Previous Article in Journal
Traditional Knowledge, Gendered Practices, and Agro-Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study of Pomegranate in Moroccan Pre-Saharan Oases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Conservation
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/conservation5040067
conservation-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Sugarcane Production and Its Effects on Biodiversity: Trends, Critical Points, and Knowledge Gaps

by
Eduardo Rodrigues dos Santos
1,2,
William Douglas Carvalho
1,3,4,* and
Karen Mustin
1,2
1
Post-Graduate Program in Tropical Biodiversity (PPGBIO), Federal University of Amapá (UNIFAP), Macapá 68902-280, Brazil
2
Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Complutense University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
3
Terrestrial Ecology Group (TEG-UAM), Department of Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
4
Centro de Investigación en Biodiversidad y Cambio Global (CIBC-UAM), Department of Ecology, Faculty of Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Conservation 2025, 5(4), 67; https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5040067
Submission received: 11 September 2025 / Revised: 25 October 2025 / Accepted: 3 November 2025 / Published: 11 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The rising global demand for renewable energy and the urgency of mitigating climate change have positioned biofuels, particularly sugarcane ethanol, at the forefront of sustainability and conservation debates. Although promoted as a renewable alternative, sugarcane cultivation can cause habitat loss, biodiversity decline, soil degradation, and water contamination. This study presents a bibliometric assessment of 217 publications addressing the biodiversity impacts of sugarcane production, based on searches in the Web of Science Core Collection for papers published between 1998 and 2023. Using the bibliometrix package in R, we identified key publication trends, collaboration networks, and thematic structures. Between 1998 and 2006, no studies were returned by our searches, after which research activity increased substantially, peaking in 2021. Brazil, the world’s largest sugarcane producer, was the most frequent contributor to scientific output, while other major sugarcane producers, such as Thailand and India, showed limited engagement. Thematic mapping of the studies returned by our searches revealed three clusters: (1) cross-cutting themes linking sugarcane, biodiversity, and sustainability; (2) niche themes on pest and soil dynamics; and (3) emerging themes on the ecological role of bats in sugarcane landscapes. Overall, the findings highlight the growing academic engagement in reconciling bioenergy development with biodiversity conservation.

1. Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is one of the most widely cultivated crops in tropical and subtropical regions, and ethanol biofuel is a key product [1,2,3]. Given that global energy demand is increasing annually, and driven by environmental concerns and government policies aimed at promoting the adoption of renewable energies, the market for biofuels, including sugarcane ethanol, has experienced substantial growth in the last three decades [4,5,6].
However, concerns persist about the potential environmental impacts of biofuels, particularly feedstock crops like sugarcane [7,8]. While sugarcane ethanol holds promise as a renewable energy solution, its production may be associated with negative environmental impacts including increased carbon emissions and environmental degradation [9,10]. Deforestation of native areas for sugarcane cultivation results in the release of large amounts of stored carbon dioxide (CO2) from trees and soil, while the burning of sugarcane straw before harvest directly releases CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere [9,11]. Mechanization of harvesting is an alternative in many countries, but also affects the environment, increasing the consumption of fossil fuels by agricultural machinery, further contributing to carbon emissions [12]. Additionally, intensive monocultures of sugarcane disrupt essential ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, and nutrient cycling [13,14,15,16], and has impacts on habitat availability, connectivity and quality and hence potentially on species occurrences, abundances and diversity [17,18,19]. Moreover, intensive sugarcane production consumes soil nutrients and compacts the soil due to heavy machinery, reducing water infiltration, and increasing both surface runoff and the risk of erosion [11]. The extensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides contributes to soil degradation and pollution of surface and groundwater [20]. Runoff from sugarcane plantations can cause eutrophication of water bodies, leading to toxic algal blooms and fish mortality [21,22].
These environmental and ecological consequences illustrate that sugarcane production is not only an energy issue but also a complex interdisciplinary challenge. Its impacts span agronomy, ecology, environmental sciences, and biodiversity conservation, making it a subject of broad scientific interest [23]. Moreover, understanding these dynamics is essential for informing sustainable agricultural practices and providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers at national and international levels [24].
Here, we propose to characterize the research landscape on the impacts of sugarcane on biodiversity by conducting a detailed bibliometric analysis to not only evaluate the breadth and depth of existing research but also highlight (1) the scientific output per year, (2) publication patterns and collaborations between countries, and (3) the main research topics and themes being investigated. We expect to find a growing trend in scientific output associated with the expansion of sugarcane production over the years, with those countries that are leading producers of sugarcane ethanol also emerging as key contributors to scientific research, including in collaboration with each other. We further expect to find that most research will be agronomic, with more emphasis on production optimization rather than conservation. By promoting a more sustainable approach to sugarcane production, informed by robust scientific analysis, we aim to contribute to environmental stewardship and support initiatives that mitigate the ecological impacts.

2. Materials and Methods

In the following sub-sections we describe in detail the key stages of our research method, detailing (1) the search strategy and data extraction; and (2) data analysis and visualization (Figure 1).

2.1. Search Strategy and Data Extraction

We conducted the bibliometric review using the Web of Science database core collection for five key reasons: (1) it offers extensive coverage including over 89 million publications, including journal articles, book chapters, and proceedings papers; (2) the content is carefully curated to ensure the accuracy of the information and avoid duplicated publications [25,26]; (3) Web of Science is the only major database with the “Keyword Plus” feature which is particularly useful for conducting bibliometric analyses; (4) it has longer historical coverage; and (5) it has curated and standardized metadata. These factors combined have led to its widespread adoption in bibliometric studies published in high-impact journals [27]. We acknowledge, however, that relying solely on WoS may introduce limitations, such as language and coverage bias, which should be considered when interpreting the findings.
Given our aim to characterize the state of knowledge on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity, we defined a specific Boolean search formula: TS = (“sugarcane”) AND (“impact” OR “effect”) AND (“biodiversity”). No restrictions were applied regarding document type, language, or gray literature. This decision was deliberate, as our goal was to capture the widest possible range of scientific outputs, articles, reviews, proceedings, and other indexed materials, to provide a comprehensive overview of the research landscape. This timeframe was selected with the aim of covering from the beginning of the recorded data of the Web of Science collection until the end of the last complete year at the time the searches were conducted (26 February 2024). Complete data (Author names, Title, Source, Abstract, Author Keywords, Keywords Plus and Cited References) were extracted from the WoS Database for all papers returned using our search formula. After the data extraction process was completed, we conducted a normalization of the database, searching for and completing any missing information.

2.2. Data Analysis

We had three key aims for our data analysis: (1) to quantify the scientific production per year on the biodiversity impacts of sugarcane production, (2) to examine geographic patterns in publication on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity, including collaboration between countries, and (3) to characterize the main research topics and themes being investigated in relation to the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity. In the following sections we detail how the data were analyzed to respond to each of these aims. All analyses were conducted using the ‘bibliometrix’ package (version 4.2.2) for R software (version 4.3.1; Vienna, Austria) [28].

