Evaluating the Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants Using Landscape Metrics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Selection of Landscape Metrics
2.3. Environmental Quality Index (EQI_REM)
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Fragment Area (AREA)
3.2. Nuclear Area/Central Area (CA) and Central Area Index (CAI)
3.3. Circularity Index (CI)
3.4. Distance from the Nearest Neighbour (DNN)
3.5. Proximity to the Watercourse (PROXWC)
3.6. Water Springs (WS)
3.7. Land Use/Land Cover in the Surroundings (LULCSUR)
3.8. Soil Erodibility (EROD)
3.9. The Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gaglio, M.; Muresan, A.N.; Sebastiani, A.; Cavicchi, D.; Fano, E.A.; Castaldelli, G.A. “Reserve” of regulating services: The importance of a remnant protected forest for human well-being in the Po delta (Italy). Ecol. Modell. 2023, 484, 110485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valdés, A.; Lenoir, J.; De Frenne, P.; Andrieu, E.; Brunet, J.; Chabrerie, O.; Cousins, S.A.; Deconchat, M.; De Smedt, P.; Diekmann, M.; et al. High ecosystem service delivery potential of small woodlands in agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valatin, G.; Ovando, P.; Abildtrup, J.; Accastello, C.; Andreucci, M.B.; Chikalanov, A.; El Mokaddem, A.; Garcia, S.; Gonzalez-Sanchis, M.; Gordillo, F.; et al. Approaches to cost-effectiveness of payments for tree planting and forest management for water quality services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sebastiani, A.; Buonocore, E.; Franzese, V.; Riccio, A.; Chianese, E.; Nardella, L.; Manes, F. Modeling air quality regulation by green infrastructure in a Mediterranean coastal urban area: The removal of PM10 in the Metropolitan City of Naples (Italy). Ecol. Modell. 2021, 440, 109383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Lin, L.; Hao, Z.; Post, C.J.; Chen, Z.; Liu, J.; Yu, K. Developing a USLE cover and management factor (C) for forested regions of southern China. Front. Earth Sci. 2020, 14, 660–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, X.; Zhan, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, F.; Qi, W. Assessment on forest carbon sequestration in the Three-North Shelterbelt Program region, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marando, F.; Salvatori, E.; Sebastiani, A.; Fusaro, L.; Manes, F. Regulating ecosystem services and green infrastructure: Assessment of urban heat island effect mitigation in the municipality of Rome, Italy. Ecol. Modell. 2019, 392, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolo, H.; Kindu, M.; Knoke, T. Optimizing forest management for timber production, carbon sequestration and groundwater recharge. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 44, 101147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlain, J.L.; Darr, D.; Meinhold, K. Rediscovering the contributions of forests and trees to transition global food systems. Forests 2020, 11, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, I.J.; Gergel, S.E.; Bennett, E.M. Seeing the forest for its multiple ecosystem services: Indicators for cultural services in heterogeneous forests. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; De Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Wang, Y.; Ni, Z.; Zhang, X.; Xia, B. Benefits of the ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructures: Differences between perception and measurements. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foley, J.A.; Asner, G.P.; Costa, M.H.; Coe, M.T.; DeFries, R.; Gibbs, H.K.; Howard, E.A.; Olson, S.; Patz, J.; Ramankutty, N.; et al. Amazonia revealed: Forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, M.G.E.; Bennett, E.M.; Gonzalez, A. Forest fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, F.; Lippe, M.; Eguiguren, P.; Günter, S. Forest ecosystem services at landscape level—Why forest transition matters? For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 534, 120782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Victor, M.A.d.M.; Cavalli, A.C.; Guillaumon, J.R.; Serra Filho, R. One Hundred Years of Devastation: Revisited 30 Years Later. 2005. (English translation). Available online: http://antoniocavalli.com/cem%20anos%20de%20devasta%C3%A7%C3%A3o.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Corbi, J.J.; Trivinho-Strixino, S. Relationship between sugar cane cultivation and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2008, 51, 769–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benedict, M.A.; Mcmahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century; Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; 36p. [Google Scholar]
