Systematics and Biodiversity (2010), 8(2): 169–175

Perspective

Biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in the Amazon

ADRIAN ANTONIO GARDA1,2, JOSE MARIA CARDOSO DA SILVA2,3 & PATRICIA CARVALHO BAIAO2,3

1Departamento de Botanica, Ecologia e Zoologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte2Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Biodiversidade Tropical, Universidade Federal do Amapa3Conservation International Brazil, Rua Antonio Barreto, 130 4 andar-Sala 406, Ed. Village Office – Umarizal, 66055-050, Belem, PA,Brazil

(Received 23 January 2010; revised 5 April 2010; accepted 7 April 2010)

The Amazon Forest is the most biodiverse region on earth and is central in the struggle to conserve biodiversity and controlglobal warming. Biodiversity is not homogeneously distributed in the region, but concentrated within areas of endemism(AOE) that vary in size, degree of deforestation and human pressure. Unfortunately, these differences have not been used toguide governmental policies, land occupation and conservation. Instead, a violent occupation process started 40 years agoand marked by a frontier economy pattern is still under way. To change this course and truly promote a sustainabledevelopment mode in the Amazon region, we argue that an ambitious plan that includes completely halting illegaldeforestation is needed. This plan should start by resolving land tenure issues and correctly assigning specific land uses.The three major land-use types in the region include protected areas (49% of the region), unprotected forests (39%) andaltered lands (12–17%). Changing the current model of development implies shifting future uses and increasing support forthese areas. This translates into three major goals: (1) adequately maintaining the integrity of the current protected areas,(2) protecting unprotected forests and (3) promoting higher productivity in deforested areas. The proportion of land-usetypes directed to each of these goals will depend on local socio-economic needs and conservation status, but must considerthe AOE where it is present. Regional biodiversity corridors for each AOE should be planned and integrated into a large,Pan-Amazon biodiversity corridor to maintain the equilibrium of climatic and hydrological cycles. Politically, this corridorshould aim at the integration of development and conservation plans beyond each country’s boundary, minimizing impactsof infrastructure development and maximizing social and environmental benefits.

Key words: Amazon Forest, conservation, endemism, sustainable development

IntroductionThe Amazon Forest is the most biodiverse region on earthand is a central battlefield on the struggle to conserve bio-diversity, control global warming, and ensure the sustain-ability of environmental services (Mittermeier et al., 2003;Foley et al., 2007). Covering more than six million squarekilometres (roughly 60% the size of the USA) and spanningnine South American countries, it harbours at least 40 000different plants and 5526 vertebrate species (Mittermeieret al., 2002). This biodiversity, however, is not homoge-neously distributed (Silva et al., 2005), and the search forpatterns and explanations for species’ distributions withinthe region has led authors to propose a plethora of specia-tion theories and biogeographical processes responsible forproducing such diversity (Haffer, 2008).

Correspondence to: Adrian Antonio Garda. E-mail: pseudis@gmail.com

One of the most striking biodiversity patterns in theAmazon is the presence of distinct areas of endemism(AOE) (Silva, 2005), with considerable congruence amongdisparate vertebrate taxa (Hall & Harvey, 2002). Wallace(1852) first divided the region into four AOE based onthe distribution of primate species. Several authors work-ing on various taxa further extended and redefined some ofthese areas to reflect distributional patterns of birds (Haffer,1969; Bates et al., 1998; Prum, 1988), reptiles and amphib-ians (Ron, 2000), primates (Silva & Oren, 1996), rodents(Patton et al., 2000), plants (Prance, 1982), bees (Camargo& Pedro, 2003), and butterflies (Hall & Harvey, 2002).

