CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES ON IMPLEMENTING AN ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR BETWEEN PROTECTED AREAS IN CERRADO BIOME

Schwaida, Samuel Fernando; Cicerelli, Rejane Ennes; Almeida, Tati de; Roig, Henrique Llacer

doi:10.1590/1806-90882017000600011

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil
SciELO.org - Rede SciELO
Blog SciELO em Perspectiva

Abrir menu

Brasil

Español English

Revista Árvore

Submissão de manuscritos
Sobre o periódico
Corpo Editorial
Instruções aos autores
Contato

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Resumo (Inglês)
Resumo (Português)

Texto (Inglês)

Download PDF (Inglês)

Compartilhe

Compartilhe
E-mail
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Reddit
StambleUpon
CiteULike
Mendeley

Sumário

Compartilhe
E-mail
Facebook
Twitter
Google+
LinkedIn
Reddit
StambleUpon
CiteULike
Mendeley

Resumo (Inglês)
Resumo (Português)

Texto (Inglês)

Download PDF (Inglês)

Articles • Rev. Árvore 41 (6) • 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-90882017000600011 copy

CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES ON IMPLEMENTING AN ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR BETWEEN PROTECTED AREAS IN CERRADO BIOME

DESAFIOS E ESTRATÉGIAS NA IMPLEMENTAÇÃO DE CORREDORES ECOLÓGICOS ENTRE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS NO BIOMA CERRADO

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Landscape management aiming to reconnect isolated vegetation patches through corridors is important to mitigate impacts on fauna and flora species due to habitat degradation and fragmentation. This work presents a methodology based on geoprocessing tools to define ecological corridors. This case study was conducted on Distrito Federal, central Brazil, aiming to propose a corridor for large and mediumsized mammals reconnecting Águas Emendadas Ecological Station and Formosa Military Training Area. Cost analysis using geoprocessing tools and available official database generated three paths (A, B, C) Extension varied from 28.88 (A) to 47.34 km (C) and paths intersection with natural vegetation patches varied from 74.43 (A) to 90.35% (B). Intersection with potential Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs) varied from 66.32 (A) to 86.26% (C). Overlap with private properties registered on Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) was verified for best paths A and B and revealed 51.60% and 50.97% of overlap. Cost analysis tools and AHP were considered efficient for generating ecological corridors.

Keywords:
Landscape ecology; Multicriteria analysis; Geo-technologies

Authorship

Samuel Fernando Schwaida ^**Corresponding author.

Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Geociências, Brasília, DF - Brasil. E-mail: <samuelschwaida@gmail.com>, <rejaneig@unb.br>, <tati_almeida@unb.br> and <roi@unb.br>.Universidade de BrasíliaBrasilBrasília, DF, BrasilUniversidade de Brasília, Instituto de Geociências, Brasília, DF - Brasil. E-mail: <samuelschwaida@gmail.com>, <rejaneig@unb.br>, <tati_almeida@unb.br> and <roi@unb.br>.

Rejane Ennes Cicerelli

Tati de Almeida

Henrique Llacer Roig

*Corresponding author.

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | Tables

Figures (2)
Tables (2)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Study area location and corridors A, B (best single path) and C generated by cost path analysis.

Figura 1
Localização da área de estudo e corredores A, B (best single path) e C gerados por meio de análise de custo.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Ecological Corridors (EC) A and B (best single path) over land cover classes and private properties map.

Figura 2
Corredores Ecológicos (CE) A e B (best single path) sobrepostos a mapa de uso e cobertura do solo e limites de propriedades rurais.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Weights for each class (1-9 scale) and for each layer (%) used for the total cost raster and values for Consistency Index (IC) and Consistency Ratio (RC). * Considering line segments corresponding to bridges were depleted, associated cells received the least cost value considering they represent least cost crossing locations ** Weight for “Nonobserved” refers to the mean of weights of those classes identified in validation process (Exposed soil and Natural Vegetation).

Tabela 1
Pesos finais de cada classe (escala de 1 a 9) e peso de cada camada (%) na geração da imagem de custo total e valores dos Índice de Consistência (IC) e Razão de Consistência (RC). * Considerando a retirada dos segmentos correspondentes a pontes, as respectivas células receberam o menor valor de custo por representarem pontos de menor custo para travessia da fauna. ** O valor da classe não observado equivale a média das classes identificadas na validação (Solo exposto e Vegetação Natural).

Thumbnail

Table 2
General information about the generated corridors. * Percentage refers to paths full extension. When considered only the extension inside APP, values change to: 94,38% (A), 95,85% (B), 97,23% (C). ** Perennial crop, Urban area/Mosaic of uses, Water bodies, Forestry, Exposed soil, Non-observed.

Tabela 2
Dados gerais dos corredores gerados. * A porcentagem refere-se à extensão total do traçado. Quando considerada apenas a extensão do trecho em APP, os valores são: 94,38% (A), 95,85% (B), 97,23% (C). ** Agricultura perene, Área urbana/Mosaico de ocupação, Corpo d´água, Silvicultura, Solo Exposto e Não observado.

Figure 1 Study area location and corridors A, B (best single path) and C generated by cost path analysis.
Figura 1 Localização da área de estudo e corredores A, B (best single path) e C gerados por meio de análise de custo.