2.2.1. Scientific Production per Year

To examine the temporal distribution of publications, we used the function annual scientific production in the “Overview” section. This function quantifies the frequency of publications annually. We also used the Most Relevant Sources function to identify the journals with most publications.

2.2.2. Geographic Patterns in Publication

To quantify the scientific production in each country over time and to quantify the collaborations between countries in scientific publications, we used the functions countries’ scientific production over time and countries’ collaboration world map, respectively. We then generated a map to view this information using the networkPlot function [28,29].

2.2.3. Main Topics and Themes

We used three key tools to characterize the main topics and themes being studied in the papers returned by our literature search, including (1) a co-occurrence network analysis; (2) the construction of a thematic map; and (3) a keyword plus frequency analysis, each of which are described in detail here.
The co-occurrence network analysis was used to identify the frequency with which certain keywords appear together in different documents, revealing patterns of relationships between terms. To ensure accuracy, we used the keywords plus approach, that uses the traditional author keywords and title keywords, plus additional keywords that are repeated in the titles and/or in the abstract of the references of a publication [28,29,30]. To execute the analysis, we ran the co-occurrence network function, using the standard bibliometrix parameters.
The thematic map was constructed using the function thematic map, using the standard bibliometrix parameters. We then extracted a spreadsheet to identify and read the title, abstract, and if necessary, the full text of the papers in each cluster. The strategic diagram produced allows us to identify the centrality and density of the researched themes. Centrality measures how strongly a theme interacts with other themes and its importance within the field. Highly central themes are central concepts that connect various topics and contribute to shaping the overall structure of knowledge in the area. Density measures the internal connections within a cluster, indicating how cohesively its elements interact. The thematic map then separates themes into four quadrants according to the centrality and density of each theme.

3. Results

3.1. Scientific Production per Year

Our search returned a total of 217 publications (Supplementary Material Table S1) addressing the topic of the impact or effects of sugarcane on biodiversity over 25 years, from 1998 to 2023 (Supplementary Information). These included 193 original articles, 13 literature reviews, and 11 other types of publications (proceedings papers and book chapters). The earliest publication on the impact of sugarcane on biodiversity returned by our search was a proceedings paper published in 1998 [31] which reported on a project aimed at recovery of moist forest in a river basin where intensive sugarcane cropping had occurred. No further papers published between 1998 and 2006 were returned by our search terms, at which point publications began to gradually rise (Figure 2). The first original article returned by our search [32] was also published in 2006, presenting an analysis of earthworm diversity in four land use systems, including sugarcane croplands in Paraná, Brazil. In 2010, the number of publications rose abruptly to eight and while the number of publications each year fluctuated, the overall trend until 2019 was of an increasing number of publications, with the highest number of publications over the whole time period recorded in 2019 and 2022 (27 in each year). Over the entire study period (1998–2023), the number of publications increased at an average annual growth rate of 12.26%.
Excluding book chapters, the papers are published in 129 different journals (Table 1), with most (105) publishing 1 or 2 papers and only 14 publishing 4 or more (Table 1). Global Change Biology BIOENERGY (classified by Web of Science into the Agronomy and Energy and Fuels categories) and Applied Soil Ecology (Soil Science category) have the most publications with seven each, followed by Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (6 papers), Science of the Total Environment (6 papers), PLoS ONE (6 papers), Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (5 papers), Journal of Applied Ecology (5 papers), Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (5 papers), Biomass and Bioenergy (4 papers) and Land (4 papers). The most common Web of Science categories were Energy and Fuels, Soil Science, and Environmental Sciences and Ecology.

3.2. Geographic Patterns in Publication and Collaboration Between Countries

The corresponding authors of the 217 publications are affiliated with institutions across 33 different countries. Authors with multiple affiliations were counted separately for each different country, with the highest concentrations of corresponding authors (CA) in South America (87 publications), Europe (38 publications), Southeast Asia (30 publications), and North America (22 publications). In terms of both corresponding authors (CA) and full author lists (FA), Brazil (78 CA, 266 FA), the United States of America (19 CA, 96 FA), China (11 CA, 34 FA) and Australia (10 CA, 38 FA) are the four countries producing the most research on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity (Table 2). Brazil is the country with the highest number of publications in collaboration with different countries (83), followed by the USA (45) and South Africa (41) (Figure 3A). The most frequent collaboration is between Brazil and the USA, with 21 publications (Figure 3B).

3.3. Research Topics and Themes

3.3.1. Co-Occurrence Network Analysis

The co-occurrence network analysis of research on the biodiversity impacts of sugarcane production (1998–2023) revealed three distinct clusters of keywords (Figure 4). Each cluster highlights thematic foci within the broader research field: Cluster 1 centers on topics related to land-use change, bioenergy production, and its associated environmental impacts. Keywords such as “land-use change”, “sustainability” and “greenhouse gas emissions” are prominent. Cluster 2 emphasizes themes around conservation management, ecosystem services, and agricultural sustainability. Cluster 3 addresses the diversity of species within sugarcane crops and their responses to agricultural practices. Key themes include “habitat fragmentation,” “species richness,” and “abundance,” pointing to publications that assess the direct and indirect effects of sugarcane cultivation on local biodiversity.