Patterns of species distributions in the Amazon Forestare as complex as the mechanisms that generated them(Silva, 2005). A subdivision of the region into operationalunits is a useful starting point to understand biogeograph-ical patterns and to test hypotheses on potential processesto explain the high biodiversity in the region, even though

ISSN 1477-2000 print / 1478-0933 onlineC© 2010 The Natural History Museum

DOI: 10.1080/14772000.2010.484435

170 A. A. Garda et al.

Fig. 1. Northwest portion of South America showing eightAmazon areas of endemism. Boundaries between areas corre-spond to major rivers in the region.

a single set of AOE applicable to all organisms is not alikely outcome (Bates et al., 1998). One such proposed setof AOE uses major rivers as boundaries (Fig. 1). The subdi-vision, however, should not imply that rivers are necessarilythe geographic barrier responsible for the isolation and dif-ferentiation. Gene flow among frog populations, for exam-ple, is not restricted by rivers (Gascon et al., 1996, 1998).Nevertheless, a considerable proportion of endemism foranurans exists in the Guiana Shield AOE (46.7%; Senaris& MacCulloch, 2005), which is operationally delimited bythe Orinoco, Negro and Amazon Rivers (Gibbs & Barron,1993).

Despite the widespread recognition of this heterogene-ity in species distributions, government policies on landoccupation, conservation planning and development havenot accounted for such idiosyncrasies in the region (Vieiraet al., 2005). Areas of endemism vary dramatically in size(1.7 million km2 in Guiana and 0.2 million km2 in Belem),proportion of forest cover lost (2% in Napo to 67% inBelem), and degree of protection (62.5% in Imeri and17.6% in Belem), and hence demand different approachesto ensure long-term biodiversity conservation, sustainableuse of resources, environmental services and reductionof global warming-related emissions (Silva et al., 2005;Soares-Filho et al., 2006) (Fig. 2). Instead of relying onsuch differences to plan development and conservation,since the end of the 1960s the region has undergone aviolent occupation process marked by a ‘frontier economy’pattern, where progress is viewed as endless prosperity andeconomic growth based on the exploitation of natural re-sources equally perceived as infinite (Becker, 2001).

Besides a central role in the biodiversity crisis, green-house gas emissions from deforestation and its contributionto global warming were responsible for most of the world-wide media attention on the Amazon in the past decade. Theneed to maintain key environmental services drew general

concern over deforestation in the tropics not only amongenvironmentalists, but also among politicians, the generalpublic, and even the private sector. Despite inconsistencyin general estimates (Houghton et al., 2001; Sales et al.,2007), the Amazon is likely one of the largest above-groundcarbon repositories (Malhi et al., 1999), with 90 to 140million tons of carbon stocked in the region (Soares-Filhoet al., 2006). Deforestation can further cause local, regionaland global climatic and hydrologic changes related to watervapour production and evapotranspiration that will impactrainfall locally and globally (Avissar et al., 2006).

The global importance of the Amazon to climate andbiodiversity crises calls for planned actions suited to theregion’s needs. Herein, we argue that an ambitious plan isneeded to preserve the Amazon Forest. Considering that theregion is composed of a mosaic of AOE separated by majorrivers, we suggest that a regional biodiversity corridor mustbe planned and implemented within each area to integrate acontinental-scale corridor. The first, most important step inovercoming the exogenous, unsuitable development modelthat has been in place for 40 years is to correctly zone the re-gion, meaning each parcel must be assigned an appropriateuse. Also, illegal deforestation must be halted completely.

Zero deforestation: strategicapproach for sustainable developmentin the AmazonDeforestation in the Amazon Region (especially in Brazil)has gained increasing media attention in the past 10 yearsbecause of the recognition of its major role in biodiversityloss and carbon emissions (Wilson, 1992; Cramer et al.,2004). Furthermore, real-time satellite monitoring by gov-ernmental and non-governmental agencies in Brazil (INPE,2008) has created a rollercoaster of euphoria and concern innational and international media over monthly commodity-related fluctuations in deforestation rates.

Recently, researchers from Brazilian Amazon institutionsalong with government and non-governmental organiza-tions have called for a complete halt on illegal deforesta-tion, an initiative that aims at a zero-deforestation rate forthe Brazilian Amazon (Vieira et al., 2005). Although at firstglance this may seem unrealistic and too restrictive, thiscall does not represent a forest preservation-only approachagainst development and economic activities in the region.Instead, it is a genuine proposal, and most likely the onlyviable route, to avoid a social and economic catastrophe inthe region.