- Holt, A.R.; Mears, M.; Maltby, M.; Warren, P. Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, C.P. A multifunctional green infrastructure design to protect and improve native biodiversity in Rio de Janeiro. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. J. 2016, 12, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pippi, L.G.A.; Trindada, L.C.O. Papel da Vegetação Arbórea e das Florestas nas Áreas Urbanas. Paisag. Ambiente 2013, 31, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadavid-Florez, L.; Laborde, J.; Zahawi, R.A. Using landscape composition and configuration metrics as indicators of woody vegetation attributes in tropical pastures. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 101, 679–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frazier, A.E.; Kedron, P. Landscape metrics: Past progress and future directions. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 2017, 2, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sertel, E.; Topaloğlu, R.H.; Şallı, B.; Yay Algan, I.; Aksu, G.A. Comparison of landscape metrics for three different level land cover/land use maps. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundell-Turner, N.M.; Amanda, D.; Rodewald, A.D. A comparison of landscape metrics for conservation planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 86, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolessa, T.; Senbeta, F.; Kidane, M. Landscapecomposition and configuration in Jibat forest in the centralhighlands of Ethiopia. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 6, 409–421. [Google Scholar]
- Silva, M.S.F.; Souza, R.M. Padrões espaciais de fragmentação florestal na Flona do Ibura—Sergipe. Mercator 2014, 13, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villard, M.A.; Metzger, J.P. Beyond the fragmentation debate: A conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H. Landscape Ecology inTheory and Practice; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Uuemaa, E.; Mander, Ü.; Marja, R. Trends in the use oflandscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review. Ecol Indic. 2013, 28, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabral, P.; Santos, J.A.; Augusto, G. Monitoring Urban Sprawl and the National Ecological Reserve in Sintra-Cascais, Portugal: Multiple OLS Linear Regression Model Evaluation. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2011, 137, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pôças, I.; Cunha, M.; Pereira, L.S. Remote sensing-based indicators of changes in a mountain rural landscape of Northeast Portugal. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Wangb, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, J.; Li, W.; Li, Y. Evaluating the effectiveness of landscape metrics inquantifying spatial patterns. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klopatek, J.M.; Gardner, R.H. (Eds.) Landscape Eco-Logical Analysis: Issues and Applications; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, A.P.G.; Mioto, C.L.; Paranhos Filho, A.C.; Gamarra, R.M.; Ribeiro, A.A.; Melotto, A.M. Uso de geotecnologias para o estabelecimento de áreas para corredores de biodiversidade. Rev. Árvore 2015, 39, 595–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, A.L. Análise da Qualidade Ambiental de Remanescentes Florestais por Meio de Métricas de Paisagem: Um Estudo no Município de Campinas/SP. Masther Thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Prefeitura Municipal de Campinas. Mapeamento de Áreas Verdes do Município de Campinas. Available online: https://informacao-didc.campinas.sp.gov.br/metadados.php (accessed on 26 May 2022).
- Brasil. IBGE CIDADES. Campinas. Available online: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/sp/campinas/panorama (accessed on 13 November 2023).
- Ribeiro, F.H.S.; Bettine, S.C.; Longo, R.M.; Demanboro, A.C. Urban expansion evaluation from orbital images. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 194, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longo, R.M.; Da Silva, A.L.; Nunes, A.N.; De Melo Conti, D.; Gomes, R.C.; Sperandio, F.C.; Ribeiro, A.I. Analysis of Potential Supply of Ecosystem Services in Forest Remnants through Neural Networks. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkie, P.C.; Rempel, R.S.; Carr, A.P. Patch Analyst User’s Manual. A Tool for Quantifying Landscape Structure; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Boreal Science, Northwest Science & Technology: Thunder Bay, MN, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Fernandes, M.; Fernandes, R.D.M. Análise Espacial da Fragmentação Florestal da Bacia do Rio Ubá—RJ. Ciência Florest. Santa Maria 2017, 27, 1429–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almeida, D.; Rocha, J.; Neto, C.; Arsénio, P. Landscape metrics applied to formerly reclaimed saltmarshes: A tool to evaluate ecosystem services? