Paulo Borges

Prof. Paulo Borges

Faculty of Agrarian and Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of the Azores, Rua Capitão João D'Avila 9700-042 Angra do Heroísmo Terceira, Azores, Portugal
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

30Years (1997-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 December 2010 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MHMichael Hoffmann
Michael Hoffmann
CHCraig Hilton-Taylor
Craig Hilton-Taylor
AAAriadne Angulo
Ariadne Angulo
MBMonika Böhm
Monika Böhm
TBThomas M. Brooks
Thomas M. Brooks
SSSimon N. Stuart
Simon N. Stuart
Assessing Biodiversity Declines: Understanding human impact on biodiversity depends on sound quantitative projection. Pereira et al. (p. 1496 , published online 26 October) review quantitative scenarios that have been developed for four main areas of concern: species extinctions, species abundances and community structure, habitat loss and degradation, and shifts in the distribution of species and biomes. Declines in biodiversity are projected for the whole of the 21st century in all scenarios, but with a wide range of variation. Hoffmann et al. (p. 1503 , published online 26 October) draw on the results of five decades' worth of data collection, managed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission. A comprehensive synthesis of the conservation status of the world's vertebrates, based on an analysis of 25,780 species (approximately half of total vertebrate diversity), is presented: Approximately 20% of all vertebrate species are at risk of extinction in the wild, and 11% of threatened birds and 17% of threatened mammals have moved closer to extinction over time. Despite these trends, overall declines would have been significantly worse in the absence of conservation actions.

1 January 2006 in Ecology and Society
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Jon Paul RodríguezJon Paul Rodríguez
Jon Paul Rodríguez
JBJr. T. Douglas Beard
Jr. T. Douglas Beard
EBElena M. Bennett
Elena M. Bennett
GCGraeme S. Cumming
Graeme S. Cumming
SCSteven J. Cork
Steven J. Cork
GPGarry D. Peterson
Garry D. Peterson
Ecosystem service (ES) trade-offs arise from management choices made by humans, which can change the type, magnitude, and relative mix of services provided by ecosystems. Trade-offs occur when the provision of one ES is reduced as a consequence of increased use of another ES. In some cases, a trade-off may be an explicit choice; but in others, trade-offs arise without premeditation or even awareness that they are taking place. Trade-offs in ES can be classified along three axes: spatial scale, temporal scale, and reversibility. Spatial scale refers to whether the effects of the trade-off are felt locally or at a distant location. Temporal scale refers to whether the effects take place relatively rapidly or slowly. Reversibility expresses the likelihood that the perturbed ES may return to its original state if the perturbation ceases. Across all four Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios and selected case study examples, trade-off decisions show a preference for provisioning, regulating, or cultural services (in that order). Supporting services are more likely to be "taken for granted." Cultural ES are almost entirely unquantified in scenario modeling; therefore, the calculated model results do not fully capture losses of these services that occur in the scenarios. The quantitative scenario models primarily capture the services that are perceived by society as more important - provisioning and regulating ecosystem services - and thus do not fully capture trade-offs of cultural and supporting services. Successful management policies will be those that incorporate lessons learned from prior decisions into future management actions. Managers should complement their actions with monitoring programs that, in addition to monitoring the short-term provisions of services, also monitor the long-term evolution of slowly changing variables. Policies can then be developed to take into account ES trade-offs at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Successful strategies will recognize the inherent complexities of ecosystem management and will work to develop policies that minimize the effects of ES trade-offs

1 November 2011 in Biological Conservation
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PCPedro Cardoso
Pedro Cardoso
TETerry L. Erwin
Terry L. Erwin
Paulo BorgesPaulo Borges
Paulo Borges
TNTim R. New
Tim R. New

15 May 2009 in Conservation Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WSW. J. Sutherland
W. J. Sutherland
WAW. M. Adams
W. M. Adams
RAR. B. Aronson
R. B. Aronson
RAR. Aveling
R. Aveling
TBT. M. Blackburn
T. M. Blackburn
AWA. R. Watkinson
A. R. Watkinson
Abstract:  We identified 100 scientific questions that, if answered, would have the greatest impact on conservation practice and policy. Representatives from 21 international organizations, regional sections and working groups of the Society for Conservation Biology, and 12 academics, from all continents except Antarctica, compiled 2291 questions of relevance to conservation of biological diversity worldwide. The questions were gathered from 761 individuals through workshops, email requests, and discussions. Voting by email to short‐list questions, followed by a 2‐day workshop, was used to derive the final list of 100 questions. Most of the final questions were derived through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into 12 sections: ecosystem functions and services, climate change, technological change, protected areas, ecosystem management and restoration, terrestrial ecosystems, marine ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, species management, organizational systems and processes, societal context and change, and impacts of conservation interventions. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and assist funders in directing funds.

17 January 2006 in Journal of Animal Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JHJoaquín Hortal
Joaquín Hortal
Paulo BorgesPaulo Borges
Paulo Borges
CGClara Gaspar
Clara Gaspar
Summary: Fifteen species richness estimators (three asymptotic based on species accumulation curves, 11 nonparametric, and one based in the species–area relationship) were compared by examining their performance in estimating the total species richness of epigean arthropods in the Azorean Laurisilva forests. Data obtained with standardized sampling of 78 transects in natural forest remnants of five islands were aggregated in seven different grains (i.e. ways of defining a single sample): islands, natural areas, transects, pairs of traps, traps, database records and individuals to assess the effect of using different sampling units on species richness estimations. Estimated species richness scores depended both on the estimator considered and on the grain size used to aggregate data. However, several estimators (ACE, Chao1, Jackknife1 and 2 and Bootstrap) were precise in spite of grain variations. Weibull and several recent estimators [proposed by Rosenzweig et al. (Conservation Biology, 2003, 17, 864–874), and Ugland et al. (Journal of Animal Ecology, 2003, 72, 888–897)] performed poorly. Estimations developed using the smaller grain sizes (pair of traps, traps, records and individuals) presented similar scores in a number of estimators (the above‐mentioned plus ICE, Chao2, Michaelis–Menten, Negative Exponential and Clench). The estimations from those four sample sizes were also highly correlated. Contrary to other studies, we conclude that most species richness estimators may be useful in biodiversity studies. Owing to their inherent formulas, several nonparametric and asymptotic estimators present insensitivity to differences in the way the samples are aggregated. Thus, they could be used to compare species richness scores obtained from different sampling strategies. Our results also point out that species richness estimations coming from small grain sizes can be directly compared and other estimators could give more precise results in those cases. We propose a decision framework based on our results and on the literature to assess which estimator should be used to compare species richness scores of different sites, depending on the grain size of the original data, and of the kind of data available (species occurrence or abundance data).

21 June 2016 in Global Ecology and Biogeography
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MSManuel Steinbauer
Manuel Steinbauer
RFRichard Field
Richard Field
JGJohn‐Arvid Grytnes
John‐Arvid Grytnes
PTPanayiotis Trigas
Panayiotis Trigas
CAClaudine Ah‐Peng
Claudine Ah‐Peng
Carl BeierkuhnleinCarl Beierkuhnlein
Carl Beierkuhnlein