# Source paper archive - Source title: Brazilian bryophytes: a national-scale comprehensive dataset of species richness and geographic distribution - Author(s): Silva, J. V., Marmo, J., Tavares, K. j., Oliveira, H. C., Silva, M. P. - Source landing URL: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487v1 - PDF URL: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487v1.full.pdf - PDF SHA-256: d94872603c174df05525d231516c917335f050c0b2b471ad5880d8f4fb40de97 - Converter: pymupdf4llm 0.0.27 - Limits: Automated PDF text extraction; reading order, equations, tables and formatting may be incomplete or incorrect. Images are omitted, and no OCR was performed. Markup and links are neutralized for safe downloading. Consult the original PDF for the authoritative version. --- [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) # **Brazilian bryophytes: a national-scale comprehensive** **dataset of species richness and geographic distribution** Jailton Venilson Ferreira da Silva [1], Jhonyd Jhonata de Oliveira Marmo [1], Kleberson Jonata da Cruz Tavares [1], Hermeson Cassiano de Oliveira², Mércia Patrícia Pereira Silva¹ 1 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal (PPGBV), Laboratório de Biologia de Briófitas, Departamento de Botânica, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego s/n - Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE 50670-901, Brasil. 2 Laboratório de Botânica, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual do Piauí, Campus Heróis do Jenipapo, Av. Santo Antônio s/n - São Luís, Campo Maior, PI 64280 000, Brasil. **Abstract:** Bryophytes (Anthocerotophyta, Marchantiophyta, and Bryophyta) remain under-sampled in large-scale biodiversity databases in Brazil, despite their ecological importance. In Brazil, Flora e Funga do Brasil recognizes 1,618 bryophyte species distributed across six biomes that are increasingly threatened by anthropogenic pressures such as deforestation, agricultural expansion, and climate change. Nevertheless, knowledge of species geographic distributions remains fragmented and based on scattered records. Flora e Funga do Brasil serves as the official taxonomic reference for the country, providing the accepted species list and serving as a baseline for biodiversity studies. However, as it was designed as a nomenclatural and taxonomic checklist, it does not integrate primary occurrence records with geographic coordinates and collection dates. Consequently, occurrence data remain dispersed across herbaria, digital repositories, and the scientific literature, without dynamic updates linked to the official checklist. This disconnect between the taxonomic framework and primary occurrence records limits macroecological and biogeographical analyses at national scales, which depend on standardized georeferenced biodiversity databases. To address this gap, we compiled [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 102,528 bryophyte occurrence records from herbarium specimens, using data from GBIF and the speciesLink network, complemented by field collections from the Caatinga and records from the Cryptogamic Herbarium of the State University of Piauí. All records were georeferenced and curated, including verification of inconsistent coordinates, removal of duplicates, and taxonomic standardization using Bryonames. When available, information such as collection date and collector was retained. The dataset comprises 1,820 species, 125 families, and 442 genera. Bryophyta (mosses) was the most diverse group (1,056 spp., 84 families, 310 genera), followed by Marchantiophyta (745 spp., 37 families, 124 genera) and Anthocerotophyta (19 spp., four families, seven genera). Among mosses, the most species-rich families were Sphagnaceae (79 spp.), Fissidentaceae (76 spp.), and Pottiaceae (76 spp.). Among liverworts, Lejeuneaceae dominated with 335 species, followed by Lepidoziaceae (58 spp.) and Plagiochilaceae (51 spp.). Among hornworts, Anthocerotaceae, Dendrocerotaceae, and Notothyladaceae each included six species. Regionally, the Southeast showed the highest richness (1,338 spp.), followed by the South (974 spp.), Central-West (937 spp.), Northeast (897 spp.), and North (763 spp.). Regarding biomes, the Atlantic Forest (1,523 spp.) and Amazon (1,054 spp.) were the most species rich, followed by the Cerrado (810 spp.), Caatinga (671 spp.), Pampa (269 spp.), and Pantanal (61 spp.). These patterns reflect both ecological gradients and historical sampling biases. This dataset bridges the gap between the official taxonomic checklist and primary occurrence data by integrating multiple sources into a standardized, openly accessible database. It provides a robust tool for studies in macroecology, biogeography, and conservation, enabling analyses of spatial patterns of species richness, endemism, and taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity across environmental gradients. It also [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) supports species distribution modeling, climate change impact assessments, biodiversity hotspot identification, and conservation planning at regional and national scales. Users are encouraged to cite this article when using the dataset and to report downstream applications derived from it. _Key words/phrases:_ biodiversity; Brazilian biomes; data paper; hornworts; liverworts; mosses. Open Research: The complete data set is available as Supporting Information at: [ _to be_ _completed at proof stage_ ]. Associated data is also available at [name of data repository]: [DOI assigned to deposited material]. - Corresponding Author E-mail: jailton.venilson@ufpe.br [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 1 Title: Brazilian bryophytes: a national-scale comprehensive dataset of species richness and 2 geographic distribution 3 Authors: Jailton Venilson Ferreira da Silva¹, Jhonyd Jhonata de Oliveira Marmo¹, Kleberson 4 Jonata da Cruz Tavares [1], Hermeson Cassiano de Oliveira², Mércia Patrícia Pereira Silva¹ 5 Author Affiliations: 6 1. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Vegetal (PPGBV), Laboratório de Biologia de 7 Briófitas, Departamento de Botânica, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal de 8 Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego s/n - Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE 50670-901, 9 Brasil. 10 2. Laboratório de Botânica, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual do Piauí, 11 Campus Heróis do Jenipapo, Av. Santo Antônio s/n - São Luís, Campo Maior, PI 6428012 000, Brasil. 13 Corresponding Author: jailton.venilson@ufpe.br 14 Open Research statement: The data is provided as a private submission for peer review via the 15 following link: 16 17 18 19 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 20 Introduction 21 Studies on biodiversity in tropical plant communities have predominantly focused on trees 22 (Condit et al., 2002; Eisenlohr et al., 2013; Gentry, 1988; Oliveira & Daly, 1999; Oliveira 23 Filho et al., 2005; Pitman et al., 2001, 2002; Ter Steege et al., 2003), whereas bryophytes 24 (Anthocerotophyta—hornworts, Marchantiophyta—liverworts, and Bryophyta—mosses) 25 have often been overlooked despite their ecological importance. These plants contribute to 26 water retention, facilitate the establishment of vascular plants (Welch, 1948), and provide 27 essential microhabitats for a wide range of organisms (Gradstein et al., 2001; Glime, 2007). 