The current model of colonization and development inthe Brazilian Amazon is marked by a boom-and-bust pat-tern, where the human development index (HDI) risesrapidly initially but falls again once the frontier has moved,leaving the region equally poor and undeveloped but with a

Biodiversity and conservation of the Amazon Forest 171

huge environmental deficit (Becker, 2001; Rodrigues et al.,2009). Zero deforestation would work by adapting currentlegal property frameworks for the Amazon region and bycreating new and modern incentives on private and gov-ernmental lands in the region (Vieira et al., 2005). Cou-pled with this outdated model, governmental developmentplans that include large-scale infrastructure projects haveupgraded the scale of threats in the past decade. Severalprojects included in IIRSA (Initiative for the Integration ofRegional Infrastructure in South America) are now beingimplemented and will give access to remote and untouchedareas in western Amazonia. Controversial projects such aslarge hydroelectric dams (e.g. the Madeira River complex)and highways (e.g. Manaus – Rio Branco, in Brazil, andthe Hacia el Norte project, in Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru)are gaining shape in South America under the auspices ofthe Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). Most recently,the Brazilian Government launched the second phase of theGrowth Acceleration Program (PAC), a multi-year infra-structure programme that will invest US$ 526 billion from2011–2014 and includes, for instance, the Belo Monte damin the Xingu River and five new hydroelectric dams inthe currently pristine Tapajos River. These projects, if notwell-planned and conducted, have the potential to severelyhamper any conservation plan for the Amazon.

Three major types of land use exist in the Amazon re-gion: (1) deforested areas under different types of humanoccupation (12–17%); (2) protected areas and indigenouslands (49%); and (3) unprotected forested areas (34–39%).A comprehensive plan aiming at the sustainable use of theAmazon Forest needs to consider these different uses andplan their future uses correctly (Fig. 3). In the BrazilianAmazon, most registered and legalized rural properties areconcentrated on old frontier regions, in States where thedeforestation arc has passed and moved northward. Be-cause most rural properties in this old frontier region havecleared more forest than the percentage allowed by cur-rent Brazilian legislation (20% of the area), a completehalt on deforestation would not impact their local economyseverely (Rodrigues et al., 2009). On the contrary, it wouldopen venues for forest restoration and carbon sequestrationprojects through the establishment of bilateral agreementsmediated by state and federal governments. The aim of suchagreements should be the restoration of environmental ser-vices essential for agricultural and cattle ranching activi-ties in these modified areas, as well as the development ofhigher-yield production techniques.

Research institutes and non-governmental organizationscould establish partnerships with landowners to providetechnical support to map environmental and social pres-sures to ensure a proper management of their properties.Federal and state governments should support the creationof private protected areas (a category recognized by thecurrent Brazilian environmental legislation) that would beintegrated with legal reserves and permanent protection

areas (hill and river margins) creating a mosaic of areasthat harbour endangered species, preserve essential envi-ronmental services, or promote connections among largerfragments. Large companies that buy products from the re-gion could offer differentiated prices and give priority forproducers that create private reserves within their property,promoting adequate environmental management of theirareas. The few properties that comply with the current leg-islation (20% or less of their area deforested) could receiveincentives such as federal tax exemptions, easier accessto credit and technical support from research agencies anduniversities to increase productivity in areas under intensiveuse.

However, the majority of the Brazilian Amazon (whichcomprises 60% of the Amazon region) is not composed ofprivate, altered lands. Public lands of two categories com-pose most of the region: (1) those with defined uses; and(2) those for which uses have not been defined (Fig. 3). Ar-eas that have been designated for specific uses include alltypes of protection areas – sustainable use, strict protectionand indigenous lands – as well as settlements. These areasamount to a large portion of the Brazilian Amazon (49%)and are under the administration of state or federal gov-ernment. Even though adequate implementation of theseareas and the efficiency of their management is a matter ofcontempt, their formal establishment alone has proven tohelp control land use and halt deforestation and degrada-tion, and even modest investment can significantly improvetheir efficiency (Bruner et al., 2001). Their adequate main-tenance is therefore an intrinsic necessity and major partof state and federal government’s role to ensure protectionand/or sustainable use of their resources, depending on theircategory (i.e. sustainable use or strict protection) (Walkeret al., 2009).

