraph) Who is “Silveira”? If this person is not a very important person from the perspective of this topic, then including their name is extraneous information, especially for the first sentence of a Wikipedia paragraph. • (1st paragraph) The second sentence sounds like a better opening to this paragraph. • (2nd paragraph) In the last sentence, “because of that” should have a comma after it. Also, something like “this” or “these conditions” might be better. • Good job linking to other pages.

The OCBIL theory and campo rupestre

edit

• (2nd sentence) Something less argumentative might be better, for example: “These landscapes are often expected to have high numbers of endemic old and rare lineages specialized in… .” • Again, using an author’s (Hopper’s) name here seems irrelevant to the article, unless he is particularly important in the larger context of this topic (e.g. he might be representative of a particular scientific camp).

Flora

edit

• (1st paragraph) I got confused; the second sentence listed certain families that were dominant, then the third sentence said that “few plant families” are predominate. This doesn’t seem very clear to me. • (2nd paragraph) Again, I wouldn’t mind this in a scientific paper, but Wikipedia articles don’t need the extraneous information of Author names (“Jacobi and Do Carmo”). I have no clue what beta diversity is. Please put a link to more information on this, explain this, or refrain from mentioning the “beta” part. • (3rd paragraph) The opening of the third paragraph is a good opening sentence because it tells me the main idea before going into more depth. This even seems like a good opening for the entire flora section. I would highly suggest making more paragraphs begin this way. Fauna • Fine section, but no pictures?

Conservation

edit

• Is campos rupestres supposed to be italicized? It seemed inconsistently formatted. Also, something more direct, like “The main threats to the campos rupestres come from mining…” might sound better. • The information here is good, but it seems a little too argumentative; the text here (particularly starting with “In 2005…”) tries to force a conclusion on the readers (e.g. “bringing awareness… is necessary” or “This situation is only worsened by… the misconception”). Wikipedia articles report other people’s findings and opinions, but they don’t try to come to their own independent conclusions. Try something that is a little less biased, perhaps something like “General misconceptions that grasslands and rocky outcrops are poor areas in terms of biodiversity… have only worsened this situation.” • “Facilitates” should be “facilitate”. • In the last sentence of the last paragraph, cut out everything before “Even lineages that rely on fire… .” Also, try something like “… seed banks and resprouter morphology can be severely affected by frequent fire regimes.” References • Good. Nice number of references, with most having links.

OVERALL COMMENTS:

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

• The information in this article is good, but it lacks clarity. Names of specific authors are used inconsistently for no obvious reason, making them extraneous. Furthermore, paragraphs often lack a good opening sentence, making it hard to discern what the main relevant points are to this article. A few sentences have grammatical mistakes. Though the text is good about referencing other Wikipedia pages, some sentences use specific terms that are either unnecessary or should be explained. Overall, the article is a very good start; it has good information about what is probably an underexposed topic. However, it could be more succinct and clear, and is in need of better flow and organization.


My sincerest apologies for not publishing these comments on the wikipedia talk page. I did not realize I was supposed to copy my peer review here. Bludgeon4U (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comments from Emily

edit

[Please plan to keep the box that's on the right-hand side of the existing page, it's nicely formatted. Will the title for this page be Campo rupestre or Campos rupestres?

Campo rupestre

edit

[Will this replace the text at the top of the current page? It seems they should be integrated together, since there is useful information in both places.] The campo rupestre ("rupestrian grassland") is a discontinuous ecoregion occurring across three different biomes in Brazil: Cerrado, Atlantic Forest and Caatinga [all of these need to link to the appropriate wiki pages]. Originally, campo rupestre was used to characterize the montane vegetation of the Espinhaço Range, but recently this term has been broadly applied by the scientific community to define high altitudinal fire-prone areas dominated by grasslands and rocky outcrops. [1]

 
Photo depicting grassy vegetation typically occurring in the campo rupestre
 
Landscape showing the mountainous region observed from the top of an area of campo rupestre
 
Picture depicting rocky vegetation typically occurring in the campo rupestre
 
Photo showing the shrubby vegetation typically occurring in the campo rupestre


Abiotic aspects

edit

Campo rupestre (sensu lato) occupies less than one percent of the Brazilian territory, 66,447km2, and it is concentrated mostly in the states of Minas Gerais, Bahia and Goiás.[2] This ecoregion consists of a series of relatively small and isolated grasslands and rocky outcrops mostly distributed in the Espinhaço Range in eastern Brazil, surrounded by lowland and montane forests.[2] It also forms discontinuous enclaves in other mountain ranges, such as Mantiqueira Range, Serra dos Órgãos, Serra da Canastra, Serra do Caparaó, Chapada Diamantina and many others.[3]

