4.0 Review

Studies of social wasp diversity in Brazil: Over 30 years of research, advancements and priorities

期刊

SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 858-880

出版社

UNIV ESTADUAL FEIRA SANTANA
DOI: 10.13102/sociobiology.v63i3.1031

关键词

Diversity; Vespidae; Polistine; metadata; scientific production; scientometric analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The first records of social wasps in Brazil were made during expeditions focused on the taxonomy and distribution of the species throughout the country. From the 1970s the essence of publications on the diversity of social wasps has been changing, with studies focusing on specific areas and incorporating the use of sampling methodologies and analysis of results through ecological indexes. Since then, the neotropical social wasps have gained more prominence due to the acknowledgement of their decisive role in the trophic balance of ecosystems, which has been increasing the interest in studying these insects. Therefore, we aimed to make a detailed analysis of the social wasp diversity studies published in Brazil over the past 33 years, looking to build knowledge on the research history of the group. For the literature review, selected publications must have attended to the following criteria: including keywords addressing the matter and being indexed in databases within the defined period. We found 78 publications, most of them (70.52%) published in scientific journals. Diversity studies featured in publications in a regular basis from the year 2005 on, and the years 2010, 2012 and 2014 were the most productive; there was also a concentration of studies in the BA, MG and SP states. There were 11 different collection methods used, from which the Active Search and Attractive Trap methods stood out as most common; however, we found no pattern regarding study duration or collection methodology. The contribution of this analysis is to extend the current status of knowledge of social wasps research, as well as to guide and encourage future studies in unexplored areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据