Mapeamento dos Conflitos no Uso da Terra em Áreas de Preservação Permanente na Microbracia Hidrográfica do Córrego Capitão Décio, Nova Xavantina – MT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9346Abstract
The permanent preservation areas (PPAs) are ecosystems which have relevantimportance for the environment balance, preserving the quality ofassociated water, flora and fauna. The PPAs were created to protect thenatural environment by prohibiting the change on the land use. This studyhad as major objective the mapping of the areas of conflict used on thePPAs. The work was developed in the hydrographical watershed of theCapitão Décio stream (WCD), located in Nova Xavantina - MT. It was possibleto map seven different land uses and land covers, and to define thePPAs boundaries as well as map generation of environmental conflicts,by using techniques of digital processing image and GIS. The data verifies that the WCD had 53.60% of area occupied by man and 46.40% coveredwith natural vegetation; the agriculture was the predominant landuse, representing 2.648,22 hectares, and the cerrado was the most commonvegetation with limited 3.153,07 hectares. On the mapping, the PPAswere bounded covering a total of 776.58 hectares in WCD, and dividedon the area alongside watercourses margins (601.80 ha), springs (40.78ha), and water bodies (92.29 ha), as well as hilltops and ridges lines (41.71ha). By overlapping the map of land use and land cover, and the PPAs, itwas created a map of environmental conflicts. On the identification wasfound that only 11.47% of the PPAs are subjected to a misuse regimewhereas the native vegetation covered 88.53%. By identifying the areas ofuse conflicts, this work becomes an important instrument for promoting the proper management of natural resources, especially on water studies.Downloads
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.