3.3.2. Thematic Map Analysis

The thematic map analysis revealed 10 clusters of keywords related to the impacts or effects of sugarcane on biodiversity (Figure 5). The majority of clusters are concentrated in the “Niche Themes” and “Basic Themes”, while the remaining quadrants each contain only 1 cluster.
Motor: Themes in the motor quadrant are considered crucial because they are well-developed and play a significant role in the research domain. They have strong centrality and high density of development. The papers in the Motor Quadrant are clustered in a single cluster that focuses on publications with analysis of the effects of agriculture on aquatic biodiversity, such as the global impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on aquatic biodiversity and the effects of agriculture on tropical headwater streams [34,35].
Basic: The basic quadrant of research comprises fundamental and crucial themes to the field that have not yet undergone full development. These themes are generally transversal and have broad applicability across different research domains. They may represent key areas for future research investment and focus. In this study, the Basic quadrant encompasses a collection of publications on the broad theme of biodiversity. Within this quadrant, we found 4 major clusters; the first one has a strong emphasis on analyzing the impact of sugarcane production on specific taxa, with focus on arthropods and mammals analyzing the abundance, diversity, and composition of species in sugarcane fields [17,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The second one has publications which focus on water-quality change [43,44]. Lastly, we found two clusters of papers that aim to understand environmental changes as a result of land use changes [45,46,47] and effects of land use change on the provision of ecosystem services [8,48,49,50].
Niche: Themes in the niche quadrant have well-developed internal ties but tend to have unimportant external ties and are therefore of only marginal importance to the field, are peripheral and very specialized. The niche quadrant contains three clusters relating to ethanol production and utilization as a fuel source, each with its own highly specialized focus. In the first cluster, research is focused on Sesamia cretica (greater sugarcane borer) in the Afrotropical Region [51,52]. Sesamia cretica is one of the most important sugarcane pests in many regions of the world, including Africa and South America [52]. The second minor cluster focuses on the biological aspects of species of scarab beetles, another relevant species that damage sugarcane crops [53,54]. The third minor cluster specifically concentrates on the chemical analysis of soil and sugarcane quality to identify ways to optimize ethanol production [10,55]. Lastly, there is a fourth cluster, that is close to the boundary with the motor themes, containing publications that explore the impact of sugarcane on broad areas like soil health [56], a comparison of nine different sugarcane crops using a defined set of sustainability indicators [57], general implications of sugarcane in the ecosystem [58,59] and policy and economy analysis involving sugarcane crops [59].
Emerging or Declining: Themes in the emerging or declining quadrant are considered weakly developed and marginal, have low density and centrality and are typically emerging or disappearing themes. Only one topic falls in this quadrant in this study. The cluster that involves the keywords “Chiroptera”, “movements” and “sugarcane” is gaining considerable attention. From the earliest publications, some have viewed bats as potential controllers of agricultural pests [60]. More recently, there have been a few analyses of DNA changes in species found on sugarcane croplands [61,62].

4. Discussion

4.1. Publication Trends and Knowledge Gaps

Research on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity has grown over the last three decades, and a similar number of publications have been produced on this topic compared to other related subjects, such as the effects of land use on macroinvertebrates [63], terrestrial ecosystem services [64], and chronic anthropogenic disturbances in ecology [65]. Our results show that, since 2006, there has been an increase in scientific publications that coincides with a large expansion in sugarcane production reported by FAO [66]. Between 2000 and 2008, world sugarcane production grew from 1.25 billion tonnes to 1.72 billion tonnes (~38%), and with this growth of production came the expansion of harvest crops [66]. This trend continued in the following decade, with global sugarcane production reaching approximately 1.88 billion tonnes in 2020, an increase of 9.3% compared to 2008 [66]. Brazil, the world’s largest producer, played a central role in this expansion, with harvested area increasing from about 6 million hectares in 2000 to 9 million hectares in 2008 (~50% growth) [66]. In 2020, FAOSTAT data confirm that Brazil has maintained its leadership, accounting for nearly 40.2% of global production, while other major producers such as India and Thailand also expanded their cultivated areas and yields [66].
Notably, Brazil and the United States have higher numbers of publications and higher numbers of international collaborations. Brazil’s prominence in this research landscape is to be expected given its position as both a major sugarcane producer and a biodiversity hotspot [67]. The expansion of sugarcane cultivation has raised concerns about deforestation, habitat fragmentation, and the loss of ecosystem services, challenges that have stimulated international cooperation [68,69]. This dual role of Brazil as both a global leader in production and simultaneously a custodian of megadiverse ecosystems highlights the tension between agricultural expansion and biodiversity conservation, a theme widely discussed in ecological and policy-oriented literature [70]. For instance, debates on land-use trade-offs in tropical agriculture [71] and the implementation of conservation policies such as Brazil’s Forest Code [72] illustrate how sugarcane expansion intersects directly with ecological theory and governance frameworks. However, this concentration of research in Brazil, with limited participation from other tropical producer regions such as Africa and Southeast Asia reduces the representativeness of findings and limits the capacity to generalize results globally [73,74]. From a policy perspective, this imbalance risks producing recommendations that are overly Brazil-centric, while neglecting the distinct ecological and socio-political contexts of other producer regions [75,76,77,78].
Methodologically, research is fragmented, frequently restricted to isolated aspects of land use, species richness, or production efficiency. Integrating remote sensing, field-based biodiversity surveys, and modeling approaches would enable more robust assessments of causal relationships [79]. Moreover, this bibliometric review is based on single-database searches, risks overlooking relevant studies published in local or regional journals, particularly in non-English languages. Future systematic reviews and meta-analytical studies should therefore combine multiple databases, such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and SciELO [80], to ensure more comprehensive coverage of global research. Such methodological improvements are not only technical refinements but also essential steps to provide policymakers with reliable, globally representative evidence for decision-making [81].
Taken together, these patterns reveal a paradox: while sugarcane is one of the most environmentally impactful crops globally, the scientific literature addressing its biodiversity consequences remains fragmented, geographically concentrated, and methodologically limited. This gap underscores the urgency of fostering more interdisciplinary and internationally integrated research agendas, aligned with ecological theory and conservation policy frameworks [82]. Without such efforts, policymaking will continue to rely on incomplete evidence [83], undermining the capacity to design effective strategies that reconcile agricultural expansion with biodiversity conservation [84].

4.2. Thematic Analysis and Management Implications

The thematic map analysis corroborates the need for research that integrates a stronger ecological perspective into studies of sugarcane production. Three main thematic groups were identified. The first group comprises cross-cutting themes, represented by clusters of keywords such as biodiversity, diversity, conservation, sugarcane, land use, and ecosystem services. Although these terms indicate ecological relevance, most publications emphasize agronomic outcomes such as yield optimization, land-use efficiency, and soil management [85,86,87]. This pattern reveals an imbalance between agronomic productivity and biodiversity research, suggesting that ecological impacts remain underexplored [88]. Future work should incorporate systematic reviews and meta-analyses to synthesize existing evidence and quantify how land-use practices in sugarcane landscapes affect biodiversity, ecosystem services, and conservation outcomes [89,90].
Two niche clusters also emerged, focusing on geographically specific research conducted in Africa and the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, respectively. In Africa, where sugarcane is cultivated in at least 14 countries, studies emphasize agronomic performance under favorable climatic and edaphic conditions [91,92]. In Brazil, the Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul clusters reflect recent investments to expand production [54]. In both regions, research interest converges on insect-related dynamics, especially pest control involving Sesamia species [57,93]. While such studies are valuable for agricultural management, it is essential to consider the broader ecological implications of pest management strategies. Many insects play vital roles in soil quality, nutrient cycling, and natural pest regulation [94,95]. Therefore, future research should assess the trade-offs and synergies between pest control and biodiversity conservation, particularly by comparing sugarcane fields with adjacent natural habitats to evaluate ecosystem-level responses [96,97,98]. A third cluster, located between niche and motor themes, encompasses studies addressing the environmental and socio-economic implications of sugarcane cultivation. Its proximity to motor themes suggests a transition toward interdisciplinarity, connecting ecological, economic, and policy-oriented approaches [99,100]. Publications within this group highlight governance and energy policy issues, such as the need for climate policies to mitigate the impacts of changing precipitation and temperature patterns on sugarcane productivity in India [101], and the potential for energy cogeneration from sugarcane residues in Thailand [102]. These findings illustrate a growing convergence between sustainability science and agricultural policy.
Finally, an emerging research focus on Chiroptera (bats) highlights their ecological importance as agents of pest control, pollination, and seed dispersal, all of which are key functions that sustain biodiversity and ecosystem health [103]. Their abundance, detectability, and ease of monitoring have made them increasingly common in agroecological studies [104,105,106]. Publications such as “DNA Damage as an Indicator of Environmental Vulnerability of Bats in Brazil’s Caatinga Drylands” exemplify how sugarcane expansion may threaten local bat populations [61,68]. This emerging topic underscores the need for integrative ecological assessments that consider both the direct and indirect effects of sugarcane cultivation on vertebrate fauna and the ecosystem services they provide [107,108]. Collectively, these thematic patterns demonstrate that the field is evolving from a predominantly agronomic focus toward a multidimensional research agenda that includes biodiversity, ecosystem services, and governance. Strengthening this transition will require collaborative frameworks that link ecological monitoring, policy instruments, and sustainable land management, ensuring that scientific knowledge effectively informs decision-making in sugarcane-producing regions.

