ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Detecting and Restoring Gaps Among Forest Patches: AN Achievable and Replicable Proposal to Boost the Landscape Connectivity
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Institute of Science and Technology of Sorocaba, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Sorocaba, SP, Brazil
2
Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, USA
Online publication date: 2022-10-13
Publication date: 2022-09-01
Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports 2022;32(3):62-84
ABSTRACT
It is well known that one of the main impacts caused by land cover change is the process of forest fragmentation. Connecting the remaining fragments is always an exercise for technicians and academics, and even corridors of remaining vegetation usually present places of forest discontinuity, lacking connection strategies for the corridor to gain a real function. In this paper, we applied a model structured to identify priority locals to implement connectors. We used a GIS package and a digital, georeferenced satellite image. We complemented the project by surveying a database through a drone-based field survey. The integration of data revealed that for our studied area (Sorocaba, SP Brazil) 42.5% need assisted restoration. The mapping also revealed the existence of 25 forest fragments larger than 50 ha, arranged chiefly in one single corridor but disconnected from each other. Hence, through the application of the model, we could localize nine strategic locations in distances as short as possible among the fragments, feasible to implement a connector with the economy of resources and expect satisfactory performance in ecological terms. The database generated by the drone-based survey helped us to assert
REFERENCES (50)
1.
Cobbinah, PB et al. 2020. Kumasi: Towards a sustainable and resilient cityscape. Cities 97, 102567.
2.
Zhou, T and Ke, X 2020. Which should be conserved according to priority during urban expansion? ecological lands or farmland? Environmental Management 67, 1–10.
3.
Pirnat, J and Hladnik, D 2016. Connectivity as a tool in the prioritization and protection of sub-urban forest patches in landscape conservation planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 153, 129–139.
4.
Andreacci, F and Marenzi, RC 2020. Accounting for twenty-first-century annual forest loss in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil using high-resolution global maps. International Journal of Remote Sensing 41, 4408–4420.
5.
Gounaridis, D, Newell, JP and Goodspeed, R 2020. The impact of urban sprawl on forest landscapes in Southeast Michigan, 1985–2015. Landscape Ecology 35, 1975–1993.
6.
Bortoleto, LA, Figueira, CJM, Dunning Jr, JB, Rodgers, J and da Silva, AM 2016 Suitability index for restoration in landscapes: An alternative proposal for restoration projects. Ecological Indicators 60, 724–735.
7.
Akçakaya, HR et al. 2020. Assessing ecological function in the context of species recovery. Conservation Biology 34, 561–571.
8.
Bortoleto, LA and Silva, AM 2020. Conectividade Ecológica em Pontos Estratégicos no Município de Sorocaba-SP [Ecological Connectivity at Strategic Points in the Municipality of Sorocaba-SP]. In: Welber Senteio Smith. (Org.). Biodiversidade do Município de Sorocaba: Atualização e subsídios para a sua conservação [Biodiversity of the Municipality of Sorocaba: Update and subsidies for its conservation]. 2 nd ed., Universidade Paulista, Grupo de Pesquisa Ecologia Estrutural e Funcional de Ecossistemas, Sorocaba-SP, Brazil pag. 81–98.
9.
Lindenmayer, DB and Fischer, J 2013. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, 352 p.
10.
Lechner, AM, et al. 2015. A framework for incorporating fine-scale dispersal behavior into biodiversity conservation planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 141, 11–23.
11.
Ghazoul, J and Chazdon, R 2017. Degradation and recovery in changing forest landscapes: a multiscale conceptual framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42, 161–188.
12.
Horte, OS and Eisenman, TS 2020. Urban Greenways: A systematic review and typology. Land 9, 40–62.
13.
Vittoz, P and Engler, R 2007. Seed dispersal distances: a typology based on dispersal modes and plant traits. Botanica Helvetica 117, 109–124.
14.
Zhang, Z et al. 2019. Enhancing landscape connectivity through multifunctional green infrastructure corridor modelling and design. Urban Forest and Urban Greening 38, 305–317.
15.
Ribeiro, JW et al. 2017. LandScape Corridors (lscorridors): a new software package for modeling ecological corridors based on landscape patterns and species requirements. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8, 1425–1432.
16.
Hong, W et al. 2017. Sensitivity evaluation and land-use control of urban ecological corridors: A case study of Shenzhen, China. Land Use Policy 62, 316–325.
17.
De Montis, A et al. 2016. Urban–rural ecological networks for landscape planning. Land Use Policy 50, 312–327.
18.
Li, F et al. 2015. Evaluation of urban suitable ecological land based on the minimum cumulative resistance model: a case study from Changzhou, China. Ecological Modelling 318, 194–203.
19.
McRae, BH et al. 2012. Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PloS One 7, e52604.
20.
Galpern, P, Manseau, M and Fall, A 2011. Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biological Conservation 144, 44–55.
21.
Gurrutxaga, M, Lozano, PJ and Del Barrio, G 2010. GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning. Journal of Nature Conservation 18, 318–326.