28 In Brazil, 1,618 bryophyte species are currently recognized (18 hornworts, 702 liverworts, 29 and 898 mosses; Flora e Funga do Brasil, 2025), distributed across different biomes that 30 are increasingly threatened by anthropogenic pressures such as deforestation, climate 31 change, agricultural expansion, wildfires, and urbanization (Hirota, 2003; INPE, 2016; 32 Imazon, 2020; Walter & Sevilha, 2019). Despite these threats, the country's unique 33 combination of humid and dry forests still provides suitable conditions for bryophyte 34 development. However, knowledge of their distribution remains fragmented and 35 incomplete (Aires & Bordin, 2024; Carvalho et al., 2025; Lima & Peralta, 2021; Marmo & 36 Silva, 2025; Silva et al., 2024, 2025; Sousa et al., 2024). 37 Despite significant advances in the knowledge of the Brazilian bryoflora over recent 38 decades, information on species occurrences remains scattered across biological 39 collections, digital herbaria, regional inventories, and scientific publications. In this 40 context, Flora e Funga do Brasil (2025) represents the first official taxonomic framework 41 for the country, providing a comprehensive checklist of recognized species (Forzza et al., 42 2012). However, primary occurrence records including geographic coordinates, collector [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 43 information, collection dates, and substrate data remain dispersed among biological 44 collections, digital herbaria, and the specialized literature. Initiatives such as SpeciesLink 45 and GBIF have integrated part of these records (Canhos et al., 2004; GBIF.org, 2025), but 46 they do not replace a consolidated and standardized national-scale database. This limitation 47 stems from the fact that Flora e Funga do Brasil was not designed as a dynamic repository 48 of occurrence records, while taxonomic updates and herbarium data continue to follow 49 independent update cycles. 50 Furthermore, collecting effort has historically been uneven across Brazilian regions and 51 biomes, generating spatial and taxonomic biases that hinder a comprehensive 52 understanding of species distribution and richness patterns (Costa & Peralta, 2015). 53 Consequently, the establishment of large, standardized databases is crucial for advancing 54 studies in macroecology, biogeography, conservation, and environmental change 55 monitoring (Antunes et al., 2022; Costa-Pinto et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2020; Hasui et al., 56 2017; Ramos et al., 2019; Travers & Dunnell, 2009). 57 In this study, we present a dataset comprising more than 100,000 bryophyte occurrence 58 records from Brazil, encompassing all three bryophyte phyla across a wide range of 59 biomes. The dataset integrates taxonomic, spatial, and temporal information and provides 60 a valuable resource for analyses of species richness, geographic distribution, taxonomic 61 representativeness, and collecting effort over time. Furthermore, it serves as a foundation 62 for future research in biodiversity, conservation, macroecology, biogeography, and 63 ecological modeling. 64 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 65 **Class I. Data Set Descriptors** 66 **A.** **Data set identity:** 67 **Title:** Brazilian bryophytes: a national-scale comprehensive dataset of species richness 68 and geographic distribution 69 70 **B.** **Data set identification code.** 71 **Suggested Data Set Identity Codes:** 72 BRYOPHYTES_BRAZIL_Occurrence.csv 73 **C.** **Data set description** 74 **Principal investigators** 75 1. Jailton Venilson Ferreira da Silva, Jhonyd Jhonata de Oliveira Marmo, Kleberson Jonata 76 da Cruz Tavares, Mércia Patrícia Pereira Silva 77 Laboratório de Biologia de Briófitas, Departamento de Botânica, Centro de Biociências, 78 Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego s/n - Cidade Universitária, 79 Recife, PE 50670-901, Brasil. 80 2. Hermeson Cassiano de Oliveira 81 Laboratório de Botânica, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Estadual do Piauí, 82 Campus Heróis do Jenipapo, Av. Santo Antônio s/n - São Luís, Campo Maior, PI 6428083 000, Brasil. 84 1. Abstract: Bryophytes (Anthocerotophyta, Marchantiophyta, and Bryophyta) remain 85 under-sampled in large-scale biodiversity databases in Brazil, despite their ecological 86 importance. In Brazil, Flora e Funga do Brasil recognizes 1,618 bryophyte species 87 distributed across six biomes that are increasingly threatened by anthropogenic 88 pressures such as deforestation, agricultural expansion, and climate change. 89 Nevertheless, knowledge of species geographic distributions remains fragmented and 90 based on scattered records. Flora e Funga do Brasil serves as the official taxonomic 91 reference for the country, providing the accepted species list and serving as a baseline 92 for biodiversity studies. However, as it was designed as a nomenclatural and [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 93 taxonomic checklist, it does not integrate primary occurrence records with 94 geographic coordinates and collection dates. Consequently, occurrence data remain 95 dispersed across herbaria, digital repositories, and the scientific literature, without 96 dynamic updates linked to the official checklist. This disconnect between the 97 taxonomic framework and primary occurrence records limits macroecological and 98 biogeographical analyses at national scales, which depend on standardized 99 georeferenced biodiversity databases. To address this gap, we compiled 102,528 100 bryophyte occurrence records from herbarium specimens, using data from GBIF and 101 the speciesLink network, complemented by field collections from the Caatinga and 102 records from the Cryptogamic Herbarium of the State University of Piauí. All records 103 were georeferenced and curated, including verification of inconsistent coordinates, 104 removal of duplicates, and taxonomic standardization using Bryonames. When 105 available, information such as collection date and collector was retained. The dataset 106 comprises 1,821 species, 125 families, and 442 genera. Bryophyta (mosses) was the 107 most diverse group (1,056 spp., 84 families, 310 genera), followed by 108 Marchantiophyta (745 spp., 37 families, 124 genera) and Anthocerotophyta (19 spp., 109 four families, seven genera). Among mosses, the most species-rich families were 110 Sphagnaceae (79 spp.), Fissidentaceae (76 spp.), and Pottiaceae (76 spp.). Among 111 liverworts, Lejeuneaceae dominated with 335 species, followed by Lepidoziaceae (58 112 spp.) and Plagiochilaceae (51 spp.). Among hornworts, Anthocerotaceae, 113 Dendrocerotaceae, and Notothyladaceae each included six species. Regionally, the 114 Southeast showed the highest richness (1,338 spp.), followed by the South (974 spp.), 115 Central-West (937 