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2016, 181, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jesus, E.N.; Ferreira, R.A.; Aragão, A.G.; Santos, T.S.; Rocha, S.L. Estrutura dos fragmentos florestais da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Poxim-SE, como subsídio à restauração ecológica. Rev. Árvore 2015, 39, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fengler, F.H.; de Moraes, J.F.; Ribeiro, A.I.; Peche Filho, A.; Storino, M.; de Medeiros, G.A. Environmental quality of forest fragments in Jundiaí-Mirim river basin between 1972 and 2013. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. Camp. Gd. 2015, 19, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moraes, M.C.P.; Mello, K.; Toppa, R.H. Análise da paisagem de uma zona de amortecimento como subsídio para o planejamento e gestão de Unidades de Conservação. Rev. Árvore 2015, 39, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirovani, D.B.; Silva, A.G.D.; Santos, A.R.D.; Cecílio, R.A.; Gleriani, J.M.; Martins, S.V. Análise espacial de fragmentos florestais na Bacia do Rio Itapemirim, ES. Rev. Árvore 2014, 38, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguilera, F.; Valenzuela, L.M.; Botequilha-Leitão, A. Landscape metrics in the analysis of urban land use patterns: A case study in a Spanish metropolitan area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 99, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calegari, L.; Martins, S.V.; Gleriani, J.M.; Silva, E.; Busato, L.C. Análise da dinâmica de fragmentos florestais no município de Carandaí, MG, para fins de restauração florestal. Rev. Árvore 2010, 34, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etto, T.L.; Longo, R.M.; Arruda, D.D.R.; Invenioni, R. Ecologia da paisagem de remanescentes florestais na bacia hidrográfica do Ribeirão das Pedras—Campinas-SP. Rev. Árvore 2013, 37, 1063–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nascimento, M.C.; Soares, V.P.; Ribeiro, C.A.; Silva, E. Native forest fragmentation mapping of the Alegre river watershed, Espirito Santo State, Brazil, using IKONOS II data. Rev. Árvore 2006, 30, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaves, H.M.L.; Santos, L.B. Ocupação do solo, fragmentação da paisagem e qualidade da água em uma pequena bacia hidrográfica. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2009, 13, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salomão, F.X.T. Controle e prevenção dos Processos Erosivos. In Erosão e Conservação dos Solos: Conceitos, Temas e Aplicações; Guerra, A.J.T., Silva, A., Botelho, R.G.M., Eds.; Bertrand: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, J.L.S. Geomorfologia: Ambiente e Planejamento, 8th ed.; Contexto, Coleção Repensando a Geografia: São Paulo, Brazil, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Wolfslehner, B.; Vacik, H. Evaluating sustainable forest management strategies with the analytic network process in a pressure–state–response framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ananda, J.; Herath, G. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2535–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marques, M.; Reynolds, K.M.; Marto, M.; Lakicevic, M.; Caldas, C.; Murphy, P.J.; Borges, J.G. Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Group Decision-Making to Select Stand-Level Forest Management Models and Support Landscape-Level Collaborative Planning. Forests 2021, 12, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Método de Análise Hierárquica; Makron Books do Brasil Editora Ltd.a.: São Paulo, Brazil, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Crouzeilles, R.; Prevedello, J.A.; Figueiredo, M.S.L.; Lorini, M.L.; Grelle, C.V. The effects of the number, size and isolation of patches along a gradient of native vegetation cover: How can we increment habitat availability? Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampaio, R.C.N. Efeito de Borda em um Fragmento de Floresta Estacional Semidecidual no Interior do Estado de São Paulo. Masther Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- De Paula, M.D.; Groeneveld, J.; Huth, A. The extent of edge effects in fragmented landscapes: Insights from satellite measurements of tree cover. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, D.P.; Santos, N.D. Liverwort conservation in the Atlantic Rain Forest of Southeastern Brazil: A regional survey in Rio de Janeiro State. Acta Bot. Bras. 2009, 23, 913–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurance, W.F.; Nascimento, H.E.; Laurance, S.G.; Andrade, A.C.; Fearnside, P.M.; Ribeiro, J.E.; Capretz, R.L. Rainforest fragmentation and the proliferation of successional trees. Ecology 2006, 87, 469–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, B.A.; Peres, C.A.; Oliveira, M.A.; Grillo, A.; Alves-Costa, C.P.; Tabarelli, M. Drastic erosion in functional attributes of tree assemblages in Atlantic forest fragments of northeastern Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, M.A.; Grillo, A.S.; Tabarelli, M. Forest edge in the brazilian Atlantic forest: Drastic changes in tree species assemblages. Oryx 2004, 38, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibáñez, I.; Katz, D.S.W.; Peltier, D.; Wolf, S.M.; Connor Barrie, B.T. Assessing the integrated effects of landscape fragmentation on plants and plant communities: The challenge of multiprocess-multiresponse dynamics. J. Ecol. 2014, 102, 882–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melito, M.; Metzger, J.P.; de Oliveira, A.A. Landscape-level effects on aboveground biomass of tropical forests: A conceptual framework. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skole, D.; Tucker, C. Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: Satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 1993, 260, 1905–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murcia, C. Edge effects in fragmented forests: Implications for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1995, 10, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gascon, C.; Williamson, B.G.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B. Receding forest edges and vanishing reserves. Science 2000, 288, 1356–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mercer Clarke, C.S.L.; Roff, J.C.; Bard, S.M. Back to the Future: Using Landscape Ecology to Understand Changing Patterns of Land Use in Canada, and Its Effects on the Sustainability of Coastal Ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2008, 65, 1534–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dadashpoor, H.; Azizi, P.; Moghadasi, M. Land Use Change, Urbanization, and Change in Landscape Pattern in a Metropolitan Area. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 707–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moro, R.S.; Milan, E. Natural Forest Fragmentation Evaluation in the Campos Gerais Region, Southern Brazil. Environ. Ecol. Res. 2016, 4, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flesch, A.D. Influence of local and landscape factors on distributional dynamics: A species-centred, fitness-based approach. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017, 284, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saura, S.; Pascual-Hortal, L. A new habitat availabilty index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patra, S.; Sahoo, S.; Mishra, P.; Mahapatra, C.S. Impacts of urbanization on land use /cover changes and its probable implications on local climate and groundwater level. J. Urban Manag. 2018, 7, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Low no 12.651, 25 May 2012. Provides for the Protection of Native Vegetation. Available online: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/L12651compilado.htm (accessed on 10 January 2023).
- Pereira, V.H.C.; Cestaro, L.A. Corredores Ecológicos no Brasil: Avaliação sobre os principais critérios utilizados para definição de áreas potenciais. Caminhos Geogr. 2016, 17, 16–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plano Diretor de Campinas. Prefeitura Municipal de Campinas. Plano Diretor Estratégico; (SEPLAMA) Secretaria de Planejamento e Desenvolvimento Urbano: Campinas, Brazil, 2017.
- Menezes, J.P.C.; Bittencourt, R.P.; Farias, M.D.S.; Bello, I.P.; Fia, R.; Oliveira, L.F.C.D. Relação entre padrões e uso e ocupação do solo e qualidade da água em uma bacia hidrográfica urbana. Rev. Eng. Sanitária Ambient. 2016, 21, 519–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Storey, R.G.; Cowley, D.R. Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia 1997, 353, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarsbrook, M.R.; Halliday, J. Transition from pasture to native forest land-use along stream continua: Effects on stream ecosystems and implications for restoration. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1999, 33, 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plano Diretor de Campinas. Prefeitura Municipal de Campinas. Plano Municipal de Saneamento Básico; (SVDS) Secretaria do Verde, Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável: Campinas, Brazil, 2013.