Campo rupestre is found at elevations from 900 to 2,033 meters (2,952 to 6,670 ft) and is characterized by dry winters and wet summers, strong winds and high levels of irradiance. [2] The soil in this ecoregion is nutrient-poor, extremely shallow and young.[4] The geological formation subtending this impoverished soil is ancient, stable, weathered and diverse; campo rupestre areas occur on quartzite, granite, migmatites, gneiss, metarenites, and itabirites.[3][4] The soil composition represents a challenge for vegetation to establish; plants must overcome very low levels of P, high levels of Al (in some areas), acidity and low water retention (due to shallowness of the soil).[4] Because of these conditions, the flora thriving in the campo rupestre has developed several adaptations, such as carnivory, C4 metabolism, superficial root systems (to absorb periodic rain water faster), underground storage, stomatal crypts, etc.[2]

 
Soil photographed at Serra do Cipó in Minas Gerais
 
Soil at Chapada Diamantina in Bahia


The OCBIL theory and campo rupestre

edit

Old climatically buffered and infertile landscapes (OCBILs) are areas distributed around the globe that potentially share both abiotic and biotic commonalities. These landscapes are often expected to harbor a high number of endemic, old and rare lineages specialized in obtaining nutritional elements from impoverished soils and presenting biological adaptations to cope with harsh environmental conditions.[5] There are at least three areas located in three different continents that can be characterized as ancient and climatically and geologically stable; the Pantepui Highlands in Venezuela, South Africa's Greater Cape and the Southwest Australian Floristic region.[5] Even though the campo rupestre [fix italics; should this be plural?] in Brazil were not formerly acknowledged as OCBIL areas, Hopper mentions that "parts of Brazil" could actually be identified as this particular landscape [needs a citation, since you're saying Hopper said this]. Moreover, the resemblance of this Brazilian ecoregion with the areas mentioned above has been highlighted by other researchers, who suggest that the campo rupestre should actually be formally considered as an OCBIL.[1][2][6][7] The relevance of understanding the campo rupestre as part of these landscapes implies the recognition of common patterns among these areas, which can be very beneficial not only for establishing international collaborative work but more importantly as a way to better understand similar processes threatening the conservation of this delicate ecoregion.[1]

Biotic aspects

edit

Flora

edit

The campo rupestre ecoregion consists of a distinct set of habitats where open vegetation prevails and is subject to harsh climatic and pedological conditions. Rocky outcrops, grasslands and shrublands account for the most common habitats and are dominated by lineages such as Velloziaceae, Cyperaceae, Poaceae and Eriocaulaceae.[8] Although few plant families predominate in this ecoregion, species richness is high; the Espinhaço Range alone accounts for seven percent of the Brazilian flora, while all the mountain ranges comprising the entirety of campo rupestre harbor approximately 15% of Brazil's plant diversity.[2][9] The relatively high levels of diversity in the campo rupestre can be explained by the environmental requirements unique to each habitat (or micro-habitat), which vary according to a wide range in latitude and altitude.[10] Insularity can also foster diversity in the campos rupestres; given its discontinuous distribution across several mountain ranges overcoming long-distance dispersal can pose a challenge to many lineages.[11]

Coupled with antiquity, the diversity of habitats found within the campos rupestres leads to many lineages being adapted to specific environmental conditions. As a consequence, the number of endemic and rare species is very elevated; around 30% of the flora is restricted to this ecoregion.[10] Within the families Velloziaceae and Eriocaulaceae around 70% of all species are endemic to the campo rupestre; a number that possibly has grown over the past 20 years since it was last investigated.[12] High levels of endemism can also be identified by beta diversity analyses, which measure differentiation levels between two areas. A study conducted across three different ironstone sites (itabirite) in the campo rupestre identified the proportion of shared lineages as less than 5%, demonstrating a high level of beta diversity among the sites.[13]

Predominance of species varies according to the different soil types. Grasses typically occur in sandy soils, with many species from the graminoid [and link to wiki page for this] families Cyperaceae, Poaceae and Eriocaulaceae, whereas the rocky outcrops are usually dominated by orchids, bromeliads and species of Clusiaceae and Velloziaceae.[14] The List of Species of the Brazilian Flora published in 2015 around 5000 plant species for the campo rupestre; according to REFLORA this number has currently increased in [need to include a date; something like "by 2019 this number had increased by an additional 100 species"] about 100 species, if the database is queried for plants occurring in "Highland Rocky Field".[15] However, due to the heterogeneity of vegetation types assembled in the campo rupestre and increasing knowledge in floristic composition, this number is most likely underestimated and needs to be reassessed.