4.3. Policy Implications and Future Directions

This bibliometric review identified key trends, research gaps, and thematic areas that can guide future investigations and inform policy decisions aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural practices and biodiversity conservation. It is important to acknowledge that our search relied solely on the Web of Science database, which predominantly indexes English-language publications. This represents a potential limitation, as relevant research published in other databases and languages may have been excluded. Future studies should address this limitation by conducting systematic reviews that integrate multiple databases, such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and SciELO. to capture a broader and more representative body of evidence. Additionally, ecological field studies focused on the effects of sugarcane cultivation on specific taxa, as well as spatial analyses examining the relationship between crop expansion and deforestation, are needed to complement bibliometric findings. Such integrated approaches will strengthen the scientific basis for designing policies that reconcile agricultural development with biodiversity conservation.

5. Conclusions

This bibliometric review on the impacts of sugarcane on biodiversity reveals a growing body of research, aligned with the expansion of global sugarcane production. However, significant gaps remain, particularly in understanding the ecological consequences of this expansion. While countries such as Brazil, the United States of America, China, and Australia dominate the literature, major producers like India and Mexico are underrepresented, underscoring the need for more inclusive and collaborative international research efforts.
Most studies have focused on agronomy, soil science, and energy, with limited attention to biodiversity and ecology. Strengthening biodiversity-oriented research and promoting publications in ecology-focused journals will be crucial to balance agricultural productivity with conservation goals and to inform sustainable land-use policies.
Based on our findings, we recommend
  • Conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses that integrate ecological and agricultural data to better quantify trade-offs.
  • Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration among agronomists, ecologists, and policymakers to design strategies that reconcile sugarcane expansion with biodiversity conservation.
  • Expanding ecological studies about other taxonomic groups such as mammals, birds, and fish, in order to capture broader biodiversity trade-offs and ecosystem dynamics.
By addressing these gaps and fostering cross-disciplinary and cross-national cooperation, future research can provide the evidence base needed to guide policies that ensure both energy security and biodiversity protection.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/conservation5040067/s1, Table S1: The 217 publications returned by our literature search.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.R.d.S. and K.M.; methodology, E.R.d.S., K.M. and W.D.C.; software, E.R.d.S.; validation, E.R.d.S., W.D.C. and K.M.; formal analysis, E.R.d.S., W.D.C. and K.M.; investigation, E.R.d.S.; resources, E.R.d.S.; data curation, E.R.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.d.S.; writing—review and editing, E.R.d.S., W.D.C. and K.M.; visualization, E.R.d.S.; supervision, W.D.C. and K.M.; project administration, E.R.d.S., W.D.C. and K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES), Finance Code 001 (Grant: 88887.905506/2023-00 and PROCAD-AMAZONIA (88881.987653/2024-01). K.M. was supported by an Ayuda Beatriz Galindo (BG22/00121), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Universities and the Complutense University of Madrid. W.D.C. was supported by Ayudas Maria Zambrano (CA3/RSUE/2021-00197), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Universities, and is currently supported by Ayudas para contratos Ramón y Cajal (RYC2023-045231-I), funded by MICIU/AEI (10.13039/501100011033) and FSE+.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 394–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Scheffran, J.; Felkers, M.; Froese, R. Economic Growth and the Global Energy Demand. In Green Energy to Sustainability; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahmad, T.; Zhang, D. A critical review of comparative global historical energy consumption and future demand: The story told so far. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 1973–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Goldemberg, J.; Coelho, S.; Guardabassi, P. The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 2086–2097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lamers, P.; Hamelinck, C.; Junginger, M.; Faaij, A.P.C. International bioenergy trade—A review of past developments in the liquid biofuel market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2655–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Srivastava, R.K.; Shetti, N.P.; Reddy, K.R.; Kwon, E.E.; Nadagouda, M.N.; Aminabhavi, T.M. Biomass utilization and production of biofuels from carbon neutral materials. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 276, 116731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Khanna, M.; Crago, C.L.; Black, M. Can biofuels be a solution to climate change? The implications of land use change-related emissions for policy. Interface Focus 2011, 1, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Filoso, S.; do Carmo, J.B.; Mardegan, S.F.; Lins, S.R.M.; Gomes, T.F.; Martinelli, L.A. Reassessing the environmental impacts of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil to help meet sustainability goals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1847–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Galdos, M.; Cavalett, O.; Seabra, J.E.; Nogueira, L.A.H.; Bonomi, A. Trends in global warming and human health impacts related to Brazilian sugarcane ethanol production considering black carbon emissions. Appl. Energy 2013, 104, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cerri, C.C.; Bernoux, M.; Maia, S.M.F.; Cerri, C.E.P.; Costa Junior, C.; Feigl, B.J.; Frazão, L.A.; Mello, F.F.D.C.; Galdos, M.V.; Moreira, C.S.; et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation options in Brazil for land-use change, livestock and agriculture. Sci. Agric. 2010, 67, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wood, A.W. Soil degradation and management under intensive sugarcane cultivation in North Queensland. Soil Use Manag. 1985, 1, 120–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Guan, N.; Liu, L.; Dong, K.; Xie, M.; Du, Y. Agricultural mechanization, large-scale operation and agricultural carbon emissions. Cogent Food Agric. 2023, 9, 2238430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Novais, S.M.A.; Nunes, C.A.; Santos, N.B.; D’Amico, A.R.; Fernandes, G.W.; Quesada, M.; Neves, A.C.O. Effects of a possible pollinator crisis on food crop production in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Oliveira, W.; Colares, L.F.; Porto, R.G.; Viana, B.F.; Tabarelli, M.; Lopes, A.V. Food plants in Brazil: Origin, economic value of pollination and pollinator shortage risk. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Goebel, F.-R.; Sallam, N. New pest threats for sugarcane in the new bioeconomy and how to manage them. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Roy, S.; Roy, M.M.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Baitha, A. Soil Arthropods in Maintaining Soil Health: Thrust Areas for Sugarcane Production Systems. Sugar Tech 2018, 20, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beca, G.; Vancine, M.H.; Carvalho, C.S.; Pedrosa, F.; Alves, R.S.C.; Buscariol, D.; Galetti, M. High mammal species turnover in forest patches immersed in biofuel plantations. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 210, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dotta, G.; Verdade, L.M. Medium to large-sized mammals in agricultural landscapes of south-eastern Brazil. Mammalia 2011, 75, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oakley, J.L.; Bicknell, J.E. The impacts of tropical agriculture on biodiversity: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2022, 59, 3072–3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rashti, M.R.; Nelson, P.N.; Lan, Z.; Su, N.; Esfandbod, M.; Liu, X.; Chen, C. Sugarcane cultivation altered soil nitrogen cycling microbial processes and decreased nitrogen bioavailability in tropical Australia. J. Soils Sediments 2024, 24, 946–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gunkel, G.; Kosmol, J.; Sobral, M.; Rohn, H.; Montenegro, S.; Aureliano, J. Sugar Cane Industry as a Source of Water Pollution—Case Study on the Situation in Ipojuca River, Pernambuco, Brazil. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2007, 180, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Akinnawo, S.O. Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, physical, chemical and biological techniques for mitigation strategies. Environ. Chall. 2023, 12, 100733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bordonal, R.; Carvalho, J.; Lal, R.; Figueiredo, E.; Oliveira, B.; La Scala, N., Jr. Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Laurance, W.F.; Sayer, J.; Cassman, K.G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martín-Martín, A.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetr. 2018, 12, 1160–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Garfield, E. KeyWords Plus: ISI’s Breakthrough Retrieval Method. Part 1. Expanding Your Searching Power on Current Contents on Diskette. Curr. Contents 1990, 32, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  31. Manfrinato, W.; Azevedo, T.; Viana, V.M. Moist forest restoration in Brazil: A locally based project of CO2 sequestration, biodiversity conservation and watershed protection in Corumbataí river basin. In Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Technologies for Activities Implemented Jointly; Pergamon: Oxford, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  32. Di Cosmo, A.; Pinelli, C.; Scandurra, A.; Aria, M.; D’Aniello, B. Research Trends in Octopus Biological Studies. Animals 2021, 11, 1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Collier, C.A.; Neto, M.S.D.; de Almeida, G.M.A.; Rosa, J.S.; Severi, W.; El-Deir, A.C.A. Effects of anthropic actions and forest areas on a neotropical aquatic ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 691, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jwaideh, M.A.A.; Sutanudjaja, E.H.; Dalin, C. Global impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser use for major crops on aquatic biodiversity. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022, 27, 1058–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Taniwaki, R.H.; Matthaei, C.D.; Cardoso, T.K.M.; Ferraz, S.F.B.; Martinelli, L.A.; Piggott, J.J. The effect of agriculture on the seasonal dynamics and functional diversity of benthic biofilm in tropical headwater streams. Biotropica 2019, 51, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cabra-García, J.; Bermúdez-Rivas, C.; Osorio, A.M.; Chacón, P. Cross-taxon congruence of α and β diversity among five leaf litter arthropod groups in Colombia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 1493–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Couto, A.; Hellemans, S.; Roisin, Y.; Montes, M.A.; Vasconcellos, A. Effects of habitat loss on the genetic diversity of Embiratermes neotenicus (Isoptera) in a fragmented landscape of the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2020, 13, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Filgueiras, B.K.C.; Peres, C.A.; Iannuzzi, L.; Tabarelli, M.; Leal, I.R. Functional reorganization of dung beetle assemblages in forest-replacing sugarcane plantations. J. Insect Conserv. 2022, 26, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schiesari, L.; Saito, V.; Ferreira, J.; Freitas, L.S.; Goebbels, A.J.; Leite, J.P.C.B.; Oliveira, J.C.; Pelinson, R.M.; Querido, B.B.; Carmo, J.; et al. Community Reorganization Stabilizes Freshwater Ecosystems in Intensively Managed Agricultural Fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 2023, 60, 1327–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Roa-Fuentes, C.A.; Heino, J.; Cianciaruso, M.V.; Ferraz, S.; Zeni, J.O.; Casatti, L. Taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic β-diversity patterns of stream fish assemblages in tropical agroecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 2019, 64, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rodrigues, T.F.; Kays, R.; Parsons, A.; Versiani, N.F.; Paolino, R.M.; Pasqualotto, N.; Pasqualotto, N.; Krepschi, V.G.; Chiarello, A.G. Managed forest as habitat for gray brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira) in agricultural landscapes of southeastern Brazil. J. Mammal. 2017, 98, 1301–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suriano, M.T.; Fonseca-Gessner, A.A.; Roque, F.O.; Froehlich, C.G. Choice of macroinvertebrate metrics to evaluate stream conditions in Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 175, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Beza, E.; Assen, M. Land use/cover dynamics and its drivers in Gelda catchment, Lake Tana watershed, Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 2017, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nhiwatiwa, T.; Dalu, T.; Brendonck, L. Impact of Irrigation-Based Sugarcane Cultivation on the Chiredzi and Runde Rivers Quality, Zimbabwe. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 587–588, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Sim, S.; Hamel, P.; Bryant, B.; Noe, R.; Mueller, C.; Rigarlsford, G.; Kulak, M.; Kowal, V.; Sharp, R.; et al. Life cycle assessment needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shrestha, R.P.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Gnanavelrajah, N. Relating plant diversity to biomass and soil erosion in a cultivated landscape of the eastern seaboard region of Thailand. Appl. Geogr. 2010, 30, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yamauchi, D.H.; Garces, H.G.; Teixeira, M.D.; Rodrigues, G.F.B.; Ullmann, L.S.; Garces, A.G.; Hebeler-Barbosa, F.; Bagagli, E. Soil Mycobiome Is Shaped by Vegetation and Microhabitats: A Regional-Scale Study in Southeastern Brazil. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Canning, A.D.; Smart, J.C.R.; Dyke, J.; Curwen, G.; Hasan, S.; Waltham, N.J. Constructed Wetlands Suitability for Sugarcane Profitability, Freshwater Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Environ. Manag. 2023, 71, 304–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gasparatos, A.; Stromberg, P.; Takeuchi, K. Biofuels, ecosystem services and human wellbeing: Putting biofuels in the ecosystem services narrative. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moreno-Conn, L.M.; Rodríguez-Hernandez, N.S.; Arguello, J.O.; Gordillo, O.G.; Bernal-Riobo, J.H.; Arango, M.; Baquero, J.E. Land use change and its effect on ecosystem services in an Oxisol of the eastern High Plains of meta department in Colombia. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 687804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Le Ru, B.; Capdevielle-Dulac, C.; Musyoka, B.K.; Sezonlin, M.; Conlong, D.; Van Den Berg, J.; Clamens, A.L.; Cugala, D.; Nyamukondiwa, C.; Ong’Amo, G.; et al. Phylogeny and systematics of the Sesamia coniota Hampson species group (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Noctuinae: Apameini: Sesamiina), with the description of three new species from the Afrotropical region. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Fr. NS 2020, 56, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Agah-Manesh, H.; Rajabpour, A.; Yarahmadi, F.; Farsi, A. Potential of ultrasound to control Sesamia cretica (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ. Entomol. 