- Suga, C.M.; Tanaka, M.O. Influence of a forest remnant on macroinvertebrate communities in a degraded tropical stream. Hydrobiologia 2013, 703, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siqueira, T.D.S.; Pessoa, L.A.; Vieira, L.; Cionek, V.D.M.; Singh, S.K.; Benedito, E.; do Couto, E.V. Evaluating land use impacts on water quality: Perspectives for watershed management. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2023, 9, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia, C.A.B.; Silva, I.S.; Mendonça, M.C.S.; Garcia, H.L. Evaluation of Water Quality Indices: Use, Evolution and Future Perspectives; Advances in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blumenfeld, E.C.; Santos, R.F.D.; Thomaziello, S.A.; Ragazzi, S. Relações entre o tipo de vizinhança e efeitos de borda em fragmento florestal. Ciência Florest. 2016, 26, 1301–13016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderón-Contreras, R.; Quiroz-Rosas, L.E. Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: A case from Mexico City. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, Y.T.; Rodrigues, S.C. Relação entre cobertura vegetal e erosão em parcelas representativas de Cerrado. Rev. Geográfica Acadêmica 2015, 9, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fushimi, M.; Nunes, J.O.R. Vulnerabilidade ambiental aos processos erosivos lineares das paisagens de parte dos municípios de Marabá Paulista (SP) e Presidente Epitácio (SP), Brasil. Rev. Assoc. Nac. Pós-Grad. Pesqui. Geogr. 2018, 14, 5–27. [Google Scholar]
- Chará, J.; Pedraza, G.; Giraldo, L.; Hincapié, D.; Giraldo Sánchez, L.P. Efecto de los corredores ribereños sobre el estado de quebradas en la zona ganadera del río La Vieja, Colombia. Agroforestería En Las Américas 2007, 45, 72–78. [Google Scholar]
- Brasil. Ministério do Meio Ambiente; Fundação José Pedro de Oliveira. Plano de Manejo: A.R.I.E. Mata de Santa Genebra. Campinas: MMA, 2010. Available online: http://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/imgs-unidades-coservacao/arie_mata_de_santa_genebra.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2022).
River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | Total Area (ha) | Population Density (inhab./km2) | Altitude Range (m) | Nº of Remnants | Mean Area (ha) | Total Area Covered by Remnants (ha) % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | 14,508.0 | 2476.0 | 186.3 | 176 | 4.9 | 865.2 | 5.9 |
Atibaia | 25,782.7 | 1546.0 | 508.7 | 1368 | 2.4 | 3298.2 | 12.8 |
Capivari | 21,820.2 | 3776.8 | 209.0 | 323 | 3.8 | 1241.3 | 5.7 |
Capivari-Mirim | 5544.5 | 1663.5 | 125.8 | 75 | 5.8 | 434.3 | 7.8 |
Jaguari | 4554.0 | * | 422.6 | 324 | 1.9 | 610.3 | 13.4 |
Quilombo | 7325.3 | 2271.0 | 149.6 | 53 | 3.4 | 179.6 | 2.5 |
Metric | Description |
---|---|
Fragment area (AREA) | Corresponds to the area of each remnant. It is widely accepted that the richness and the abundance of certain species directly depend on the size of the fragments, so larger fragments have greater diversity [44,49]. According to their size, the remnants can be classified as very small (<0.50 ha); small (0.50–1.00 ha); medium (1.00–5.00 ha); good (5.00–20.00 ha); adequate (>20.00 ha) [48]. |
Nuclear area/core area (CA) and central area index (CAI) | The core or nuclear area relates to the central area of a forest remnant, taking no account of the marginal strip exposed to the edge effects, where the microclimate changes as a result of its contact with the landscape matrix [44]. According to the literature, the edge effect range can vary from 20 to 100 m [47,49]. In the present work, 60 m value was adopted based on [49]. The central area index (CAI) refers to the remaining area and the higher the value, the better the quality of the landscape; conversely, lower values indicate a greater edge effect [43,49]. |
Circularity index (CI) | CI intends to evaluate the degree of similarity of a circumference to thar the shape of the remnant. According to the equation below, CI is a result of the relationship between the area (A, in m2) and perimeter (L, in m) of forest fragments [45,51]. Based on [52], the shape of the fragments is classified as elongated (CI < 0.65), moderately elongated (0.65 ≤ CI < 0.85), and rounded (CI ≥ 0.85). |