 
Member of the lineage Eriocaulaceae
 
Member of the lineage Eriocaulaceae
 
Member of the lineage Velloziaceae
 
Member of the lineage Velloziaceae

Fauna

edit

Indigenous mammals include tapirs, capybaras, bush dogs, and armadillos. Indigenous reptiles include crocodiles, lizards, tortoises and iguanas. The riparian zones offer habitat for birds, reptiles, and mammals that require more water than the plateau species.

Endangered mammals include fossorial giant rat (Kunsia fronto), orange-brown Atlantic tree-rat (Phyllomys brasiliensis) and giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis). Endangered amphibians include Izecksohn's treefrog (Bokermannohyla izecksohni) and the reticulate leaf frog (Phyllomedusa ayeaye) . Endangered birds include Brazilian merganser (Mergus octosetaceus) and yellow-bellied seedeater (Sporophila nigricollis).

Conservation

edit

The main threats to the campo rupestre come from mining, extraction of native plants, cattle ranching, tourism, urban expansion, climate change and invasive species.[10] Because this ecoregion has received far less attention from both the scientific community and the general public it stands out as a delicate area in terms of conservation status. In fact, in 2005, UNESCO emphasized the importance of conserving the campo rupestre by recognizing the Espinhaço Range as part of the Biosphere Reserve, with two-thirds of its 3 076 million hectares constituting conservation units.[16] Still, few scientific studies have addressed the biodiversity and conservation of the campo rupestre when compared to forested regions in Brazil.[10] Moreover, even though tourism has grown over the past four decades due to facilitated access, the general public is still unaware of the ecosystem services this region promotes and the benefits of preserving the campo rupestre.

Monoculture stands out as another relevant issue affecting the campo rupestre; eucalyptus plantations represent a serious threat due to their ability to thrive in poor soils, such as the ones found throughout this ecoregion.[17] General misconceptions that grasslands and rocky outcrops present low levels of biodiversity, given their dry and "homogeneous" aspect, have only worsened this situation.[17] The eucalyptus plantations not only reduce the number of native species but they also promote intense fragmentation of the campo rupestre; in less than 20 years the southern portion of the Espinhaço Range registered an impressive increase in the planted area of eucalyptus (30 thousand hectares), drastically intensifying habitat fragmentation.[17]

Fire in the campo rupestre symbolizes both a threat as well a natural phenomenon; readily available fuel combined with environmental conditions facilitates the occurrence of natural and anthropic-related fires.[18] While fire boosts the reproductive system of some species by positively impacting the number of seeds or seedling recruitment it can also negatively affect the sparse and relictual forests intermingled with the more common rocky outcrops and grasslands.[18] Even lineages that rely on fire can be negatively influenced by it [remove, sounds confusing] depending on its frequency; seed banks can be severely affected by frequent fire regime as well as morphological traits on resprouters. [rephrase this, it's a bit confusing as currently written][18]