2021, 50, 1393–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Puker, A.; Correa, C.M.A.; Silva, A.S.; Silva, J.V.O.; Korasaki, V.; Grossi, P.C. Effects of fruit-baited trap height on flower and leaf chafer scarab beetles sampling in Amazon rainforest. Entomol. Sci. 2020, 23, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Souza, T.B.; Albuquerque, L.S.C.; Iannuzzi, L.; Costa, F.C.; Gibernau, M.; Maia, A.C.D. Egg development and viability in three species of Cyclocephala (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Dynastinae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2023, 113, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alves, B.J.R.; Boddey, R.M.; Urquiaga, S. The success of BNF in soybean in Brazil. Plant Soil 2003, 252, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stirling, G.R.; Blair, B.L.; Pattemore, J.A.; Stirling, A.M. The impact of farming systems on soil health and soilborne diseases of sugarcane. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2010, 39, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. de Vries, S.C.; van de Ven, G.W.J.; van Ittersum, M.K.; Giller, K.E. Resource use efficiency and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion techniques. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34, 588–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gasparatos, A.; von Maltitz, G.P.; Johnson, F.X.; Lee, L.; Mathai, M.; Puppim de Oliveira, J.A.; Willis, K.J. Biofuels in sub-Sahara Africa: Drivers, impacts and priority policy areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 2501–2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Schuenemann, F.; Kerr, W.A. European Union non-tariff barriers to imports of African biofuels. Agrekon 2019, 58, 407–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kemp, J.; López-Baucells, A.; Rocha, R.; Wangensteen, O.S.; Andriatafika, Z.; Nair, A.; Cabeza, M.; Razafindrakoto, N.; Ratsoavina, F.M.; Ratrimomanarivo, F.; et al. Bats as potential suppressors of multiple agricultural pests: A case study from Madagascar. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 269, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Adam, M.L.; de Souza, T.B.; Oliveira, B.A.; Oliveira, R.M.; Oliveira, M.T.; Oliveira, L.C.; Oliveira, A.P.; Oliveira, F.A.; Oliveira, J.R.; Oliveira, C.A.; et al. DNA damage as an indicator of the environmental vulnerability of bats in Brazil’s Caatinga drylands. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 243, 113996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Benvindo-Souza, M.; Novaes, R.L.M.; Gregorin, R.; Moratelli, R.; Esbérard, C.E.L. Bat diversity in a mosaic of habitats in the Atlantic Forest of southeastern Brazil. Mammalia 2022, 86, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, X.; Li, J.; Tan, L.; Yao, J.; Zheng, Y.; Shen, Q.; Tan, X. The impact of land use on stream macroinvertebrates: A bibliometric analysis for 2010–2021. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2023, 195, 11235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Choi, Y.; Li, F. A Scientometrics Review on Land Ecosystem Service Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gonçalves, P.; Gonçalves-Souza, T.; Albuquerque, U. Chronic anthropogenic disturbances in ecology: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 2020, 123, 345–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023)–with Major Processing by Our World in Data. Sugar Cane Production. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/sugar-cane-production (accessed on 15 July 2024).
  67. Araújo, M.; Goes, T.; Marra, R.; Souza, M. Sugarcane: The evolution of technological thinking in agriculture. Rev. Política Agríc. 2010, 19, 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lapola, D.M.; Schaldach, R.; Alcamo, J.; Bondeau, A.; Koch, J.; Koelking, C.; Priess, J.A. Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 3388–3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vera, I.; Wicke, B.; van der Hilst, F. Spatial Variation in Environmental Impacts of Sugarcane Expansion in Brazil. Land 2020, 9, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sparovek, G.; Barretto, A.G.O.P.; Berndes, G.; Martins, S.; Maule, R. Environmental, land-use and economic implications of Brazilian sugarcane expansion 1996–2006. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2009, 14, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Foley, J.A.; DeFries, R.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Snyder, P.K. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 2005, 309, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Soares-Filho, B.; Rajão, R.; Macedo, M.; Carneiro, A.; Costa, W.; Coe, M.; Rodrigues, H.; Alencar, A. Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 2014, 344, 363–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Blicharska, M.; Smithers, R.J.; Kuchler, M.; Agrawal, G.K.; Gutiérrez, J.M.; Hassanali, A.; Mikusiński, G. Steps to overcome the North–South divide in research relevant to climate change policy and practice. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rosa, C.; Baccaro, F.; Cronemberger, C.; Hipólito, J.; Barros, C.F.; Rodrigues, D.D.J.; Magnusson, W.E. The Program for Biodiversity Research in Brazil: The role of regional networks for biodiversity knowledge, dissemination, and conservation. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 2021, 93, e20201517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Collen, B.; Ram, M.; Zamin, T.; McRae, L. The Tropical Biodiversity Data Gap: Addressing Disparity in Global Monitoring. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2008, 1, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wilson, K.A.; Auerbach, N.A.; Sam, K.; Magini, A.G.; Moss, A.S.L.; Langhans, S.D.; Meijaard, E. Conservation Research Is Not Happening Where It Is Most Needed. PLoS Biol. 2016, 14, e1002413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lambin, E.F.; Meyfroidt, P. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 3465–3472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nepstad, D.; McGrath, D.; Stickler, C.; Alencar, A.; Azevedo, A.; Swette, B.; Hess, L. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 2014, 344, 1118–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pereira, H.M.; Ferrier, S.; Walters, M.; Geller, G.N.; Jongman, R.H.G.; Scholes, R.J.; Bruford, M.W.; Brummitt, N.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Cardoso, A.C.; et al. Essential Biodiversity Variables. Science 2013, 339, 277–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sutherland, W.J.; Pullin, A.S.; Dolman, P.M.; Knight, T.M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Searchinger, T.; Heimlich, R.; Houghton, R.A.; Dong, F.; Elobeid, A.; Fabiosa, J.; Yu, T.H. Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 2008, 319, 1238–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. CBD. Convention on Biological Diversity. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  84. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  85. Uusitalo, V.; Horn, R.; Maier, S.D. Assessing land use efficiencies and land quality impacts of renewable transportation energy systems for passenger cars using the LANCA® Method. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Viaud, P.; Heuclin, B.; Letourmy, P.; Christina, M.; Versini, A.; Mansuy, A.; Naudin, K. Sugarcane yield response to legume intercropped: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2023, 295, 108882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hou, D.; Meng, F.; Ji, C.; Xie, L.; Zhu, W.; Wang, S.; Sun, H. Linking food production and environmental outcomes: An application of a modified relative risk model to prioritize land-management practices. Agric. Syst. 2022, 196, 103342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Weiner, J. Ecology–the science of agriculture in the 21st century. J. Agric. Sci. 2003, 141, 371–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Stanhope, J.; Weinstein, P. Critical appraisal in ecology: What tools are available, and what is being used in systematic reviews? Res. Synth. Methods 2023, 14, 342–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Pryor, S.W.; Smithers, J.; Lyne, P.; van Antwerpen, R. Impact of agricultural practices on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for South African sugarcane production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Defante, L.R.; Vilpoux, O.F.; Sauer, L. Rapid expansion of sugarcane crop for biofuels and influence on food production in the first producing region of Brazil. Food Policy 2018, 79, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Askarianzadeh, A.; Moharramipour, S.; Kamali, K.; Fathipour, Y. Evaluation of damage caused by stalk borers, Sesamia spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on sugarcane quality in Iran. Insect Sci. 2008, 38, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Stork, N.E.; Eggleton, P. Invertebrates as determinants and indicators of soil quality. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1992, 7, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. da Silva, G.B.S.; Mello, A.Y.; Steinke, V.A.J.G. Unidades de conservação no bioma Cerrado: Desafios e oportunidades para a conservação no Mato Grosso. Geoambiente 2012, 37, 541–554. [Google Scholar]
  96. Wieringa, J.; Poorter, L. Biodiversity hotspots in West Africa; patterns and causes. In Biodiversity of West African Forests: An Ecological Atlas of Woody Plant Species; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2004; pp. 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  97. Burivalova, Z.; Miteva, D.; Salafsky, N.; Butler, R.A.; Wilcove, D.S. Evidence Types and Trends in Tropical Forest Conservation Literature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Vishnoi, S.; Goel, R.K. Climate smart agriculture for sustainable productivity and healthy landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2024, 151, 103600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jyoti, B.; Singh, A. Projected Sugarcane Yield in Different Climate Change Scenarios in Indian States: A State-Wise Panel Data Exploration. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 2020, 8, 343–365. [Google Scholar]
  101. Suramaythangkoor, T.; Li, Z. Energy policy tools for agricultural residues utilization for heat and power generation: A case study of sugarcane trash in Thailand. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4343–4351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Esbérard, C.E.L. Morcegos no estado do Rio de Janeiro. Mastozool. Neotrop. 2005, 12, 279–281. [Google Scholar]
  103. Hill, A.P.; Prince, P.; Piña Covarrubias, E.; Doncaster, C.P.; Snaddon, J.L.; Rogers, A. AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 1199–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Muylaert, R.L.; Stevens, R.D.; Esbérard, C.E.L.; Mello, M.A.R.; Garbino, G.S.T.; Varzinczak, L.H.; Galetti, M. ATLANTIC BATS: A data set of bat communities from the Atlantic Forests of South America. Ecology 2017, 98, 3227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. García-Morales, R.; Badano, E.I.; Moreno, C.E. Response of Neotropical Bat Assemblages to Human Land Use. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 1096–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ancillotto, L.; Borrello, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Dartora, F.; Ruberto, M.; Rummo, R.; Russo, D. A bat a day keeps the pest away: Bats provide valuable protection from pests in organic apple orchards. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 78, 126558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Benvindo-Souza, M.; Hosokawa, A.V.; dos Santos, C.G.A.; de Assis, R.A.; Pedroso, T.M.A.; Borges, R.E.; de Melo e Silva, D. Evaluation of genotoxicity in bat species found on agricultural landscapes of the Cerrado savanna, central Brazil. Environments 2022, 293, 118579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Noer, C.; Dabelsteen, T.; Bohmann, K.; Monadjem, A. Molossid bats in an African agro-ecosystem select sugarcane fields as foraging habitat. Afr. Zool. 2012, 47, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conservation 05 00067 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the main steps of data collection and analysis.
Figure 1. Flow diagram showing the main steps of data collection and analysis.
Conservation 05 00067 g001
Conservation 05 00067 g002
Figure 2. Annual scientific production on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity between 1998, when the first paper was returned by our search, and 2023, which was the last complete year at the time the search was carried out. We obtained 217 publications with an annual growth rate in publications of 12.26%.
Figure 2. Annual scientific production on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity between 1998, when the first paper was returned by our search, and 2023, which was the last complete year at the time the search was carried out. We obtained 217 publications with an annual growth rate in publications of 12.26%.
Conservation 05 00067 g002
Conservation 05 00067 g003
Figure 3. (A) Number of publications per country and (B) collaboration between countries. The map in (A) illustrates the geographical distribution of the number of publications per country, with the colors indicating the number of publications in which authors affiliated in the country participated, ranging from 1 to 266. Countries in dark blue, such as Brazil, have the highest participation in publications (266), while those in light blue have between 1 and 18 publications. The chord network chart in (B) shows collaborations between different countries, with the highest number of collaborations occurring between Brazil and other countries (83), followed by the United States with 45 collaborations. Other countries that have more than 10 collaborations include South Africa, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom.
Figure 3. (A) Number of publications per country and (B) collaboration between countries. The map in (A) illustrates the geographical distribution of the number of publications per country, with the colors indicating the number of publications in which authors affiliated in the country participated, ranging from 1 to 266. Countries in dark blue, such as Brazil, have the highest participation in publications (266), while those in light blue have between 1 and 18 publications. The chord network chart in (B) shows collaborations between different countries, with the highest number of collaborations occurring between Brazil and other countries (83), followed by the United States with 45 collaborations. Other countries that have more than 10 collaborations include South Africa, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom.
Conservation 05 00067 g003
Conservation 05 00067 g004
Figure 4. Co-occurrence network showing the clusters of keywords. Cluster 1 (red)—Land Use- and Bioenergy-related topics: land-use change, impacts, emissions, life-cycle assessment, ethanol, greenhouse-gas emissions, biofuels, Brazil, quality, Sao Paulo, sugarcane ethanol-production, bioenergy, biomass. Cluster 2 (blue)—Conservation- and Biodiversity-related topics: biodiversity, sugarcane, management, carbon, ecosystem services, expansion, impact, forest, climate-change, nitrogen, soil, agricultural intensification, water, ethanol-production, systems, agriculture, community. Cluster 3 (green)—Effects on Diversity of Species-related topics: diversity, land-use, conservation, abundance, communities, species richness, Atlantic Forest, patterns, dynamics, habitat, responses, fragmentation, habitat, fragmentation rainforest, assemblages, deforestation, landscape, area, Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