One of the most important factors contributing to the lackof control on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is landtenure (Fearnside, 2008). This problem pertains to the thirdtype of land use in the Amazon, which are public lands lack-ing a formal designation. These include remote and unoc-cupied lands, occupied areas that still have forest cover, andoccupied and degraded areas. They are currently disputedby loggers, landless migrants, gold miners, traditional andindigenous communities, and all the social actors involvedin the predatory model of colonization that has been imple-mented in the region for the past 40 years (Fearnside, 2008),and range geographically from near or within the deforesta-tion arc to isolated and inaccessible areas. These lands arethe only venue for the maintenance of such a voracious andexogenous development model involving predatory use ofresources in the Amazon. They amount to 39% of the regionand are pivotal for the future sustainability of the Amazonforest because they can either fuel the existence of the oldmodel for a couple more decades or completely change thecourse of development, conservation and sustainable use ofthe standing forest (Fig. 3).

172 A. A. Garda et al.

Chasing the elusive goal:sustainabilityTo reach the elusive goal of sustainability in the Amazon itis crucial that land uses are mapped onto areas of endemism(Silva et al., 2005). This simple exercise with the Brazilianportions of each AOE clarifies how biodiversity can be pro-tected within each area and what economic part they canplay in the future of the region (Fig. 3). Such superimposi-tion unravels discrete patterns and allows AOE to be classi-fied into three groups (Fig. 2). The first group comprises theBelem AOE, which is highly deforested (more than 60%),insufficiently protected (less than 20%) and has few un-protected forested areas (20%). The second group includesXingu, Tapajos, Rondonia, Inambari and Napo AOEs, withlow to moderate deforestation (2–26%) and degree of pro-tection (27–45%) and extensive unprotected forest areas(35–52%). Guiana and Imeri comprise the third group, withlow deforestation (<4%), high degrees of protection (above59%), and moderate-size unprotected forests (32–40%).

This view of the region underscores three major strategiesneeded to ensure conservation in the Amazon: (1) mainte-nance of the integrity of existing protected areas; (2) pro-tection of unprotected forests; and (3) promotion of higherproductivity in deforested areas (Fig. 3). Although super-ficially simple, these objectives are hard to achieve due tointrinsic peculiarities of the region, such as large territo-ries, past history of unsustainable development activities,local stakeholders and political boundaries. The desired re-sults can only be achieved through formal protection andprogrammes that span economic, social, political and lawenforcement spheres.

Fig. 2. Conservation status of each area of endemism within theAmazon region in Brazil. Upper black bars indicate areas undersome type of formal protection, middle grey bars indicate un-protected forests, and white lower bars show the proportion ofseverely altered areas. Numbers indicate absolute percentages foreach category of use.

Fig. 3. Proposed contributions of the three major types of landuses to the sustainability of the Brazilian Amazon region. Arrowthicknesses are proportional to the contribution of each land typethrough the indicated uses. Percentages inside lower boxes indicatethe proportion of Amazon region under each land use.

Conservation of protected areas can only be achievedthrough effective management. This includes: (1) minimalinfrastructure and dedicated staff; (2) participative gover-nance systems involving local stakeholders; (3) simple,modern, and agile management plans; and (4) long-termfinancial sustainability mechanisms to ensure proper andconstant funding over large geographic areas.

