Assessing the effects of agricultural intensification on natural habitats and biodiversity in Southern Amazonia

18. Cohn AS, Mosnier A, Havlı´k P, Valin H, Herrero M, Schmid E et al. Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014; 111(20):7236–41. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1307163111 PMID: 24778243 19. Strassburg BBN, Latawiec AE, Barioni LG, Nobre CA, Da Silva VP, Valentim JF et al. When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 2014; 28:84–97. 20. Barretto AG, Berndes G, Sparovek G, Wirsenius S. Agricultural intensification in Brazil and its effects on land-use patterns: An analysis of the 1975–2006 period. Global Change Biology 2013; 19 (6):1804–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12174 PMID: 23505132 21. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scar- city. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011; 108(9):3465–72. 22. Nepstad D, Soares-Filho BS, Merry F, Lima A, Moutinho P, Carter J et al. The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 2009; 326(5958):1350–1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182108 PMID: 19965742 23. Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA et al. Modelling con- servation in the Amazon basin. Nature 2006; 440(7083):520. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04389 PMID: 16554817 24. Walker R, Drzyzga SA, Li Y, Qi J, Caldas M, Arima E et al. A behavioral model of landscape change in

the Amazon basin: The colonist case. Ecological Applications 2004; 14(sp4):299–312. 25. Aguiar APD, Caˆmara G, Escada MIS. Spatial statistical analysis of land-use determinants in the Brazil- ian Amazonia: Exploring intra-regional heterogeneity. Ecological Modelling 2007; 209(2–4):169–88. 26. Lapola DM, Schaldach R, Alcamo J, Bondeau A, Koch J, Koelking C et al. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 2010; 107(8):3388–93. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907318107 PMID: 20142492 27. Leite CC, Costa MH, Soares-Filho BS, Barros Viana Hissa de L. Historical land use change and asso- ciated carbon emissions in Brazil from 1940 to 1995. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2012; 26(2). 28. Arvor D, Dubreuil V, Simões M, Be´ gue´ A. Mapping and spatial analysis of the soybean agricultural frontier in Mato Grosso, Brazil, using remote sensing data. GeoJournal 2013; 78(5):833–50. 29. Gollnow F, Lakes T. Policy change, land use, and agriculture: The case of soy production and cattle ranching in Brazil, 2001–2012. Applied Geography 2014; 55:203–11. 30. Soares-Filho B, Alencar A, Nepstad D, Cerqueira G, Vera Diaz MdC, Rivero S et al. Simulating the response of land-cover changes to road paving and governance along a major Amazon highway: The Santare´ m–Cuiaba´ corridor. Global Change Biology 2004; 10(5):745–64. 31. Heckenberger MJ, Christian Russell J, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ. The legacy of cultural landscapes in

the Brazilian Amazon: Implications for biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2007; 362(1478):197–208. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1979 PMID: 17255029 32. Gentili S, Sigura M, Bonesi L. Decreased small mammals species diversity and increased population abundance along a gradient of agricultural intensification. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 2014; 25(1):39–44. 33. Castro Solar de RR, Barlow J, Andersen AN, Schoereder JH, Berenguer E, Ferreira JN et al. Biodiver- sity consequences of land-use change and forest disturbance in the Amazon: A multi-scale assess- ment using ant communities. Biological Conservation 2016; 197:98–107. 34. Chaplin-Kramer R, Sharp RP, Mandle L, Sim S, Johnson J, Butnar I et al. Spatial patterns of agricul- tural expansion determine impacts on biodiversity and carbon storage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2015; 112(24):7402–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406485112 PMID: 26082547 35. Ritter CD, Faurby S, Bennett DJ, Naka LN, Ter Steege H, Zizka A et al. The pitfalls of biodiversity prox- ies: Differences in richness patterns of birds, trees and understudied diversity across Amazonia. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1):19205. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55490-3 PMID: 31844092 36. Monroy-Gamboa AG, Briones-Salas MA´ , Sarkar S, Sa´ nchez-Cordero V. Terrestrial vertebrates as surrogates for selecting conservation areas in a biodiversity hotspot in Mexico. Conservation Science and Practice 2019; 1(3):e12.

37. Alkemade A, Schnitzler A, Forstmann BU. Topographic organization of the human and non-human pri- mate subthalamic nucleus. Brain Struct Funct 2015; 220(6):3075–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429- 015-1047-2 PMID: 25921975 38. Scholes RJ, Biggs R. A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 2005; 434(7029):45. https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature03289 PMID: 15744293 PLOS ONE Agricultural intensification effects on natural habitats and biodiversity PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225914 November 25, 2020 18 / 21