Figure 2 Ecological Corridors (EC) A and B (best single path) over land cover classes and private properties map.
Figura 2 Corredores Ecológicos (CE) A e B (best single path) sobrepostos a mapa de uso e cobertura do solo e limites de propriedades rurais.

Table 1 Weights for each class (1-9 scale) and for each layer (%) used for the total cost raster and values for Consistency Index (IC) and Consistency Ratio (RC). * Considering line segments corresponding to bridges were depleted, associated cells received the least cost value considering they represent least cost crossing locations Weight for “Nonobserved” refers to the mean of weights of those classes identified in validation process (Exposed soil and Natural Vegetation).
Tabela 1** Pesos finais de cada classe (escala de 1 a 9) e peso de cada camada (%) na geração da imagem de custo total e valores dos Índice de Consistência (IC) e Razão de Consistência (RC). * Considerando a retirada dos segmentos correspondentes a pontes, as respectivas células receberam o menor valor de custo por representarem pontos de menor custo para travessia da fauna. ** O valor da classe não observado equivale a média das classes identificadas na validação (Solo exposto e Vegetação Natural).

Table 1 Weights for each class (1-9 scale) and for each layer (%) used for the total cost raster and values for Consistency Index (IC) and Consistency Ratio (RC). * Considering line segments corresponding to bridges were depleted, associated cells received the least cost value considering they represent least cost crossing locations ** Weight for “Nonobserved” refers to the mean of weights of those classes identified in validation process (Exposed soil and Natural Vegetation).

Layer	Layer weight	Class	Class weight	Justification	IC ; RC
Slope	5%	>45°	1	Lower slope terrains are suitable for mechanized agriculture, thus implying higher costs for corridors implementation.
		20°-45°	3		0.01; 0.01
		<20°	9
Permanent	15%	No	9	APP are appropriate areas for corridors.
Preservation		Yes	1	Areas outside of APP increase implementation cost	-0.5; null
Area (APP)				Areas outside of APP increase implementation cost
Roads	25%	Absent	1*	Paving favors higher vehicle flow and increases impacts (disturbance, barrier, trampling)
		Unpaved	3		0,03; 0,04
		Paved	9
Land use and cover	55%	Natural Vegetation	1		0.13; 0.09
Land use and cover		Forestry	2	Urban areas constitute barriers for the majority of species.
		Pasture	3
		Perennial crop	3
		Non-observed	3**	Fauna will preferably move through natural environments and possibly through less disturbed areas or with any vegetation cover, such as reforestation and agriculture.
		Annual crop	4
		Exposed Soil	4
		Water bodies	6
		Urban area/ Mosaic of uses	9

Table 2 General information about the generated corridors. * Percentage refers to paths full extension. When considered only the extension inside APP, values change to: 94,38% (A), 95,85% (B), 97,23% (C). Perennial crop, Urban area/Mosaic of uses, Water bodies, Forestry, Exposed soil, Non-observed.
Tabela 2** Dados gerais dos corredores gerados. * A porcentagem refere-se à extensão total do traçado. Quando considerada apenas a extensão do trecho em APP, os valores são: 94,38% (A), 95,85% (B), 97,23% (C). ** Agricultura perene, Área urbana/Mosaico de ocupação, Corpo d´água, Silvicultura, Solo Exposto e Não observado.

Table 2 General information about the generated corridors. * Percentage refers to paths full extension. When considered only the extension inside APP, values change to: 94,38% (A), 95,85% (B), 97,23% (C). ** Perennial crop, Urban area/Mosaic of uses, Water bodies, Forestry, Exposed soil, Non-observed.

	Corridor A			Corridor B(Best Single)			Corridor C
Extension	28.88 km			34.51 km			47.34 km
Area	8,368.46 ha			12,294 ha			22,140.27 ha
Trace intersection	Km		%	Km		%	Km		%
Natural Vegetation	21.50		74.43	31.18		90.35	41.41		87.47
Potential APP	19.16		66.23	29.03		84.13	40.84		86.26
Preserved APP*	18.04		62.59	27.83		80.64	39.71		83.88
Paved Roads		1 un.			3 un.			5 un.
Unpaved roads		4 un.			4 un.			4 un.
Bridges		1 un.			2 un.			1 un.
Rural properties		16 un.			38 un.		Not evaluated
Overlap area	ha		%	ha		%	ha		%
Natural Vegetation	2,982.80		35.64	4,057.28		33.00	5,390.26		24.36
Annual Agriculture	1,638.61		19.58	4,136.26		33.64	10,812.79		48.84
Pasture	3,048.40		36.43	3,644.01		29.64	5,290.92		23.90
Other classes**	698.64		8.35	456.69		3.71	649.3		2.92
Rural properties	4,318.25		51.60	6,228.95		50.97	Not evaluated

How to cite

copy

Sociedade de Investigações Florestais Universidade Federal de Viçosa, CEP: 36570-900 - Viçosa - Minas Gerais - Brazil, Tel: (55 31) 3612-3959 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rarvore@sif.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES ON IMPLEMENTING AN ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR BETWEEN PROTECTED AREAS IN CERRADO BIOME

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] *Corresponding author.