Protecting areas still covered by forests calls for officialdelineation of adequate uses for each area. Because such ar-eas in most Amazon countries are government-owned, thisis an achievable goal and areas should be designated for spe-cific uses based on local socioeconomic and environmentalcontexts. These uses include: (a) the creation of strict pro-tection areas to ensure ecosystem and species protection;(b) creation of indigenous territories to guarantee recogni-tion and protection of isolated indigenous people; (c) cre-ation of sustainable use protected areas (such as NationalForests and Extractivist Reserves) to orderly assess naturalresources and guarantee the rights of traditional commu-nities; and (d) pilot programmes of forest concessions tothe private sector and payments for environmental services.Costs to create protected areas are much higher where thedeforestation arc has passed because of the smaller propor-tion of government-owned lands. This intrinsic differencedemands contrasting strategies for AOE belonging to thethree groups outlined above. The role of private protectedareas will be crucial in regions such as Belem AOE. In theseareas, few state or federal strict protection areas, indigenouslands and even sustainable development areas will be cre-ated. The second and third groups of AOE have a muchlower opportunity cost and present unique possibilities toprotect the largest blocks of tropical forests in the world.The role of the government will be crucial in both areas,to support the creation of private protection areas and topromote the conservation of large blocks of tropical forest.

Biodiversity and conservation of the Amazon Forest 173

Luckily, there has been political will to specify appropri-ate land uses, create protected areas and consolidate bio-diversity corridors in the Amazon in the past decade, asevidenced by a closer look at the achievements in someBrazilian States. Local governments represented mostly bya new generation of politicians aided by national and inter-national NGOs achieved significant results in the past eightyears. Since 2002, a 3.8 million hectares strict protectionarea and a 2.6 million hectares state forest were createdin Amapa State. Along with 13 other protected areas, thestate now has 72% of its territory under some type of formalprotection and more than 90% of its ecosystems untouched.The effort is echoed in the neighbouring Para State, with thecreation in 2006 of two strict protection areas (5.4 millionhectares) and three state forests (7.4 million hectares) alongthe border with Amapa. In Amazonas, nine million hectaresof state-protected areas were created since 2002 and thestate has taken the lead in developing a modern legislationfor payments for environmental services. Acre State, whohas pioneered efforts to build an economy based on sustain-able extraction of forest goods (e.g. forestry, Brazil nuts),has also created new protected areas. Together, these statesare currently implementing pilot REDD and conservationprojects with leading corporations and governments in theworld. Similar efforts have occurred in neighbouring coun-tries, such as Peru (that aims to reach zero deforestation in10 years), Guyana (that is building a low-carbon economybased on forest conservation) and Suriname (that is design-ing a long-term economic development plan termed GreenSuriname), underscoring a widespread trend to change landuses in the region.

Finally, more efficient use of degraded lands can only beachieved through policies aimed at sustainable agricultureand cattle ranching activities. The first step will be to solveland tenure disputes in the region, followed by not onlythe adoption of modern technologies by some producers,but by the modernization of transportation infrastructure toaggregate value to products and make them competitive inlocal and international markets. There are currently morethan 470 000 km2 of degraded lands in the Amazon re-gion, mostly in Brazil. These lands represent an area largerthan France or two of Brazil’s largest commodity produc-ing states – Parana and Rio Grande do Sul – and are highlyunderutilized. There is, therefore, no social or economicjustification to continue deforestation in the region (Vieiraet al., 2005).

Areas of endemism and biodiversitycorridors: an integrated modelHalting deforestation and ensuring biodiversity conserva-tion in the Amazon requires several distinct and integra-tive actions that involve political, social and economicinitiatives. However, even if these complex actions are

undertaken, the ultimate goal may not be reached if localidiosyncrasies are not accounted for in determining howconservation, development and restoration can contributeto this equation. A larger, continental-scale conservationplan that uses AOEs as geographic planning units is needed(Ayres & Best, 1979; Soule & Terborgh, 1999).

A regional biodiversity corridor should be planned foreach AOE, encompassing protected areas and buffer zones(Silva, 2005). This necessarily implies the creation of morestrict protection areas such as National Parks and Biologi-cal Reserves, which would constitute the central portions ofsuch corridors. Where this is not possible, stronger restric-tions in management plans should be applied for large ar-eas within sustainable use protection areas and indigenouslands. Well-structured conservation and development al-liances with indigenous communities will play a major rolein conservation and sustainable development in the Ama-zon (Zimmermann et al., 2001), given that almost one-fifthof the Brazilian Amazon (more than 100 million hectares)is currently protected as indigenous lands. Ideally, strictprotection areas would be at least 500 000 hectares in or-der to maintain viable populations of large predators andfrugivorous animals, landscape integrity and environmentalservices. Core strict protection areas should be surroundedby sustainable use protected areas and indigenous lands thatwould act as buffer zones for fragile areas. Lastly, areascurrently known to harbour significantly large numbers ofendemic species would require more protected areas, on av-erage, to represent all species and environmental processesadequately (Rodrigues & Gaston, 2001).