Distance from the nearest neighbour (DNN) | Indicates the Euclidean distance (in meters) from a forest remnant to its nearest neighbour. This metric is associated to the connectivity of the landscape, i.e., the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches. After a certain degree of isolation, the biological populations of the fragments begin to show losses in terms population dynamics and community structure [43,44]. |
Proximity to the watercourse (PROXWC) | Euclidean distance estimated from a forest remnant to the nearest watercourse (in meters). |
Water springs (WS): | WS refers to the springs identified in each remnant according to [38]. |
Land use/land cover in the surroundings (LULCSUR): | Land use/land cover (LULC) was assessed for the areas in a radius of up to 175 m around each remnant. LULC refers to 2013 and was provided by [38]. The intensity of natural landscape modification around each fragment was classified according to [53]: (i) very low intensity, including natural or almost natural landscapes, such as the Brazilian Cerrado or forest; (ii) low intensity, covering natural vegetation with a small changes; (iii) moderate intensity, including transition areas, such as parks and planted pastures; (iv) high intensity, considerable modification of the natural landscape, such as deforested areas, dirt roads, orchards; and (v) very high intensity, completely modified areas, such as exposed soil, degraded areas, paved streets, buildings, and similar areas. |
Soil Erodibility (EROD) | Evaluates the predominant soil typology in each forest remnant and the corresponding erodibility degree according to [54,55], where gley soils (very low); red-yellow latosols and yellow latosols (low); heterogeneous Cambisols (high); red-yellow argosols (very high). |
AREA | CAI | CI | DNN | PROXWC | WS | LULCSUR | EROD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AREA | 1.000 | 0.250 | 1.000 | 0.500 | 2.000 | 0.333 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
CAI | 4.000 | 1.000 | 3.000 | 2.000 | 4.000 | 0.500 | 3.000 | 2.000 |
IC | 1.000 | 0.333 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 3.000 | 0.333 | 3.000 | 0.333 |
DNN | 2.000 | 0.500 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 3.000 | 0.333 | 2.000 | 0.500 |
PROXWC | 0.500 | 0.250 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 1.000 |
WS | 3.000 | 2.000 | 3.000 | 3.000 | 3.000 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 1.000 |
LULCSUR | 1.000 | 0.333 | 0.333 | 0.500 | 3.000 | 0.500 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
EROD | 1.000 | 0.500 | 3.000 | 2.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Total | 13.500 | 5.166 | 12.666 | 10.333 | 20.000 | 4.333 | 13.333 | 7.833 |
AREA | CAI | CI | DNN | PROXWC | WS | LULCSUR | EROD | Eigen Vector | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AREA | 0.074 | 0.048 | 0.079 | 0.048 | 0.100 | 0.077 | 0.075 | 0.128 | 0.079 |
CAI | 0.296 | 0.194 | 0.237 | 0.194 | 0.200 | 0.115 | 0.225 | 0.255 | 0.215 |
IC | 0.074 | 0.064 | 0.079 | 0.097 | 0.150 | 0.077 | 0.225 | 0.043 | 0.101 |
DNN | 0.148 | 0.097 | 0.079 | 0.097 | 0.150 | 0.077 | 0.150 | 0.064 | 0.108 |
PROXWC | 0.037 | 0.048 | 0.026 | 0.032 | 0.050 | 0.077 | 0.025 | 0.128 | 0.053 |
WS | 0.222 | 0.387 | 0.237 | 0.290 | 0.150 | 0.231 | 0.150 | 0.128 | 0.224 |
LULCSUR | 0.074 | 0.064 | 0.026 | 0.048 | 0.150 | 0.115 | 0.075 | 0.128 | 0.085 |
EROD | 0.074 | 0.097 | 0.237 | 0.194 | 0.050 | 0.231 | 0.075 | 0.128 | 0.136 |
Total | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RI | 0 | 0 | 0.53 | 0.90 | 1.12 | 1.24 | 1.32 | 1.41 | 1.45 |
River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | |
N. remnants | 176 | 1368 | 323 | 75 | 324 | 53 |
NDCA | 47 | 126 | 66 | 19 | 20 | 15 |
Total area (ha) | 862.2 | 3298.2 | 1241.3 | 434.3 | 610.3 | 179.6 |
Central area (CA) (ha) | 287.6 | 664.9 | 137.2 | 66.9 | 142.2 | 17.6 |
CAI (%) | 33.4 | 20.2 | 11.1 | 15.4 | 23.3 | 9.8 |