spp.), Northeast (897 spp.), and North (763 spp.). Regarding [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 116 biomes, the Atlantic Forest (1,523 spp.) and Amazon (1,054 spp.) were the most 117 species-rich, followed by the Cerrado (810 spp.), Caatinga (671 spp.), Pampa (269 118 spp.), and Pantanal (61 spp.). These patterns reflect both ecological gradients and 119 historical sampling biases. This dataset bridges the gap between the official 120 taxonomic checklist and primary occurrence data by integrating multiple sources into 121 a standardized, openly accessible database. It provides a robust tool for studies in 122 macroecology, biogeography, and conservation, enabling analyses of spatial patterns 123 of species richness, endemism, and taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity 124 across environmental gradients. It also supports species distribution modeling, 125 climate change impact assessments, biodiversity hotspot identification, and 126 conservation planning at regional and national scales. Users are encouraged to cite 127 this article when using the dataset and to report downstream applications derived 128 from it. 129 D. Key words/phrases: biodiversity; Brazilian biomes; data paper; hornworts; liverworts; 130 mosses. 131 **Description** 132 A total of 102,528 bryophyte occurrence records were compiled for Brazil, encompassing 133 representatives of all three phyla: Anthocerotophyta, Bryophyta, and Marchantiophyta. 134 The records show a broad distribution across the Brazilian territory, with the highest 135 concentration of occurrences in the Atlantic Forest and along coastal regions of the 136 Southeast and South (Figure 1). In contrast, lower record densities were observed in the 137 Pantanal and Pampa biomes, as well as in inland areas of the Northern region. 138 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 139 140 To better understand spatial distribution patterns, occurrence records were 141 subsequently analyzed separately for each bryophyte phylum. Bryophyta accounted 142 for 68,478 records across Brazil (Figure 2), whereas Marchantiophyta comprised 143 33,594 records (Figure 3). Bryophyta and Marchantiophyta exhibited the broadest 144 geographic distributions and the highest numbers of records throughout the 145 country. In contrast, Anthocerotophyta was less well represented, with only 455 146 records and a more restricted spatial distribution (Figure 4). 147 The distribution of records was also analyzed across the different Brazilian biomes 148 for all three bryophyte phyla. The Atlantic Forest exhibited the highest numbers of 149 occurrence records and species richness, followed by the Amazon, Caatinga, and 150 Cerrado. In contrast, the Pantanal and Pampa showed the lowest representation in 151 terms of both record numbers and species richness. Bryophyta and 152 Marchantiophyta were widely distributed across all biomes, particularly in humid 153 forested regions, whereas Anthocerotophyta displayed a more restricted 154 distribution concentrated in specific areas. 155 The complete dataset comprises 1,820 identified species distributed across 125 156 families and 442 genera. Bryophyta was the most diverse division, with 1,056 157 species, 310 genera, and 84 families, followed by Marchantiophyta, with 745 158 species, 124 genera, and 37 families, and Anthocerotophyta, with 19 species, seven 159 genera, and four families. Among the mosses (Bryophyta), the most species-rich 160 families were Sphagnaceae (79 spp.), Fissidentaceae (76 spp.), and Pottiaceae (76 161 spp.). Among the liverworts (Marchantiophyta), Lejeuneaceae was the dominant [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 162 family, comprising 335 species, followed by Lepidoziaceae (58 spp.) and 163 Plagiochilaceae (51 spp.). Among the hornworts (Anthocerotophyta), the most 164 species-rich families were Anthocerotaceae, Dendrocerotaceae, and 165 Notothyladaceae, each represented by six species. 166 The Atlantic Forest contained the highest number of bryophyte records, totaling 167 54,237 occurrences, followed by the Amazon, with 18,560 records. The Caatinga 168 and Cerrado were also well represented, accounting for 14,561 and 13,856 records, 169 respectively. The lowest numbers of records were observed in the Pampa, with 954 170 occurrences, and the Pantanal, with only 146 records. Species richness was likewise 171 highest in the Atlantic Forest, where 1,523 species were recorded, followed by the 172 Amazon with 1,054 species. The Cerrado harbored 810 species, whereas the 173 Caatinga contained 671 recorded species. The lowest species richness values were 174 found in the Pampa, with 269 species, and the Pantanal, with only 61 recorded 175 species. 176 The Southeast region contained the highest number of bryophyte records, totaling 177 32,069 occurrences. It was followed by the Northeast, with 30,160 records. The 178 North accounted for 15,288 records, whereas the South and Central-West regions 179 contributed 12,607 and 12,403 records, respectively. Species richness was also 180 highest in the Southeast, with 1,338 recorded species, followed by the South, with 181 974 species. The Central-West harbored 937 species, while the Northeast accounted 182 for 897 species. The lowest species richness was observed in the North, with 763 183 recorded species. [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 184 At the state level, Bahia exhibited the highest number of bryophyte records, totaling 185 18,367 occurrences, followed by São Paulo, with 15,292 records. Amazonas 186 accounted for 7,598 records, while Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro contributed 187 6,741 and 5,291 records, respectively. Other states with substantial representation 188 included Pará (4,785 records), Espírito Santo (4,745), Mato Grosso (4,728), Rio 189 Grande do Sul (4,376), Paraná (4,305), and Santa Catarina (3,926). Intermediate 190 numbers of records were observed in Goiás (3,433 records), Pernambuco (3,347), 191 the Federal District (3,312), Ceará (2,809), and Piauí (2,596). The lowest numbers 192 of records were found in Rondônia (1,126), Alagoas (1,072), Paraíba (932), Mato 193 Grosso do Sul (930), Roraima (769), Sergipe (671), Acre (558), Amapá (380), Rio 194 Grande do Norte (192), Maranhão (174), and Tocantins (72 records). 195 The highest species richness was recorded in São Paulo, with 999 species, followed 196 by Minas Gerais (826 species), Rio de Janeiro (810), Bahia (770), and Mato Grosso 197 (736). High species richness was also observed in Paraná (667 species), Santa 198 Catarina (618), Rio Grande do Sul (610), Amazonas (591), and Espírito Santo 199 (528). Intermediate richness values were recorded in Pará (410 species), 200 Pernambuco (398), Goiás (382), the Federal District (332), Ceará (285), Roraima 201 (235), and Alagoas (221). The lowest richness values were observed in Paraíba 202 (194 species), Piauí (187), Rondônia (184), Mato Grosso do Sul (180), Acre (145), 203 Sergipe (125), Amapá (90), Maranhão (77), Tocantins (48), and Rio Grande do 204 Norte, with only 41 recorded species. 