Ensuring the creation and implementation of biodiversitycorridors within each AOE, however, will not be enough tokeep the equilibrium of hydrologic and climatic cycles thatoperate at wider spatial and longer time scales. Becauseof the large carbon stock, reducing deforestation in theAmazon is a global challenge in the battle to halt globalwarming (IPCC, 2007). On a local and continental scale,deforestation reduces water vapour and evapotranspirationand causes rainfall reduction in the Amazon region, as wellas in the densely populated central and southern areas ofBrazil (Salati & Vose, 1984; Clement & Higuchi, 2006).Globally, simulations indicate that above a certain thresh-old deforestation can reduce spring rainfall in North Amer-ica somewhere between 10–20% (Avissar et al., 2006).Maintaining the hydrological cycle over the Amazon re-gion would require that forests be kept in 70–80% of theregion (Clement & Higuchi, 2006).

Maintaining hydrological and climatic processes requiresthat regional biodiversity corridors be integrated to form aPan-Amazon Biodiversity Corridor (PABC). The imme-diate objective of this large-scale corridor would be tointegrate national development plans into a single Pan-Amazonian strategy to end deforestation and foster a neweconomy based on standing forests. This would requirenot only decentralizing the governance over the region,

174 A. A. Garda et al.

empowering local municipalities, and a sustained capacitybuilding effort, but would also include payment for envi-ronmental services from other municipalities within eachcountry that lie outside the Amazon region but that de-pend directly on its integrity. A concerted action includingall eight countries within the Amazon region to reconcilenational conservation plans with a continental effort wouldalso be required. This would ensure minimizing the impactsof infrastructural developments while maximizing socialand environmental benefits.

ConclusionsDeforestation has multiscale negative effects on biodiver-sity, climate, social and economic spheres. To defray suchimpacts, an equally complex and large-scale plan is needed.Such an initiative will necessarily rely on a project that isable to articulate demands ranging from local to globalscales. Biodiversity background, expressed by areas of en-demism, needs to be taken into account, as well as theconservation status and socio-economic needs specific tothese areas. The complete halt of the historical predatorydevelopment model still employed in the region calls foran ambitious plan to completely stop illegal deforestationin the Amazon region and bolster productivity in the largeportion of the territory already deforested.

These objectives can only be achieved by consideringthe geographical heterogeneity of biodiversity distribution,conservation needs and human pressure in the Amazon.Local initiatives need to be integrated with state, nationaland international policies to minimize impacts and upscalepositive results. Because the region has such an importantrole in climate change and the biodiversity crisis, only aplan that significantly changes the course of current activi-ties is likely to succeed. Like most conservation problems,the solution depends primarily on giving higher priorityto political issues rather than the resolution of theoreticalproblems (Orr, 2009). The Amazon region, as one of thelast and probably the richest biodiversity wilderness areason earth, is one of the few places where we can truly hopeto make utopia-like aspirations such as sustainable devel-opment become reality.

AcknowledgementsWe thank Marcia Cota and Donald Shepard for criti-cally reading the manuscript. JMCS and PCB thank TheGordon and Betty Moore Foundation for continuous sup-port to Conservation International’s work in the BrazilianAmazon. JMCS thanks CNPq for support given through aproductivity research assistantship. AAG thanks ‘Fundacaode Amparo a Pesquisa do Rio Grande do Norte – FAPERN’for financial support through a grant from “ProgramaPrimeiros Projetos”.

ReferencesAVISSAR, R., SILVA, R.R. & WERTH, D. 2006. Impacts of trop-

ical deforestation on regional and global hydroclimatology.In: LAURENCE, W.F. & PERES, C.A., Eds., Emerging Threatsto Tropical Forests. Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp.67–79.

