TREE APPRAISAL AT HOLY HOUSE OF MERCY OF PIRACICABA/SP
Keywords:Urban forestry. Relational database. Tree census. Diversity. Georeferencing.
AbstractThis research aimed to study the tree composition and the tree monetary appraisal at the Holy House of Mercy of Piracicaba (SP), through biometrics informations and plant assessment of root, root crown, trunk and crown, in a relational database. We did the trees census above 0.05 m of DBH (diameter at breast height) and we found 300 individuals, distributed in 67 species, 59 genus and 30 botanical families, highlighting the species Licania tomentosa (Benth.) Fritsch (10.7%), Caesalpinia pluviosa DC. (9.7%) and Ficus benjamina L. (6.0%), the genus Tabebuia (8.5%) and the families Bignoniaceae (15.3%), Leguminosae-Caesalpinoideae (12.7%) and Chrysobalanaceae (10.7%). The Shannon-Wiener diversity index was 3.56 and the tree appraisal, R$ 1,910,488.20, the individual average value was R$ 6,368.29 and the most valuable tree, Lophanthera lactescens Ducke, R$ 64,723.03. The registration method in relational database proved to be efficient and organized for storage and processing data, as well as the free software Quantum GIS version 2.6, capable to prepare maps about the location of selected trees.
BRITO, P. S.; CARVALHO, F. A. Estrutura e diversidade arbórea da Floresta Estacional Semidecidual secundária no Jardim Botânico da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora. Revista Rodriguésia, Rio de Janeiro, v. 65, n. 4, p. 817-830, 2014.
BURDEN, D. Urban Street Trees: 22 Benefits Specific Applications. Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities Inc., 2006. 21 p.
CHRISTIANINI, A. V. Fecundidade, dispersão e predação de sementes de Archontophoenix cunninghamiana H. Wendl. & Drude, uma palmeira invasora da Mata Atlântica. Revista Brasileira de Botânica, São Paulo, v. 29, n. 4, p. 587-594, 2006.
GONÇALVES, E. O.; PAIVA, H. N.; GONÇALVES, W.; JACOVINE, L. A. G. Avaliação qualitativa de mudas destinadas à arborização urbana no estado de Minas Gerais. Revista Árvore, v. 28, n. 4, p. 479-486, 2004.
HUSCH, B; MILLER, C. I.; BEERS, T. W. Forest mensuration. 3.ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982. 402 p.
KNIGHT, D. H. A phytosociological analysis of species-rich tropical forest on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Ecological Monographs, v. 45, p. 259-284, 1975.
LOBODA, C. R.; ANGELIS, B. L. D. Áreas verdes públicas urbanas: conceitos, usos e funções. Revista Ambiência, v. 1, n. 1, p. 125-139, jan./jun. 2005.
MATTHECK, C.; BRELOER, H. Field guide for visual tree assessment (VTA). Journal of Arboriculture, Champain, v. 18, n. 6, p. 1-23, 1994.
MEDEIROS, M. C. M. P.; AIDAR, M. P. M. Variação estrutural e conteúdo de biomassa viva aérea numa área de Mata Atlântica do Estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Revista Hoehnea, v. 38, n. 3, p. 413-428, 2011.
NOWAK, D. J.; CRANE, D. E.; DWYER, J. F. Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture, v. 28, n. 4, p. 194-199, 2002.
PIRACICABA. Secretaria de Defesa do Meio Ambiente. Manual de Normas Técnicas de Arborização Urbana. Piracicaba: Prefeitura Municipal de Piracicaba, 2007. 46 p.
SANTA CASA DE PIRACICABA. Disponível em: <http://www.santacasadepiracicaba.com.br>. Acesso em: 19 maio 2015.
SANTAMOUR JÚNIOR, F. S. Trees for urban planting: diversity uniformity, and common sense. In: METRIA CONFERENCE, 7., 1990, Lisle. Proceedings… Lisle: 1990. p. 57-66.
SHANNON, C. E.; WIENER, W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
SILVA, J. A. A.; PAULA NETO, F. Princípios básicos de dendrometria. Recife: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Departamento de Ciência Florestal, 1979. 191 p.
SILVA FILHO, D. F.; PIZETTA, P. U. C.; ALMEIDA, J. B. S. A.; PIVETTA, K. F. L.; FERRAUDO, A. S. Banco de dados relacional para cadastro, avaliação e manejo da arborização em vias públicas. Revista Árvore, Viçosa, v. 26, n. 5, p. 629-642, 2002.
SILVA FILHO, D. F.; TOSETTI, L. L. Valoração das árvores no Parque Ibirapuera – SP: importância da infraestrutura verde urbana. LABVERDE, São Paulo, v. 1, p 1-14, 2010.
SUCOMINE, N. M.; SALES, A. Caracterização e análise do patrimônio arbóreo da malha viária urbana centro do município de São Carlos-SP. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Arborização Urbana, Piracicaba, v. 5, n. 4, p. 128-140, 2010.
TREES Agro-Comercial e Serviços Ltda. Disponível em: <http://www.trees.com.br/>. Acesso em: 19 maio 2015.
WATSON, G. Comparing formula methods of tree appraisal. Journal of Arboriculture, Savoy, v. 28, n. 1, p. 11-18, 2002.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.