205 We analyzed bryophyte records across five temporal periods and observed a 206 marked increase in the number of records over time. Between 1800–1850 and [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 207 1901–1950, the number of records remained relatively low, indicating limited 208 sampling effort during the early stages of bryological exploration in Brazil. From 209 1951–2000 onward, there was a sharp increase in recorded occurrences, while the 210 2001–2025 period exhibited the highest values, exceeding 45,000 records (Figure 211 5). This pattern likely reflects the expansion of floristic surveys, the growth in the 212 number of bryology specialists, the strengthening of biological collections, and the 213 increasing digitization of Brazilian herbaria. 214 We also analyzed bryophyte species richness over time. The results show a 215 progressive increase in the number of species recorded in Brazil throughout the 216 studied periods. Between 1800–1850, only a few species had been documented, 217 whereas subsequent periods exhibited a continuous increase in known species 218 richness. The most pronounced increase occurred between 1951–2000, when the 219 number of recorded species exceeded 1,400. During the 2001–2025 period, the 220 upward trend in species richness was maintained, with a slight increase of two 221 species compared to the previous interval. This pattern may be related to 222 differences in sampling effort, temporal variation in data availability, or the absence 223 of recently collected records that have not yet been fully digitized (Figure 6). 224 The number of bryophyte records increased markedly over time across all Brazilian 225 biomes. In the earliest periods (1800–1850 and 1851–1900), records were relatively 226 scarce, with the Atlantic Forest already showing the highest number of documented 227 occurrences. From 1951–2000 onward, a pronounced increase in records was 228 observed across all biomes, becoming even more evident in the 2001–2025 period. 229 The Atlantic Forest consistently concentrated the highest number of records across [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 230 all recent periods, reaching 27,157 records between 2001–2025, followed by the 231 Cerrado (8,332 records), Caatinga (6,642 records), and Amazon (4,695 records). 232 The Pantanal and Pampa exhibited the lowest numbers of records throughout the 233 entire time series, indicating lower sampling intensity or limited data availability in 234 these biomes (Figure 7). 235 Species richness also increased over the analyzed periods, following the growth in 236 the number of records. The Atlantic Forest exhibited the highest richness across all 237 periods, reaching 1,166 species between 2001–2025. It was followed by the 238 Cerrado (557 species), Amazon (522 species), and Caatinga (520 species). 239 Although species richness increased substantially up to the 1951–2000 period, 240 some biomes showed a slight reduction in the number of recorded species between 241 2001–2025, including the Atlantic Forest (from 1,196 to 1,166 species), the 242 Amazon (from 540 to 522 species), and the Cerrado (from 591 to 557 species). This 243 reduction may reflect differences in sampling effort, taxonomic updates, or data 244 standardization procedures. The Pampa and Pantanal consistently exhibited the 245 lowest richness values throughout the time series, reaching 147 and 21 species, 246 respectively, in the most recent period. In contrast, the Caatinga showed one of the 247 largest relative increases in richness, rising from only two recorded species in 248 1800–1850 to 520 species in 2001–2025 (Figure 8). 249 The fifteen most representative moss families and genera in the dataset were 250 selected based on both the number of occurrence records and species richness. 251 Sematophyllaceae had the highest number of records (6,938) and 57 species, 252 followed by Leucobryaceae (6,800 records; 66 species), Calymperaceae (5,354; 52 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 253 species), and Fissidentaceae (4,634; 76 species). Other well-represented families 254 included Orthotrichaceae, Pylaisiadelphaceae, and Sphagnaceae (Figure 9). At the 255 genus level, Fissidens was the most representative, with 4,634 records and 76 256 species, followed by Campylopus (4,255 records; 48 species), Syrrhopodon (3,116; 257 33 species), and Sphagnum (3,100 records; 79 species). Other relevant genera 258 included Octoblepharum, Microcalpe, and Calymperes (Figure 10). 259 As with mosses, the fifteen most representative liverwort families and genera in the 260 dataset were selected based on the number of occurrence records and species 261 richness. Among families, Lejeuneaceae stood out prominently, with 17,648 262 records and 335 species, followed by Frullaniaceae (3,520 records; 44 species), 263 Plagiochilaceae (2,787; 51 species), and Lepidoziaceae (2,069; 58 species). Other 264 relevant families included Radulaceae, Metzgeriaceae, and Ricciaceae (Figure 11). 265 At the genus level, Lejeunea had the highest number of records, totaling 3,876 266 occurrences and 68 species, followed by Frullania (3,521 records; 44 species), 267 Cheilolejeunea (3,238; 41 species), and Plagiochila (2,764; 47 species). Additional 268 notable genera included Ceratolejeunea, Radula, Metzgeria, and Cololejeunea 269 (Figure 12). 270 Class II. Research origin descriptors 271 A. Overall project description: 272 1. Identity: A compilation of bryophyte occurrence data from Brazil. 273 2. Originators: The Brazilian Bryophytes Project was coordinated by Jailton Venilson 274 Ferreira da Silva (Federal University of Pernambuco, UFPE). All co-authors 275 contributed to the compilation, validation, and organization of the dataset. The [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 276 research team is primarily composed of investigators from UFPE, with additional 277 collaboration from a researcher at the State University of Piauí (UESPI). 278 3. Period of study: The dataset covers the period from 1804 to 2025. 279 4. Objectives: Our objectives were to: (1) compile a comprehensive dataset of 280 Brazilian bryophytes, encompassing the three major groups, hornworts 281 (Anthocerotophyta), liverworts (Marchantiophyta), and mosses (Bryophyta), based 282 on occurrence records derived from field collections and herbarium specimens; and 283 (2) characterize the distribution of Brazilian bryophytes in order to identify 284 priorities for future sampling efforts. To our knowledge, this study represents the 285 first nationwide bryophyte dataset for Brazil integrating occurrence records with 286 information on biomes and geographic regions. 287 5. Abstract: Same as above. 288 6. Sources of funding: The compilation of this dataset was supported by Coordenação 289 de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES; Finance Code 001) and 290 Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq; 291 Universal Grant No. 409503/2025-8 and PPBio-RABECA Network Grant No. 292 441209/2023-8). 293 B. Specific subproject description 294 1. Site description 295 Brazil is recognized as a country with extensive forest cover, comprising 296 approximately 500 million hectares of natural and planted forests, which 297 correspond to about 59% of its national territory. This places Brazil as the country 298 with the second-largest forest area in the world, surpassed only by Russia. In [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 299 addition, Brazil covers approximately 8.5 million km², extending between latitudes 300 5°16'N and 33°45'S and longitudes 34°47'W and 73°59'W (IBGE, 2025; Serviço 301 Florestal Brasileiro, 2019). Brazil's natural resources are under considerable 302 pressure from large-scale agricultural expansion, mining activities, and timber 303 extraction, creating major challenges for balancing economic development with 304 environmental conservation and the sustainable use of ecosystems (Laurance et al., 305 2001). The country encompasses six major biomes, Amazon, Cerrado, Caatinga, 306 Atlantic Forest, Pantanal, and Pampa, two of which are recognized as global 307 biodiversity hotspots: the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest. Together, these biomes 308 harbor approximately 2% of the world's endemic plant and vertebrate species and 309 account for more than two-thirds of the species richness recorded in Brazil (Myers 310 et al., 2000). These biomes are characterized by distinct vegetation formations, 311 climatic conditions, and precipitation regimes. The Atlantic Forest and Amazon are 312 predominantly humid forest ecosystems, whereas the Cerrado and Caatinga form a 313 broad corridor of seasonally dry vegetation. The Pampa, located in southern Brazil, 314 is dominated by grassland formations, while the Pantanal is characterized by 315 extensive floodplain vegetation and seasonal inundation dynamics (Oliveira-Filho 316 & Fontes, 2000; Oliveira-Filho & Ratter, 2002; Oliveira-Filho et al., 2005; Silva et 317 al., 2017; Serviço Florestal Brasileiro, 2019). Brazilian biomes have been subjected 318 to intense anthropogenic pressures, particularly as a result of deforestation, climate 319 change, agricultural expansion, wildfires, and urban growth. These impacts have 320 contributed to biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, and alterations in natural 321 ecological processes (Hirota, 2003; Imazon, 2020; INPE, 2016; Walter & Sevilha, [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 322 2019). In this context, comprehensive inventories and biodiversity databases are 323 essential for understanding patterns of biodiversity distribution in Brazil, 324 particularly for still under-sampled groups such as bryophytes. 325 2. Experimental or sampling design 326 Data compilation: All data were obtained from records of specimens 327 deposited in herbaria, using the Global Biodiversity Information Facility 328 (GBIF; GBIF.org [2025a, 2025b, 2025c]) as the primary data source due to 329 its broad international coverage. Additionally, the speciesLink network was 330 consulted to incorporate data from Brazilian collections not indexed in 331 GBIF. The dataset was further complemented with field collections 332 conducted in the Caatinga domain, as well as records from the Cryptogam 333 Herbarium of the State University of Piauí (UESPI), which is not currently 334 indexed in any online biodiversity platform. 335 3. Research methods 336 The database of moss, liverwort, and anthocerotophyte occurrences was compiled 337 based on records of specimens deposited in herbaria, using the Global Biodiversity 338 Information Facility (GBIF; GBIF.org [2025a, 2025b, 2025c]) as the primary 339 source, selected for its broad international coverage. In addition, the speciesLink 340 network (splink.org.br) was consulted to integrate data from national collections 341 not indexed in GBIF. The search and data extraction followed standardized criteria. 342 In GBIF, the search was limited to the terms “Bryophyta,” “Marchantiophyta,” and 343 “Anthocerotophyta.” The search was conducted individually for each division, 344 filtering for specimens preserved in scientific collections (Record Bases field) with [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 345 available geographic coordinates (Location field). For speciesLink, the filters were 346 set to “Preserved specimen” in the record base. The terms referring to bryophytes 347 in the “Phylum” section were: “Bryophytes,” “Bryophyta,” “Marchantiophyta,” 348 “Anthocerotophyta,” “Moss,” “Hepatics,” “Bryidae,” “Hepatophyta,” and 349 “Marchantiidae.” To avoid pseudo-duplication of data across platforms, a manual 350 review of the records was conducted, excluding from the speciesLink dataset those 351 specimens already obtained via GBIF. After consolidation, a taxonomic quality 352 filter was applied: only samples identified or collected by bryophyte specialists 353 were retained in the dataset. This procedure aims to mitigate identification errors, 354 ensuring the taxonomic robustness essential for studies of distribution patterns and 355 ecological modeling. Subsequently, the geographic coordinates of each record 356 included in the dataset were individually verified using Google Maps to confirm 357 they matched the location provided in the records. The nomenclatural updating of 358 species was based on the BryoNames database (bryonames.org/) using the 359 nameMatch function from the U.Taxonstand package in R Studio v4.5 (R Core 360 Team 2025). When the verified species had multiple synonyms, the Flora and 361 Funga of Brazil database (floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br) was consulted to determine 362 which of these synonyms were present in Brazil. Species with uncertain 363 nomenclature or questionable records were excluded from the dataset. In addition, 364 the data were supplemented with field collections from the Caatinga region, as well 365 as data from the Cryptogam Herbarium at the State University of Piauí; since this 366 herbarium is not indexed on any online platform, we used a portion of the 367 herbarium’s data. Regarding sample collection, the materials were collected [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 368 manually using equipment such as a pocket knife, handheld magnifying glass, paper 369 bags and plastic bags, pens, a field notebook, an altimeter, and a GPS device to 370 record geographic coordinates. Samples were stored in kraft paper bags. For macro 371 and microscopic analysis, we examined the morpho-anatomical characteristics of 372 the gametophyte and sporophyte using a stereoscopic microscope and an optical 373 microscope. For sample handling, we used forceps, needles, scalpels, Petri dishes, 374 slides, and cover slips. We organized all the data into a single database containing 375 information on occurrence, biomes, regions, and Brazilian states where these 376 samples were collected. 377 4. Project personnel: The principal investigators are Jailton Venilson Ferreira da Silva 378 and Mércia Patrícia Pereira Silva. The associate researchers are Jhonyd Jhonata de 379 Oliveira Marmo, Kleberson Jonata da Cruz Tavares, and Hermeson Cassiano de 380 Oliveira. 