Ecological Restoration Indicators in Agroforestry Systems in the Atlantic Forest
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X19666Keywords:
Recovery of degraded areas. Agroforestry. Phytosociology.Abstract
The Agroforestry Systems (SAF) are forms of land use and land occupation in which woody plants are managed in association with herbaceous and agricultural ones. They present the possibility to recover degraded areas, as comprehended in legislation. Thus, the monitoring and assessment of areas recovered with Agroforestry Systems are extremely important, seeking to evaluate if their environmental functions can be equivalent to areas recovered only with native species. Thereby, the objective of this study was to evaluate, through forest restoration indicators, the recovery of ecosystem functions in SAF implanted in Ribeirão Grande, São Paulo State. The sample design was randomized by 3 installments (15 x 15 m each) randomly allocated in a SAF area and other 3 installments in a reforestation area with native species only (RN), both five years old, in the same watershed. The indicators were crown diameter, forest litter stock, height and diameter above the base of the individual trees, temperature, and humidity. The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were verified through the Waste Analysis, with subsequent analysis using the nonparametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Statistical analyzes were performed using the R software (R Delopment Core Team, 2012) with a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05). It is concluded that the recovery area only with native species presents better development of vertical structure, with greater canopy closure. For soil indicators there were no differences. SAF, run by natural succession, can be presented as an alternative to the recovery of degraded areas, because they are more similar to the structure of native forests.Downloads
References
BRANCALION PHS, VIANI RAG, RODRIGUES RR, CESAR RG. Estratégias para auxiliar na conservação de florestas tropicais secundárias inseridas em paisagens alteradas. Bol. Museu Par. Emílio Goeldi. 2012;7(3):219-234.
BELLOTTO A, VIANI RAG, NAVE AG, GANDOLFI S, RODRIGUES RR. Monitoramento das áreas restauradas como ferramenta para avaliação da efetividade das ações de restauração e para redefinição metodológica. In: RODRIGUES RR, BRANCALION PHS, ISERNHAGEN I. Pacto pela restauração da mata atlântica: referencial dos conceitos e ações de restauração florestal. São Paulo: Instituto BioAtlântica; 2009. p. 128-147.
BRANCALION PHS, RODRIGUES RR, GANDOLFI S, KAGEYAMA PY, NAVE AG, GANDARA FB, BARBOSA LM, TABARELLI M. Instrumentos legais podem contribuir para a restauração de florestas tropicais biodiversas. Rev. Árvore. 2010;34(3):455-470.
CAMPANHA MM, SANTOS RHS, FREITAS GB, MARTINEZ EP, BOTERO CJ, GARCIA SL. Análise comparativa das características da serapilheira e do solo em cafezais (Coffea arabica L.) cultivados em sistema agroflorestal e em monocultura, na Zona da Mata – MG. Rev. Árvore. 2007;31(5):805-812.
CARDOSO GL, LOMÔNACO C. Variações fenotípicas e potencial plástico de Eugenia calycina Cambess. (Myrtaceae) em uma área de transição cerrado-vereda. Rev. Bras. Botânica. 2003;26(1):131-140.
DARONCO C, MELO ACG, MACHADO JAR. Consórcio de espécies nativas da floresta estacional semidecidual com mandioca (Manihot sculenta crantz) para restauração de mata ciliar. Rev. Árvore. 2012;36(2):291-299.
DUARTE EMG. Ciclagem de nutriente por árvores em Sistemas Agroflorestais na Mata Atlântica [dissertation]. Viçosa: Universidade Federal de Viçosa; 2007. 138 p.
FEARNSIDE PM. Degradação dos recursos naturais na Amazônia Brasileira: implicações para o uso de sistemas agroflorestais. In: PORRO R. Alternativa agroflorestal na Amazônia em transformação. Brasília: Embrapa; 2009. p. 161-170.
KAGEYAMA PY, GANDARA FB. Indicadores de sustentabilidade de florestas naturais. Série téc. IPEF. 1998;12(31):79-83.
LABAKI LC, SANTOS RF, BARTHOLOMEI CLB, ABREU LV. Vegetação e conforto térmico em espaços urbanos abertos. Fórum Patrimônio: Ambiente Construído e Patrimônio Sustentável (UFMG). 2011;5:2.
MILLER RP. Construindo a complexidade: o encontro de paradigmas agroflorestais. In: PORRO R. Alternativa agroflorestal na Amazônia em transformação. Brasília: Embrapa. 2009. p. 537-558.
PASSOS CAM, COUTO L. Sistemas agroflorestais potenciais para o Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul. In: 1º Seminário sobre sistemas agroflorestais para o Mato Grosso do Sul [CD-ROM]; 1997 jun 2-5; Dourados, Brasil. p. 16-22.
PENEIREIRO FM. Sistemas Agroflorestais dirigidos pela sucessão natural: um estudo de caso [dissertation]. Piracicaba: Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”; 1999. 127 p.
RESCK DVS, GOMES AC, RODRIGUES DC. Influência do uso e manejo do solo na produção de CO2 em diferentes agroecossistemas na região dos cerrados. In: 13º Congresso Latino Americano de Ciência do Solo [CD-ROM]; 1996 mar 20-23; Águas de Lindóia, Brasil. p. 125-131.
RIBEIRO AL. Sistemas, indicadores e desenvolvimento sustentável [internet]. [cited 2014 jun 20]. Available from: http://www.mdic.gov.br/tecnologia.
RODRIGUES RR, GANDOLFI S. Conceitos, tendências e ações para recuperação de florestas ciliares. In: RODRIGUES RR, LEITÃO-FILHO HF. (eds.). Matas ciliares: conservação e recuperação. São Paulo: EDUSP; 2004. p. 235-247.
RODRIGUES ER, CULLEN JUNIOR L, MOSCOGLIATO AV, BELTRAME TP. O uso do sistema agroflorestal taungya na restauração de reservas legais: indicadores econômicos. Rev. Floresta. 2008;38(3):517-525.
SILVA PPV. Sistemas agroflorestais para recuperação de matas ciliares em Piracicaba/SP [dissertation]. Piracicaba: Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”; 2002. 110 p.
SIQUEIRA LP, MESQUITA CAB. Meu pé de Mata Atlântica: experiências de recomposição florestal em propriedades particulares no corredor central. 1 st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto BioAtlântica; 2007.
SCHLICHTING CD. The evolution phenotypic plasticity in plants. An. Rev. Ecol. System. 1986;17(1):667-693.
VIEIRA DLM, HOLL KD, PENEIREIRO FM. Agro-successional restoration as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. Rest. Ecology. 2009;17(4):451–459.
WODA C. Indicadores para serviços ambientais em sistemas agroflorestais: um estudo de caso no nordeste paraense. In: PORRO R. Alternativa agroflorestal na Amazônia em transformação. Brasília: Embrapa. 2009. p. 435-452.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
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.
In particular,
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.