Circularity Index (CI) | Shape | River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | ||
<0.65 | Elongated | 53.9% | 69.3% | 59.1% | 62.7% | 75.9% | 41.5% |
0.65–0.85 | Moderately elongated | 35.2% | 15.5% | 32.8% | 29.3% | 18.2% | 37.7% |
>0.85 | Rounded | 10.9% | 15.2% | 8.1% | 8.0% | 5.9% | 20.8% |
Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | |
Minimum | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.26 | |
Maximum | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.96 | |
Average | 0.63 | 0.54 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 0.53 | 0.67 | |
Standard deviation | 0.17 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.17 |
DNN (m) | River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | |
<60.0 | 52.8% | 80.7% | 52.3% | 58.7% | 75.3% | 32.0% |
60.0–120.0 | 14.2% | 11.7% | 19.5% | 14.7% | 14.8% | 18.9% |
120.0–200.0 | 10.2% | 4.7% | 11.5% | 9.3% | 6.2% | 17.0% |
>200.0 | 22.6% | 2.9% | 16.7% | 17.3% | 3.7% | 32.1% |
Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Minimum | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 |
Maximum | 1182.5 | 985.4 | 1294.8 | 940.0 | 335.4 | 1767.6 |
Average | 146.7 | 42.0 | 116.7 | 115.9 | 45.8 | 255.7 |
Standard deviation | 211.1 | 75.8 | 172.0 | 176.6 | 59.9 | 366.7 |
PROXWC (m) | River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | |
<60.0 | 81.2% | 87.9% | 93.2% | 81.3% | 88.6% | 67.9% |
60.0–120.0 | 5.7% | 6.6% | 3.7% | 6.7% | 7.4% | 5.7% |
120.0–200.0 | 2.3% | 3.7% | 2.2% | 8.0% | 3.4% | 3.8% |
>200.0 | 10.8% | 1.8% | 0.9% | 4.0% | 0.6% | 22.6% |
Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Minimum | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Maximum | 833.2 | 354.5 | 316.5 | 499.2 | 274.4 | 795.7 |
Average | 56.4 | 21.8 | 12.1 | 34.6 | 20.4 | 128.1 |
Standard deviation | 134.5 | 47.5 | 37.8 | 83.6 | 40.8 | 218.7 |
Intensity of LULC | River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | |
Very low | - | 0.1% | - | - | - | - |
Low | 1.2% | 1.5% | - | 0.6% | - | |
Moderate | 4.5% | 30.6% | 21.3% | 8.0% | 81.5% | 1.9% |
High | 3.4% | 6.1% | 2.2% | 10.7% | 1.5% | 7.5% |
Very high | 90.9% | 61.7% | 76.5% | 81.3% | 16.4% | 90.6% |
Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Level of Erodibility | River Basins in the Municipality of Campinas/SP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | |
Very low | 55.7% | 14.5% | 33.8% | 44.0% | 0.6% | 96.2% |
Poor | 0.6% | - | - | 6.7% | - | - |
High | 2.3% | - | - | 9.3% | - | 3.8% |
Very high | 41.5% | 85.5% | 66.2% | 40.0% | 99.4% | - |
Total | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Environmental Quality | Number of Forest Remnants (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anhumas | Atibaia | Capivari | Capivari-Mirim | Jaguari | Quilombo | |
Very low | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Low | 28 (15.9%) | 408 (29.8%) | 49 (15.2%) | 10 (13.3%) | 84 (25.9%) | - |
Medium | 131 (74.4%) | 913 (66.7%) | 252 (78.0%) | 57 (76.0%) | 232 (71.6%) | 51 (96.2%) |
High | 16 (9.1%) | 46 (3.4%) | 22 (6.8%) | 8 (10.7%) | 8 (2.5%) | 2 (3.8%) |
Very high | 1 (0.6%) | 1 (0.1%) | - | - | - | - |
Total | 176 (100%) | 1368 (100%) | 323 (100%) | 75 (100%) | 324 (100%) | 53 (100%) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Longo, R.M.; da Silva, A.L.; Ribeiro, A.I.; Gomes, R.C.; Sperandio, F.C.; Nunes, A.N. Evaluating the Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants Using Landscape Metrics. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041543
Longo RM, da Silva AL, Ribeiro AI, Gomes RC, Sperandio FC, Nunes AN. Evaluating the Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants Using Landscape Metrics. Sustainability. 2024; 16(4):1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041543
Chicago/Turabian StyleLongo, Regina Márcia, Alessandra Leite da Silva, Admilson Irio Ribeiro, Raissa Caroline Gomes, Fabricio Camillo Sperandio, and Adélia N. Nunes. 2024. "Evaluating the Environmental Quality of Forest Remnants Using Landscape Metrics" Sustainability 16, no. 4: 1543. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041543