381 Class III. Data set status and accessibility 382 A. Status 383 1. Latest update: June 26 384 2. Latest archive date: June 26 385 3. Metadata status: Last updated on June 26, submitted version. 386 4. Data verification: Geographic coordinates were verified using Google Earth, and 387 corrections were applied when necessary. Specimens not identified by bryophyte 388 specialists were excluded from the dataset. 389 B. Accessibility [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 390 1. Contact persons: Jailton Venilson Ferreira da Silva (jailton.venilson@ufpe.br) and 391 Mércia Patrícia Pereira Silva (mercia.psilva@ufpe.br). Programa de Pós 392 Graduação em Biologia Vegetal (PPGBV), Laboratório de Biologia de Briófitas, 393 Departamento de Botânica, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal de 394 Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego s/n - Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE 50670 395 901, Brasil. +55 86 981254170 396 2. Storage location and medium: The original dataset will be available on the 397 Ecology Repository. The updated version and additional information can be 398 accessed on the Zenodo repository via the following link: 399 3. Copyright restrictions: Não 400 4. Proprietary restrictions: Please cite this data paper when using this dataset. 401 Researchers and educators are encouraged to report and share outcomes derived 402 from studies based on these data. 403 5. Costs: None 404 Class IV. Data structural descriptors 405 A. Data set file 406 1. Identity: BRYOPHYTES_BRAZIL_Occurrence.csv 407 2. Size: BRYOPHYTES_BRAZIL_Occurrence.csv, 26 MB 408 3. Format and storage mode: The dataset is provided as a comma-separated values 409 (CSV) file encoded in UTF-8. Text variables are stored as character strings, 410 whereas geographic coordinates are stored as floating-point numeric values and 411 temporal variables (day, month, and year) are stored as integers. Geographic 412 coordinates are reported in decimal degrees using the WGS84 datum. Missing [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 413 values are represented as "NA". Data cleaning procedures included the removal of 414 duplicated records, standardization of taxonomic names, verification of geographic 415 coordinates, and validation of metadata fields. 416 4. Header information: See column descriptions in section B. 417 5. Alphanumeric attributes: Mixed 418 6. Data Anomalies: If no information is available for a given record, this is indicated 419 as 'NA'. 420 B. Variable information (Table 1). 421 C. Data anomalies: If no information is available for a given record, this is indicated as 'NA'. 422 Class V. Supplemental descriptors 423 A. Data acquisition 424 1. Data acquisition: Our data were obtained from secondary databases and field 425 collections. 426 2. Location of completed data forms: No physical forms were used for data collection. 427 The dataset was compiled exclusively from field collections and digital records 428 available in biodiversity information systems and biological collections. 429 3. Data entry verification procedures: Data verification involved both automated and 430 manual procedures. Scientific names were standardized according to the adopted 431 taxonomic classification. Geographic coordinates were checked for format 432 consistency and for plausibility of occurrence within Brazilian territory. Duplicate 433 records were identified and removed. Records containing incomplete, inconsistent, 434 or incompatible information relative to the established standards were either 435 corrected when possible or excluded from the final version of the database. [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 436 B. Quality assurance/quality control procedures: Several quality control procedures were 437 applied to ensure the taxonomic, geographic, and temporal consistency of the dataset. 438 Scientific names were reviewed and standardized, with synonymy updates and spelling 439 corrections performed when necessary, using widely accepted taxonomic references for 440 bryophytes. 441 442 Records without species-level identification were removed from the database. Geographic 443 coordinates were checked for decimal degree format (WGS84), and records with invalid 444 coordinates were excluded. The final dataset underwent multiple verification steps to 445 ensure consistency among taxonomic, spatial, and temporal information prior to public 446 release. 447 C. Related materials: The records used in this study are associated with specimens 448 deposited in national and international herbaria, with relevant information maintained by 449 the respective institutions. Supplementary data include geographic coordinates, taxonomic 450 information, and collection dates. The dataset does not include photographs, videos, or 451 original field notebooks. 452 D. Archiving 453 1. Archival procedures: The final version of the dataset will be made available in CSV 454 format in a public open-access repository, ensuring long-term digital preservation, 455 traceability, and permanent access to the data used in this study. 456 2. Redundant archival sites: In addition to the version deposited in the primary 457 repository, copies of the dataset are maintained by the authors. [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 458 E. Publications and results: The dataset was compiled to support studies on the diversity, 459 geographic distribution, and macroecological patterns of bryophytes in Brazil. The 460 associated results will be presented in this Data Paper and may support future research in 461 biodiversity, biogeography, conservation, and bryophyte ecology. Publications derived 462 from this dataset should appropriately cite this Data Paper and the repository where the 463 data are archived. 464 F. History of data set usage 465 1. Data request history: None 466 2. Data set update history: None 467 3. Review history: None 468 4. Questions and comments from secondary users: None 469 **ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:** 470 We thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES; 471 Finance Code 001) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico 472 (CNPq; Universal Grant No. 409503/2025-8 and PPBio-RABECA Network Grant No. 473 441209/2023-8). 474 **Literature Citations** 475 Aires, E. T., and J. Bordin. 2024. "Avanços no Conhecimento da Brioflora do Pampa Brasileiro." 476 _Hoehnea_ 51: e762023. https://doi.org/10.1590/2236-8906e762023 477 Antunes, A. C., A. Montanarin, D. M. Gräbin, E. C. S. Monteiro, F. F. de Pinho, G. C. Alvarenga, 478 and J. Ahumada, et al. 2022. "AMAZONIACAMTRAP: A Dataset of Mammal, Bird, and Reptile 479 Species Recorded with Camera Traps in the Amazon Forest." _Ecology_ 103(7): e3738. 480 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3738 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 481 Barbosa Sousa, M. E., E. B. Valente, and H. C. Oliveira. 2024. "Brioflora do Parque Nacional Serra 482 das Confusões, Piauí, Brasil." _Scientia_ _Plena_ 20(2): 021201. 483 https://doi.org/10.14808/sci.plena.2024.021201 484 The Bryophyte Nomenclature Database (BryNames). 