Figure 4. Co-occurrence network showing the clusters of keywords. Cluster 1 (red)—Land Use- and Bioenergy-related topics: land-use change, impacts, emissions, life-cycle assessment, ethanol, greenhouse-gas emissions, biofuels, Brazil, quality, Sao Paulo, sugarcane ethanol-production, bioenergy, biomass. Cluster 2 (blue)—Conservation- and Biodiversity-related topics: biodiversity, sugarcane, management, carbon, ecosystem services, expansion, impact, forest, climate-change, nitrogen, soil, agricultural intensification, water, ethanol-production, systems, agriculture, community. Cluster 3 (green)—Effects on Diversity of Species-related topics: diversity, land-use, conservation, abundance, communities, species richness, Atlantic Forest, patterns, dynamics, habitat, responses, fragmentation, habitat, fragmentation rainforest, assemblages, deforestation, landscape, area, Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
Conservation 05 00067 g004
Conservation 05 00067 g005
Figure 5. Thematic map showing clusters of keywords present in the publications retrieved from the Web of Science database. The X-axis represents the centrality (i.e., the degree of interaction of a network cluster with other clusters) and gives information about the importance of a theme and the Y-axis symbolizes the density (i.e., measures the internal strength of a cluster network, and is a measure of the theme’s development). Accordingly, the upper right quadrant identifies motor themes (i.e., well developed and important themes for the structuring of a research field), and the lower right quadrant identifies the basic themes (i.e., important and foundational themes that are central to the field but have lower internal development). The upper left quadrant highlights niche themes, which are highly developed and specialized but less connected to the broader research field, often appealing to a more targeted audience or specialized publications. Finally, the lower left quadrant includes emerging or declining themes, characterized by both low centrality and low density; these themes may represent areas of nascent research or topics that are losing relevance within the field [33].
Figure 5. Thematic map showing clusters of keywords present in the publications retrieved from the Web of Science database. The X-axis represents the centrality (i.e., the degree of interaction of a network cluster with other clusters) and gives information about the importance of a theme and the Y-axis symbolizes the density (i.e., measures the internal strength of a cluster network, and is a measure of the theme’s development). Accordingly, the upper right quadrant identifies motor themes (i.e., well developed and important themes for the structuring of a research field), and the lower right quadrant identifies the basic themes (i.e., important and foundational themes that are central to the field but have lower internal development). The upper left quadrant highlights niche themes, which are highly developed and specialized but less connected to the broader research field, often appealing to a more targeted audience or specialized publications. Finally, the lower left quadrant includes emerging or declining themes, characterized by both low centrality and low density; these themes may represent areas of nascent research or topics that are losing relevance within the field [33].
Conservation 05 00067 g005
Table 1. The ten journals publishing four or more papers on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity, ordered by number of papers returned and then by journal impact factor from highest to lowest, and showing the total number of papers returned by our search and the Web of Science categories of the journals. Notably, the diverse range of journals reflects the interdisciplinary nature of research on biodiversity and sugarcane production, with a focus on categories such as Agronomy, Energy and Fuels, Environmental Sciences, and Ecology. * Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from 2023.
Table 1. The ten journals publishing four or more papers on the impacts of sugarcane production on biodiversity, ordered by number of papers returned and then by journal impact factor from highest to lowest, and showing the total number of papers returned by our search and the Web of Science categories of the journals. Notably, the diverse range of journals reflects the interdisciplinary nature of research on biodiversity and sugarcane production, with a focus on categories such as Agronomy, Energy and Fuels, Environmental Sciences, and Ecology. * Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Journal Citation Reports (JCR) from 2023.
JournalNumber of PublicationsWeb of Science CategoriesJIF *JCR *
Global Change Biology Bioenergy7Agronomy|Energy & Fuels5.6Q1
Applied Soil Ecology7Soil Science4.8Q1
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews6Green & Sustainable Science & Technology|Energy & Fuels15.9Q1
Science Of The Total Environment6Environmental Sciences9.8Q1
PLoS ONE6Multidisciplinary Sciences3.7Q2
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment5Agriculture, Multidisciplinary|Ecology|Environmental Sciences6.6Q1
Journal Of Applied Ecology5Biodiversity Conservation|Ecology5.7Q1
Environmental Monitoring And Assessment5Environmental Sciences3Q1
Biomass & Bioenergy4Agricultural Engineering|Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology|Energy & Fuels6Q1
Land4Multidisciplinary|Ecology|Environmental Sciences3.9Q1
Table 2. The table displays the distribution of publications and collaborations by country, including the number of articles with the corresponding author affiliated with an institution in each specified country (CA), the total number of authors across all 217 publications with at least one affiliation in that country (FA), and the quantity of articles resulting from international collaborations.
Table 2. The table displays the distribution of publications and collaborations by country, including the number of articles with the corresponding author affiliated with an institution in each specified country (CA), the total number of authors across all 217 publications with at least one affiliation in that country (FA), and the quantity of articles resulting from international collaborations.
CountryNumber of Papers Whose Corresponding Author Is Based at an Institution in That Country (CA)Papers in Collaboration with Other CountriesTotal Number of Authors Across All 217 Publications Based at Institutions in That Country (FA)
Brazil7883266
USA194596
China111034
Australia10938
Netherlands81418
Japan8615
South Africa74141
India71738
France62128
Germany62118
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

dos Santos, E.R.; Carvalho, W.D.; Mustin, K. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Sugarcane Production and Its Effects on Biodiversity: Trends, Critical Points, and Knowledge Gaps. Conservation 2025, 5, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5040067

AMA Style

dos Santos ER, Carvalho WD, Mustin K. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Sugarcane Production and Its Effects on Biodiversity: Trends, Critical Points, and Knowledge Gaps. Conservation. 2025; 5(4):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5040067

Chicago/Turabian Style

dos Santos, Eduardo Rodrigues, William Douglas Carvalho, and Karen Mustin. 2025. "Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Sugarcane Production and Its Effects on Biodiversity: Trends, Critical Points, and Knowledge Gaps" Conservation 5, no. 4: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5040067

APA Style

dos Santos, E. R., Carvalho, W. D., & Mustin, K. (2025). Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Sugarcane Production and Its Effects on Biodiversity: Trends, Critical Points, and Knowledge Gaps. Conservation, 5(4), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/conservation5040067

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop