Landscape structure aiming at the biodiversity conservation of urbanized landscape
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509837683Keywords:
Landscape metrics, Forest conservation, Urban forestAbstract
Considering that urban sprawl and the increase in anthropogenic activities lead to natural habitats loss and fragmentation, threatening biodiversity, the conservation of urban forest remnants is extremely important for the persistence of native fauna and flora species. The objective of this study was to evaluate the landscape structure of an urbanized area in the Atlantic Forest biome, using geoprocessing techniques and fundamentals of Landscape Ecology, in order to provide subsidies for forest conservation in the urban landscape. A land use/land cover map was used to quantify forest cover and to evaluate the landscape structure. Landscape metrics quantified the area, shape and proximity of the forest remnants, providing indicators of the landscape structure. Forest covers 22.9% of the study area, with only 3.6% of the fragments larger than 50 ha. The majority of the fragments (83%) has an area of less than 10 ha. Only three remnants are larger than 500 ha, the largest of them is located in Ipanema National Forest. Most forest fragments (80%) are located in particular properties. The landscape was diagnosed as highly anthropized and fragmented, but with remnants close to each other (NEAR < 50m) potentiating the movement of species in the anthropic matrix. Scenarios of exclusion of small fragments demonstrated the fragility of the matrix without their support, since the small remnants contribute to the connection between the larger ones. The anthropic grassland is the second largest land use class in the study area (20.4%), behind only the urbanized area (25%). Actions to maintain biodiversity in anthropized landscapes such as the study area should prioritize the restoration of anthropic grasslands, incentives for forest conservation in private properties and the maintenance of small fragments in the landscape, in order to promote the connection between large forest areas. Urban and environmental planning of cities should be aligned and based on scientific studies on the spatialization of the vegetation in urban areas.
Downloads
References
BANKS-LEITE, C. et al. Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Science, Pensilvânia, v. 345, n. 6200, p. 1041-1045, aug. 2014.
BARBOSA, K. V. de C. et al. Use of small Atlantic Forest fragments by birds in Southeast Brazil. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, Amsterdam, v. 15, n. 1, p. 42-46, jan. 2017.
BOSCOLO, D. et al. Importance of Interhabitat Gaps and Stepping-Stones for Lesser Woodcreepers (Xiphorhynchus fuscus) in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Biotropica, New Jersey, v. 40, n. 3, p. 273-276, may 2008.
BRANCALION, P. H. S. et al. A critical analysis of the Native Vegetation Protection Law of Brazil (2012): updates and ongoing initiatives. Natureza & Conservação, Curitiba, v. 14, p. 1-15, abr. 2016.
EASTMAN, J. R. IDRISI Kilimanjaro guide to GIS and image processing. Worcester, MA: Clark Labs, Clark University, 2003.
GONTIJO, G. A. B. et al. Análise do atendimento ao Código Florestal e a regularização ambiental por unidades de bacias hidrográficas. Ciência Florestal, Santa Maria, v. 29, n. 4, p. 1538, dez. 2019.
GUZMÁN WOLFHARD, L. V.; RAEDIG, C. Connectivity conservation management: linking private protected areas. In: NEHREN, U. et al. (ed.). Strategies and tools for a sustainable rural Rio de Janeiro. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019. p. 155-171. (Springer series on environmental management).
IGNATIEVA, M.; STEWART, G. H.; MEURK, C. Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, New York, v. 7, n. 1, p. 17-25, jan. 2011.
INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES DE CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE. Floresta Nacional de Ipanema. [S. l.], 2010. Disponível em: http://icmbio.gov.br/flonaipanema/. Acesso em: 18 maio 2017.
LANDIS, J. R.; KOCH, G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics, Washington, v. 33, p. 159-174, 1977.
LATAWIEC, A. E. et al. Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Washington, v. 13, n. 4, p. 211-218, may 2015.
MARTENSEN, A. C.; PIMENTEL, R. G.; METZGER, J. P. Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, Amsterdam, v. 141, n. 9, p. 2184-2192, sep. 2008.
MCGARIGAL, K. FRAGSTATS help. Amherst: [s. n.], 2015. Disponível em: https://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf. Acesso em:20 mar. 2019.
MELLO, K. de; TOPPA, R. H.; CARDOSO-LEITE, E. Priority areas for forest conservation in an urban landscape at the transition between atlantic forest and cerrado. Cerne, Lavras, v. 22, n. 3, p. 277-288, jul./sep. 2016.
MENESES, P. R.; ALMEIDA, T. de (org.). Introdução ao processamento de imagens de sensoriamento remoto. Brasília, DF: UNB, 2012. 266 p.
PEREIRA, B. A. da S.; VENTUROLI, F.; CARVALHO, F. A. Florestas estacionais no cerrado: uma visão geral. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical, Goiânia, v. 41, n. 3, jul. 2011.
REZENDE, C. L. et al. From hotspot to hopespot: an opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, Rio de Janeiro, v. 16, n. 4, p. 208-214, oct./dec. 2018.
RIBEIRO, M. C. et al. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, Amsterdam, v. 142, n. 6, p. 1141-1153, jun. 2009.
RODRIGUES, R. R.; BONONI, V. L. R. (ed.). Diretrizes para conservação e restauração da biodiversidade no Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo: Instituto de Botânica, 2008.
SÃO PAULO. APA Itupararanga. São Paulo: Sistema Ambiental Paulista, 2003. Disponível em: http://ambiente.sp.gov.br/apa-itupararanga/. Acesso em: 13 maio 2017.
SCHALKOFF, R. Pattern recognition: statistical, structural and neural approaches. New York: Wiley, 1992.
SEKERCIOGLU, C. H. Tropical ecology: riparian corridors connect fragmented forest bird populations. Current Biology, Cambridge, v. 19, n. 5, p. R210-R213, mar. 2009.
SILVA, M. S. F.; SOUZA, R. M. Padrões espaciais de fragmentação florestal na flona do Ibura – Sergipe. Mercator, Fortaleza, v. 13, n. 3, p. 121-137, set./dez. 2014.
SISTEMA INTEGRADO DE GERENCIAMENTO DE RECURSOS HÍDRICOS DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO. Apresentação. São Paulo, 2018. Disponível em: http://sigrh.sp.gov.br/cbhsmt/apresentacao. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2019.
SMITH, W. S. et al. Urban biodiversity: how the city can do its management? Biodiversity International Journal, Oklahoma, v. 2, n. 3, p. 246-251, may 2018.
TAMBOSI, L. R. Análise da paisagem no entorno de três unidades de conservação: subsídios para a criação da zona de amortecimento. 2008. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências) - Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2008.
TANNIER, C. et al. Impact of urban developments on the functional connectivity of forested habitats: a joint contribution of advanced urban models and landscape graphs. Land Use Policy, Enschede, v. 52, p. 76-91, mar. 2016.
UN. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2018 revision of world urbanization prospects. London, 2018. Disponível em: http:// un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. Acesso em: 2 ago. 2018.
VALENTE, R. A.; PETEAN, F. C. de S.; VETTORAZZI, C. A. Multicriteria decision analysis for prioritizing areas for forest restoration. Cerne, Lavras, v. 23, n. 1, p. 53-60, jan./mar. 2017.
ZHANG, Z. et al. Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modeling and design. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Jena, v. 38, p. 305-317, feb. 2019.