AYRES, J.M. & BEST, R. 1979. Estrategias para a conservacao dafauna amazonica. Acta Amazonica 9, 81–101.

BATES, J.M., HACKETT, S.J. & CRACRAFT, J. 1998. Area-relationships in the Neotropical lowlands: an hypothesis basedon raw distributions of Passerine birds. Journal of Biogeog-raphy 25, 783–793.

BECKER, B.K. 2001. Revisao das polıticas de ocupacao daAmazonia: e possıvel identificar modelos para projetarcenarios? Parcerias Estrategicas 12, 135–159.

BRUNER, A.G., GULLISON, R.E., RICE, R.E. & DA FONSECA, G.A.B.2001. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiver-sity. Science 291, 125–128.

CAMARGO, J.M. F. & PEDRO, S.R.M. 2003. Meliponini neotrop-icais: o genero Partamona Schwarz, 1939 (Hymenoptera,Apidae, Apinae) – bionomia e biogeografia. Revista Brasileirade Entomologia 47, 311–372.

CLEMENT, C.R. & HIGUCHI, N. 2006. A floresta amazonica e ofuturo do Brasil. Ciencia e Cultura 58, 44–49.

CRAMER, W., BONDEAU, A., SCHAPHOFF, S., LUCHT, W., SMITH,B. & SITCH, S. 2004. Tropical forests and the global carboncycle: impacts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, climate changeand rate of deforestation. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society of London Series B–Biological Sciences 359,331–343.

FEARNSIDE, P.M. 2008. The roles and movements of actors in thedeforestation of Brazilian Amazonia. Ecology and Society13, 23. ( http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art23/,accessed 20/01/2010)

FOLEY, J.A., ASNER, G.P., COSTA, M.H., COE, M.T., DEFRIES,R., GIBBS, H.K., HOWARD, E.A., OLSON, S., PATZ, J.,RAMANKUTTY, N. & SNYDER, P. 2007. Amazonia revealed:forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and servicesin the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environ-ment 5, 25–32.

GASCON, C., LOUGHEED, S.C. & BOGART, J.P. 1996. Genetic andmorphological variation in Vanzolinius discodactylus: a testof the river hypothesis of speciation. Biotropica 28, 376–387.

GASCON, C., LOUGHEED, S.C. & BOGART, J.P. 1998. Patterns of ge-netic population differentiation in four species of Amazonianfrogs: a test of the riverine barrier hypothesis. Biotropica 30,104–119.

GIBBS, A.K. & BARRON, C.N. 1993. The Geology of the GuianaShield. Oxford University Press, New York.

HAFFER, J. 1969. Speciation in Amazonian birds. Science 165,131–137.

HAFFER, J. 2008. Hypotheses to explain the origin of speciesin Amazonia. Brazilian Journal of Biology 68, 917–947.

HALL, J.P. W. & HARVEY, D.J. 2002. The phylogeography of Ama-zonia revisited: new evidence from riodinid butterflies. Evo-lution 56, 1489–1497.

HOUGHTON, R.A., LAWRENCE, K.T., HACKLER, J.L. & BROWN,S. 2001. The spatial distribution of forest biomass in theBrazilian Amazon: a comparison of estimates. Global ChangeBiology 7, 731–746.

INPE, I.N.D.P.E. 2008. Projeto PRODES: monitora-mento da floresta Amazonica Brasileira por satelite.( www.obt.inpe.br/prodes, accessed 20/01/2010).

Biodiversity and conservation of the Amazon Forest 175

IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

MALHI, Y., BALDOCCHI, D.D. & JARVIS, P.G. 1999. The carbonbalance of tropical, temperate and boreal forests. Plant Celland Environment 22, 715–740.

MITTERMEIER, R.A., MITTERMEIER, C.G., BROOKS, T.M., PILGRIM,J.D., KONSTANT, W.R., DA FONSECA, G.A.B. & KORMOS, C.2003. Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences USA 100, 10309–10313.

MITTERMEIER, R.A., MITTERMEIER, C.G., GIL, P.R., PILGRIM, J.,FONSECA, G.A.B., BROOKS, T. & KONSTANT, W.R. 2002.Wilderness: Earth’s Last Wild Places. CEMEX S. A., MexicoCity.

ORR, D.W. 2009. Retrospect and prospect: the unbearablelightness of conservation. Conservation Biology 23, 1349–1351.

PATTON, J.L., DA SILVA, M.N. F. & MALCOLM, J.R. 2000. Mammalsof the Rio Jurua and the evolutionary and ecological diver-sification of Amazonia. Bulletin of the American Museum ofNatural History 224, 1–306.

PRANCE, G.T. 1982. Forest refuges: Evidence from woody an-giosperms. In: PRANCE, G.T., Ed., Biological Diversificationin the Tropics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp.137–158.

PRUM, R. 1988. Historical relationships among avian forest areasof endemism in the neotropics. Acta XIX Congressus Interna-tionalis Ornithologici 19, 2562–2572.

RODRIGUES, A.S.L., EWERS, R.M., PARRY, L., SOUZA, C.,VERISSIMO, A. & BALMFORD, A. 2009. Boom-and-bust de-velopment patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier.Science 324, 1435–1437.

RODRIGUES, A.S.L. & GASTON, K.J. 2001. How large do reservenetworks need to be? Ecology Letters 4, 602–609.

RON, S.R. 2000. Biogeographic area relationships of lowlandNeotropical rainforest based on raw distributions of verte-brate groups. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 71,379–402.

SALATI, E. & VOSE, P.B. 1984. Amazon Basin: A system in equi-librium. Science 225, 129–138.

SALES, M.H., SOUZA, C.M., KYRIAKIDIS, P.C., ROBERTS, D.A. &VIDAL, E. 2007. Improving spatial distribution estimation offorest biomass with geostatistics: A case study for Rondonia,Brazil. Ecological Modelling 205, 221–230.

SENARIS, J.C. & MACCULLOCH, R.D. 2005. Amphibians. In: HOL-LOWELL, T. & REYNOLDS, R.P., Eds., Checklist of the Terres-trial Vertebrates of the Guiana Shield. Vol. 13. Bulletin ofthe Biological Society of Washington, Washington, pp. 9–16.

SILVA, J.M.C. 2005. Areas de endemismo da Amazonia. Ciencia& Ambiente 31, 25–38.

SILVA, J.M.C. & OREN, D.C. 1996. Application of parsimony anal-ysis of endemicity in Amazonian biogeography: An examplewith primates. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 59,427–437.

SILVA, J.M.C., RYLANDS, A.B. & DA FONSECA, G.A.B. 2005. Thefate of the Amazonian areas of endemism. Conservation Bi-ology 19, 689–694.

SOARES-FILHO, B.S., NEPSTAD, D.C., CURRAN, L.M., CERQUEIRA,G.C., GARCIA, R.A., RAMOS, C.A., VOLL, E., MCDONALD, A.,LEFEBVRE, P. & SCHLESINGER, P. 2006. Modelling conservationin the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520–523.

SOULE, M.E. & TERBORGH, J. 1999. Continental Conservation:Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. IslandPress, Washington, DC.

VIEIRA, I.C.G., SILVA, J.M.C. & TOLEDO, P.M. 2005. Estrategiaspara evitar a perda de biodiversidade na Amazonia. EstudosAvancados 19, 153–164.

WALKER, R., MOORE, N.J., ARIMA, E., PERZ, S., SIMMONS, C.,CALDAS, M., VERGARA, D. & BOHRER, C. 2009. Protecting theAmazon with protected areas. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences USA 106, 10582–10586.

WALLACE, A.R. 1852. On the monkeys of the Amazon. Proceed-ings of the Zoological Society of London 20, 107–110.

WILSON, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Harvard UniversityPress, New York.

ZIMMERMANN, B., PERES, C.A., MALCOM, J.R. & TURNER, T. 2001.Conservation and development alliances with the Kayapo ofsouth-eastern Amazonia, a tropical indigenous people. Envi-ronmental Conservation 28, 10–22.