2026. _BryNames: A Synonymized Checklist_ 485 _of Bryophyte Names_ . Available at https://brynames.org (accessed June 16, 2026). 486 Canhos, D. A. L., E. A. B. Almeida, A. L. Assad, M. M. C. Bustamante, V. P. Canhos, A. D. 487 Chapman, and R. De Giovanni, et al. 2022. "speciesLink: Rich Data and Novel Tools for Digital 488 Assessments of Biodiversity." _Biota_ _Neotropica_ 22(spe): e20221394. 489 https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2022-1394 490 Carvalho, F. V., J. P. Silva, A. L. Ilkiu-Borges, and R. S. Fernandes. 2025. "Bryophytes Diversity 491 in Mirador State Park, Maranhão, and Floristic Similarity among Protected Areas in the Brazilian 492 Cerrado." Biota Neotropica 25(3): e20251794. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2025-1794 493 Costa, D. P., and D. F. Peralta. 2015. "Bryophytes Diversity in Brazil." _Rodriguésia_ 66(4): 1063– 494 1071. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860201566411 495 Costa-Pinto, A. L., R. S. Bovendorp, A. Bocchiglieri, A. Caccavo, A. C. Delciellos, A. C. Malhado, 496 and A. K. R. Almeida, et al. 2023. "Small Mammals from the Caatinga: A Dataset for the Brazilian 497 Semiarid Biome." _Ecology_ 104(3): e3879. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3879 498 Costa, L. M. S., M. Goetze, A. V. Rodrigues, G. D. S. Seger, and F. Bered. 2020. "Global 499 Rheophytes Data Set: Angiosperms and Gymnosperms." _Ecology_ 101(8): e03056. 500 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3056 501 Condit, R., N. Pitman, E. G. Leigh, J. Chave, J. Terborgh, R. B. Foster, and P. Núñez, et al. 2002. 502 "Beta-diversity in Tropical Forest Trees." _Science_ 295(5555): 666–669. 503 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1066854 504 Eisenlohr, P. V., L. F. Alves, L. C. Bernacci, M. C. G. Padgurschi, R. B. Torres, E. M. B. Prata, 505 and F. A. M. dos Santos, et al. 2013. "Disturbances, Elevation, Topography and Spatial Proximity 506 Drive Vegetation Patterns along an Altitudinal Gradient of a Top Biodiversity Hotspot." 507 _Biodiversity and Conservation_ 22: 2767–2783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0553-x 508 Flora do Brasil 2026. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available 509 in:<http;//floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/ >. [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 510 Forzza, R. C., J. F. A. Baumgratz, C. E. M. Bicudo, D. A. L. Canhos, A. A. Carvalho Jr., M. A. N. 511 Coelho, and A. F. Costa, et al. 2012. "New Brazilian Floristic List Highlights Conservation 512 Challenges." _BioScience_ 62(1): 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.8 513 GBIF.org. 2026. GBIF Occurrence Download. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information 514 Facility. https://www.gbif.org. Accessed June 16, 2026. 515 GBIF.org, 2025a. GBIF occurrence download [https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.s8csnk](https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.s8csnk) (accessed 5 516 June 2025). 517 GBIF.org, 2025b. GBIF occurrence download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.jpvrv5 (accessed 26 June 518 2025). 519 GBIF.org, 2025c. GBIF occurrence download [https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.c36ame](https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.c36ame) (accessed 9 520 January 2026). 521 Gentry, A. H. 1988. "Tree Species Richness of Upper Amazonian Forests." _Proceedings of the_ 522 _National Academy of Sciences_ 85(1): 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.85.1.156 523 Glime, J. M. 2007. _Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1: Physiological Ecology_ . Houghton, MI: Michigan 524 Technological University and International Association of Bryologists. URL. 525 Gradstein, S. R., S. P. Churchill, and N. Salazar-Allen. 2001. _Guide to the Bryophytes of Tropical_ 526 _America_ . Bronx, NY: New York Botanical Garden Press. 527 Hasui, É., J. P. Metzger, R. G. Pimentel, L. F. Silveira, A. A. d. A. Bovo, A. C. Martensen, and A. 528 Uezu, et al. 2018. "ATLANTIC BIRDS: A Data Set of Bird Species from the Brazilian Atlantic 529 Forest." _Ecology_ 99(2): 497. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2119 530 Hirota, M. M. 2003. "Monitoring the Brazilian Atlantic Forest Cover." In _The Atlantic Forest of_ 531 _South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook_, edited by C. Galindo-Leal and I. G. 532 Câmara, 60–65. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Biodiversity Science and Island Press. 533 Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2025. Brasil em Síntese: Dados geográficos. 534 [Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available from](https://brasilemsintese.ibge.gov.br/territorio/dados-geograficos.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com) 535 https://brasilemsintese.ibge.gov.br/territorio/dados-geograficos.html. 536 Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia. Desmatamento na Amazônia cresce 30% em 537 2020 e bate recorde dos últimos dez anos. 2021. Available: [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 538 https://imazon.org.br/imprensa/desmatamento-na-amazonia-cresce-30-em-um-2020-e-bate 539 recorde-dos-ultimos-dez-anos/ 540 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. Centro do INPE avança no mapeamento da Caatinga. 541 Available in: http://www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=4157. 542 Laurance, W. F., M. A. Cochrane, S. Bergen, P. M. Fearnside, P. Delamônica, C. Barber, S. 543 D'Angelo, and T. Fernandes. 2001. "The Future of the Brazilian Amazon." _Science_ 291(5503): 544 438–439. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.291.5503.438 545 Lima, J. S., and D. F. Peralta. 2021. "Brioflora do Parque Nacional da Serra da Bocaina, de São 546 Paulo, Brasil." _Hoehnea_ 48: e802020. https://doi.org/10.1590/2236-8906-80/2020 547 Marmo, J. J. de O., and M. P. P. Silva. 2025. "Bryophytes of a Brazilian Seasonally Dry Tropical 548 Forest: An Overview of Diversity and Environmental Drivers." _Flora_ 330: 152770. 549 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2025.152770 550 Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. 551 "Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities." _Nature_ 403(6772): 853–858. 552 https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 553 Oliveira, A. A. de, and D. C. Daly. 1999. "Geographic Distribution of Tree Species Occurring in 554 the Region of Manaus, Brazil: Implications for Regional Diversity and Conservation." _Biodiversity_ 555 _and Conservation_ 8(9): 1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008972901159 556 Oliveira-Filho, A. T., and M. A. L. Fontes. 2000. "Patterns of Floristic Differentiation among 557 Atlantic Forests in Southeastern Brazil and the Influence of Climate." _Biotropica_ 32(4b): 793–810. 558 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2000.tb00619.x 559 Oliveira-Filho, A. T., and J. A. Ratter. 2002. "Vegetation Physiognomies and Wood Flora of the 560 Bioma Cerrado." In _The Cerrados of Brazil: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical_ 561 _Savanna_, edited by P. S. Oliveira and R. J. Marquis, 91–120. New York: Columbia University 562 Press. 563 Oliveira-Filho, A. T., W. A. C. Carvalho, E. Tameirão-Neto, E. Tameirão-Neto, W. A. C. Carvalho, 564 M. Werneck, and M. Werneck, et al. 2005. "Análise Florística de Compartimento Arbóreo de Áreas 565 de Floresta Atlântica Sensu Lato da Região das Bacias do Leste (Bahia, Minas Gerais, Espírito 566 Santo e Rio de Janeiro)." _Rodriguésia_ 56: 185–2 35. [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 567 Pitman, N. C. A., J. W. Terborgh, M. R. Silman, P. V. Núñez, D. A. Neill, C. E. Cerón, W. A. 568 Palacios, and M. Aulestia. 2001. "Dominance and Distribution of Tree Species in Upper 569 Amazonian Terra Firme Forests." _Ecology_ 82(8): 2101–2117. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012 570 9658(2001)082[2101:DADOTS]2.0.CO;2 571 Ramos, F. N., S. R. Mortara, N. Monalisa-Francisco, J. P. C. Elias, L. Menini Neto, L. Freitas, and 572 R. Kersten, et al. 2019. "ATLANTIC EPIPHYTES: A Data Set of Vascular and Non-Vascular 573 Epiphyte Plants and Lichens from the Atlantic Forest." _Ecology_ 100(2): e02541. 574 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2541 575 R CORE TEAM. 2025. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation 576 for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www. Rproject.org/. 577 Serviço Florestal Brasileiro. 2019. _Florestas do Brasil em Resumo 2019_ . Brasília, DF: Ministério 578 da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Serviço Florestal Brasileiro. 579 Silva, J. V. F., A. D. T. Lopes, and H. C. Oliveira. 2024. "Briófitas do Município de Corrente, Piauí, 580 Brasil." _Paubrasilia_ 7: e144. https://doi.org/10.33447/paubrasilia.2024.e0144 581 Silva, J. V. F., H. C. Oliveira, P. M. Villa, and E. B. Valente. 2025. "Brioflora Epíxila em 582 Fragmentos de Floresta Atlântica da Serra da Ibiapaba, Ceará, Brasil." _Scientia Plena_ 21(6): 583 061201. https://doi.org/10.14808/sci.plena.2025.061201 584 Silva, J. M. C. Leal, I. R and Tabarelli, M. 2017. _Caatinga: the largest tropical dry forest region_ 585 _in South America._ Miami: Springer. 586 Ter Steege, H., N. Pitman, D. Sabatier, H. Castellanos, P. Van Der Hout, D. C. Daly, and M. 587 Silveira, et al. 2003. "A Spatial Model of Tree Alpha-Diversity and Tree Density for the Amazon." 588 _Biodiversity and Conservation_ 12: 2255–2277 589 Travers, S. E., and K. L. Dunnell. 2009. "First-Flowering Dates of Plants in the Northern Great 590 Plains." _Ecology_ 90(8): 2332. _Ecological Archives_ E090-162. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2135.1 591 Walter, B. M. T., and A. C. Sevilha. 2019. "A Agonia de um Bioma." _Revista Darcy_ 21: 3–66. 592 Welch, W. H. 1948. "Mosses and Their Uses." _Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science_ 58: 593 3–46. 594 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 595 **Table** **1.** Description of the fields contained in the file 596 Brazilian_Bryophytes_Occurrences.csv. The dataset comprises 102,527 597 occurrence records of bryophytes from Brazil compiled from multiple biodiversity 598 databases, herbarium collections, and published sources. |Variable|Description|Levels/Units|Example| |---|---|---|---| |Source|Source of occurrence<br>record|4 data sources|GBIF| |Record_Id|Record identification<br>in each data set.<br>Authors were free to<br>use their own<br>identification|The data set<br>comprises<br>102,527 record<br>IDs.|BRYO_000001| |Phylum|Bryophyte phylum|3 phyla|Bryophyta| |Family|Taxonomic family|131 families|Fissidentaceae| |Species|Accepted scientific<br>name|1,835 species|Fissidens<br>crispus| |Locality|Locality description<br>provided by the<br>source|23,272 localities|Recife| |Latitude|Geographic latitude<br>(WGS84)|Decimal degrees|<br>-8.0522| |Longitude|Geographic longitude<br>(WGS84)|Decimal degrees|<br>-34.9286| |day|Day of collection|1–31|15| |month|Month of collection|1–12|7| |Year|Year of collection|184 unique<br>years|2018| |catalogNumber|Catalog number<br>assigned by the<br>collection|90,318 catalog<br>numbers|PEUFR12345| |recordNumber|Collector record|30,151 record|234| [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) |Col1|number|numbers|Col4| |---|---|---|---| |identifiedBy|Person responsible<br>for taxonomic<br>identification|3,170 identifiers|O. Yano| |recordedBy|Collector(s) of the<br>specimen|5,867 collectors|J. P. Frahm| |institutionCode|Institution acronym|178 institutions|PEUFR| |collectionCode|Collection acronym|154 collections|Bryophytes| |rightsHolder|Institution or person<br>holding data rights|136 rights<br>holders|Universidade<br>Federal de<br>Pernambuco| |state|Brazilian state of<br>occurrence|27 states|Pernambuco| |region|Brazilian geographic<br>region|5 regions|Northeast| |biome|Brazilian biome|7 biomes|Atlantic Forest| 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 607 608 Figure 1. Distribution of bryophyte occurrence records (Anthocerotophyta, Bryophyta, and 609 Marchantiophyta) across Brazilian biomes. 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 617 618 619 Figure 2. Spatial distribution of moss (Bryophyta) occurrence records across the Brazilian 620 biomes. 621 622 623 624 625 626 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 627 628 Figure 3. Spatial distribution of liverwort (Marchantiophyta) occurrence records across the 629 Brazilian biomes. 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 638 639 640 Figure 4. Spatial distribution of hornwort (Anthocerotophyta) occurrence records across the 641 Brazilian biomes. 642 643 644 645 646 647 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 648 649 650 Figure 5. Temporal distribution of bryophyte occurrence records in Brazil from 1800 to 2025. 651 652 653 Figure 6. Temporal variation in bryophyte species richness in Brazil from 1800 to 2025. 654 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 655 656 Figure 7. Temporal distribution of bryophyte occurrence records across Brazilian biomes from 657 1800 to 2025. 658 659 Figure 8. Temporal variation in bryophyte species richness across Brazilian biomes from 1800 to 660 2025. 661 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 662 663 Figure 9. Number of occurrence records for the 15 most representative moss families, with 664 species richness indicated in parentheses. 665 666 Figure 10. Number of occurrence records for the 15 most representative moss genera, with 667 species richness indicated in parentheses. 668 669 [bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487; this version posted November 3, 2026. The copyright holder for this preprint](https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.01.763487) (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made [available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) 670 671 Figure 11. Number of occurrence records for the 15 most representative liverwort families, with 672 species richness indicated in parentheses. 673 674 Figure 12. Number of occurrence records for the 15 most representative liverwort genera, with 675 species richness indicated in parentheses. 676 677