Arborização do campus da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria e conscientização da comunidade acadêmica
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/223613083311Keywords:
Landscaping, Conflicts, arboreal size, Native speciesAbstract
This work aimed to raise the academic community, at the Federal University of Santa Maria, regarding the importance of using appropriate tree species in public places. The tree density and species richness were evaluated. Conflicts were identified in afforestation and measures were proposed in order to solving it. The following data were collected: tree species, height (m), CAP (cm), presence or absence of overhead wires; list of examples of buildings with setback (m); existence of architectural elements, evaluation of the effect of the root system, and , presence or absence of adequate free area (1 m2). There was the presence of 1270 copies, distributed in 75 species, 60 genera and 32 botanical families. The most abundant species were Handroanthus chrysotrichus (Mart. ex DC) Mattos, Peltophorum dubium (Spreng.) Taub., Tipuana tipu (Benth.) Kuntze, Handroanthus heptaphyllus (Vell.) Mattos e Ligustrum japonicum Thunb. Through this work, conflicts related to the size of trees coupled with inadequate small free area, and the use of exotic species on native restriction, when used to add value to the landscape diversity, were observed. Environmental education is a fundamental technique of solving these problems, because it promotes the community awareness concerning the appropriate tree species and the correct way to do the planting in every situation.Downloads
References
ALMEIDA, L.F.R, et al. Educacão ambiental em praças públicas:professores e alunos descobrindo o ambiente urbano. Revista Ciência em Extensão. v.1, n.1, p.91, 2004.
]INSTITUTO HÓRUS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO DA CONSERVAÇÃO AMBIENTAL/THE NATURE CONSERVANCY. Espécies
invasoras exóticas: fichas técnicas. 2008. Disponível em: http://www.institutohorus.org.br/inf_fichas.htm. Acesso em: 16/09/2010.
LORENZI, H. Árvores Brasileiras. V.1. São Paulo: Nova Odessa, 2002. 368 p.
LORENZI, H. Árvores Brasileiras. V.2. São Paulo: Nova Odessa, 2002. 368 p.
KRASILCHIK, M. Educação ambiental no currículo escolar. In: SIMPÓSIO DE EDUCAÇÃO AMBIENTAL, 2, 1987, Santos. Anais....Santos: Museu de Pesca, 1986. p.39-45a.
MALUF, J. R. T. Nova classificação climática do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Agrometeorologia, Santa Maria, v. 8, n. 1, p. 141-150, 2000. MARTINS, C. S. Monitoramento da arborização das rua de Belo Horizonte. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE ARBORIZAÇÃO URBANA 2, 1994, São Luís. Anais... São Luís, 1994. p. 421-430.
MORENO, J. A. Clima do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: Secretaria da Agricultura, 1961. 42 p.
MOLL, G. Improving the health of the urban forest. American Forest, v.9 , n. - , p. 6 64, 1987.
RAMBO, B. A Fisionomia do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre:Selbach 1956,. SANTAMOUR JÚNIOR, F. S. Trees for urban planting: diversity uniformity, and ommon sense. In: METRIA CONFERENCE, 7., 990, Lisle. Proceedings. Lisle, p.57-66, 2000.
RUSCHEL, D. LEITE, S. L. C. ARBORIZAÇÃO URBANA EM UMA ÁREA DA CIDADE DE LAJEADO, RIO GRANDE DO SUL, BRASIL Caderno de Pesquisa Série. Biologia, Santa Cruz do Sul, V. 14, N. 1, Jan./Jun. 2002, pp. 7-24
SILVA, L. et al. A. Inventário e sugestões para arborização em via pública de Pato Branco/PR. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Arborização Urbana, Piracicaba, 2007. Disponível em: http:www.revsbau.esalq.usp.br. Acesso em: 16/09/2010.
SOUZA, H.M. de.Algumas espécies nativas para arborização de vias públicas. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE
ARBORIZAÇÃO URBANA, 2.,1994, São Luis do Maranhão, Anais...São Luis: SBAU, 1994. 613 p. p. 67-74.
TROPICOS. Tropicos.org. Missouri Botanical Garden. Disponível em: http://www.tropicos.org. Acesso em: 15/09/2010.
WYMAN, D. Parks, malls roadsides: public area plantings. In: Landscape for living – THE YEARBOOK AGRICULTURE, 1972. Washington: USDA, 1972. p. 77-86.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA 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. Reviews 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 referee 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.