 
Photo showing human occupation in the vicinity of Chapada Diamantina


  1. ^ a b c Morellato, L. Patrícia C.; Silveira, Fernando A. O. (2018-01-01). "Plant life in campo rupestre: New lessons from an ancient biodiversity hotspot". Flora. Plant life on campo rupestre, a megadiverse Neotropical old-growth grassland. 238: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.flora.2017.12.001. ISSN 0367-2530.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Silveira, Fernando A. O.; Negreiros, Daniel; Barbosa, Newton P. U.; Buisson, Elise; Carmo, Flávio F.; Carstensen, Daniel W.; Conceição, Abel A.; Cornelissen, Tatiana G.; Echternacht, Lívia (2016-06-01). "Ecology and evolution of plant diversity in the endangered campo rupestre: a neglected conservation priority". Plant and Soil. 403 (1): 129–152. doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2637-8. ISSN 1573-5036.
  3. ^ a b Schaefer, Carlos E.G.R.; Corrêa, Guilherme R.; Candido, Hugo G.; Arruda, Daniel M.; Nunes, Jaquelina A.; Araujo, Raphael W.; Rodrigues, Priscyla M.S.; Fernandes Filho, Elpídio I.; Pereira, Aianã F.S. (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "The Physical Environment of Rupestrian Grasslands (Campos Rupestres) in Brazil: Geological, Geomorphological and Pedological Characteristics, and Interplays", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 15–53, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_2, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  4. ^ a b c Schaefer, Carlos E.; Cândido, Hugo G.; Corrêa, Guilherme Resende; Nunes, Jaquelina A.; Arruda, Daniel M. (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "Soils Associated with Rupestrian Grasslands", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 55–69, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_3, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  5. ^ a b Hopper, Stephen D. (2009-07-14). "OCBIL theory: towards an integrated understanding of the evolution, ecology and conservation of biodiversity on old, climatically buffered, infertile landscapes". Plant and Soil. 322 (1–2): 49–86. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0068-0. ISSN 0032-079X.
  6. ^ Abrahão, A.; Lambers, H.; Sawaya, A. C. H. F.; Mazzafera, P.; Oliveira, R. S. (2014-10-01). "Convergence of a specialized root trait in plants from nutrient-impoverished soils: phosphorus-acquisition strategy in a nonmycorrhizal cactus". Oecologia. 176 (2): 345–355. doi:10.1007/s00442-014-3033-4. ISSN 1432-1939.
  7. ^ Oliveira, Rafael S.; Galvão, Hugo C.; Campos, Mariana C. R. de; Eller, Cleiton B.; Pearse, Stuart J.; Lambers, Hans (2015). "Mineral nutrition of campos rupestres plant species on contrasting nutrient-impoverished soil types". New Phytologist. 205 (3): 1183–1194. doi:10.1111/nph.13175. ISSN 1469-8137.
  8. ^ Conceição, Abel A.; Rapini, Alessandro; do Carmo, Flávio F.; Brito, Juliana C.; Silva, Gabriela A.; Neves, Sâmia P. S.; Jacobi, Claudia M. (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "Rupestrian Grassland Vegetation, Diversity, and Origin", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 105–127, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_6, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  9. ^ Neves, Ana Carolina de Oliveira; Barbieri, Alisson Flávio; Pacheco, André Aroeira; Resende, Fernando de Moura; Braga, Rodrigo Fagundes; Azevedo, Alexsander Araujo; Fernandes, G. Wilson (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "The Human Dimension in the Espinhaço Mountains: Land Conversion and Ecosystem Services", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 501–530, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_21, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  10. ^ a b c d Fernandes, G. Wilson (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "The Megadiverse Rupestrian Grassland", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 3–14, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_1, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  11. ^ Jacobi, Claudia M.; do Carmo, Flávio F.; Vincent, Regina C.; Stehmann, João R. (2007-06-01). "Plant communities on ironstone outcrops: a diverse and endangered Brazilian ecosystem". Biodiversity and Conservation. 16 (7): 2185–2200. doi:10.1007/s10531-007-9156-8. ISSN 1572-9710.
  12. ^ Giulietti, AM; Pirani, JR; Harley, RM (1997). "Espinhaço Range region, eastern Brazil". In Davis, SD; Heywood, VH; Herrera-Macbryde, O; Villa-Lobos, J; Hamilton, AC (eds.). Centres of plant diversity: a guide and strategy for their conservation. Cambridge: IUCN Publication Unit. pp. 397–404.
  13. ^ Jacobi, CM; Do Carmo, FF (2008). "Diversidade dos campos rupestres ferruginosos no Quadrilátero Ferrífero, MG". Megadiversidade. 4: 26–33.
  14. ^ Conceição, Abel A.; Pirani, José R. (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "Succession on the Rocky Outcrop Vegetation: A Rupestrian Grassland Scheme", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 181–206, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_9, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  15. ^ "Flora do Brasil 2020". floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br. Retrieved 2019-02-09.
  16. ^ "Putting a price on conservation". Natural Sciences. 10: 20–23. 2012.
  17. ^ a b c Ribas, Rodrigo Pinheiro; Caetano, Rogério Machado; Gontijo, Bernardo Machado; de Azevedo Xavier, João Henrique (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "Afforestation in the Rupestrian Grasslands: The Augmenting Pressure of Eucalyptus", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 395–414, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_17, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09
  18. ^ a b c Figueira, José Eugênio Côrtes; Ribeiro, Katia Torres; Ribeiro, Marilene Cardoso; Jacobi, Claudia Maria; França, Helena; de Oliveira Neves, Ana Carolina; Conceição, Abel Augusto; Mourão, Fabiana Alves; Souza, Jumara Marques (2016), Fernandes, Geraldo Wilson (ed.), "Fire in Rupestrian Grasslands: Plant Response and Management", Ecology and Conservation of Mountaintop grasslands in Brazil, Springer International Publishing, pp. 415–448, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29808-5_18, ISBN 9783319298085, retrieved 2019-02-09 {{citation}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 5 (help)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mariabiacortez/sandbox&oldid=890498495"