22.
Saura, S and Rubio, L 2010. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33, 523–537.
23.
Bortoleto, LA 2014. Análise da dinâmica de fragmentos florestais: estudo de caso de Sorocaba-SP [Analysis of the dynamics of forest fragments: a case study of Sorocaba-SP]. Dissertation (MSc in Civil and Environmental Engineering), UNESP – Faculdade de Engenharia de Bauru, 78 p.
24.
De Paula, FR et al. 2018. Multi-scale assessment of forest cover in an agricultural landscape of Southeastern Brazil: Implications for management and conservation of stream habitat and water quality. Ecological Indicators 85, 1181–1191.
25.
Crouzeilles, R et al. 2017. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Science Advances 3, e1701345.
26.
Siqueira, FF et al. 2021. Small landscape elements double connectivity in highly fragmented areas of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9, 304.
27.
Castro, RB et al. 2020. Identification of priority areas for landscape connectivity maintenance in the Xingu Area of Endemism in Brazilian Amazonia. Acta Amazonica 50, 68–79.
28.
SEADE (Secretary of Planning and Regional Development of the State of São Paulo) Fundação Sistema Estadual de Análise de Dados - SEADE 2016. Perfil Municipal. São Paulo. Available at: < http://www.perfil.seade.gov.br...#>. Accessed July 2021.
29.
SEMA (Municipal Secretary of Environment of Sorocaba) 2011. Plano Diretor Ambiental de Sorocaba [Sorocaba Environmental Master Plan]. 56p. Available at: http://pt.scribd.com/doc/82943.... Accessed April 2020.
30.
EMBRAPA. (Brazilian Federal Government Enterprise for Agricultural Research) 2003. Banco de Dados Climáticos do Brasil [Brazil Climate Database]. Available at: < http://www.bdclima.cnpm.embrap...>. Accessed January 2021.
31.
Smith, WS, Mota Jr, VD and Carvalho, JS (organizers) 2014. Biodiversidade do Município de Sorocaba [Biodiversity of the Municipality of Sorocaba]. 1 st Edition, Municipal Secretary of Environment of Sorocaba, 270 p.
32.
São Paulo (Government State) 2017. Sistema Ambiental Paulista - Área de Proteção Ambiental [São Paulo State’s Environmental System - Environmental Protection Area]. Available at: < http://www3.ambiente.sp.gov.br...>, Accessed: June 2021.
33.
Smith, WS and Ribeiro, CA (organizers) 2015. Parque Natural Municipal Corredores de Biodiversidade: pesquisas e perspectivas futuras [Municipal Natural Park Corridors of Biodiversity: research and future perspectives]. Municipal Secretary of Environment of Sorocaba SP, Brazil, 230 p.
34.
Khoshnood Motlagh, S et al. 2021. Analysis and prediction of land cover changes using the land change modeler (LCM) in a semiarid river basin, Iran. Land Degradation & Development 32, 3092–3105.
35.
Tadese, M et al. 2020 Mapping of land-use/land-cover changes and its dynamics in Awash River Basin using remote sensing and GIS. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 19, 100352.
36.
Silva, AM 2005. Cobertura do solo do município de Sorocaba-SP e implicações na fragmentação dos remanescentes florestais [Sorocaba-SP soil cover and implications for the fragmentation of forest remnants]. Revista de Estudos Ambientais 7, 38–46.
37.
Bortoleto, LA 2019. Seleção e diretrizes para o design de conectores ecológicos: uma abordagem metodológica [Selection and guidelines for the design of ecological connectors: a methodological approach]. Thesis (Doctorate in Civil and Environmental Engineering) UNESP – Faculdade de Engenharia de Bauru, 152 p.
39.
Zhang, XQ 2016. The trends, promises, and challenges of urbanization in the world. Habitat International 54, 241–252.
40.
Silva, AM 2009. Ecologia da Paisagem: Fundamentos e Aplicações [Landscape Ecology: Fundamentals and Applications]. Papel Virtual Editora, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil.
41.
Damame, DB et al. 2019. Impactos ambientais pelo uso e ocupação do solo em sub bacias hidrográficas de Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil [Environmental impacts of land use and occupation in sub-watersheds of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil]. Acta Brasiliensis 3, 1–7.
42.
Yin, H et al. 2015. Assessing growth scenarios for their landscape ecological security impact using the SLEUTH urban growth model. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 142, 05015006.
43.
Peres, CA 2001. Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian Forest vertebrates. Conservation Biology 15, 1490–1505.
44.
Dos Santos, A et al. 2016. Geotechnology and landscape ecology applied to the selection of potential forest fragments for seed harvesting. Journal of Environmental Management 183, 1050–1063.
45.
Haddad, NM et al. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth's ecosystems. Science Advances 1, 94–103.
46.
Adriaensen, F et al. 2003. The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 233–247.
47.
Sawyer, SC, Epps, CW and Brashares, JS 2011. Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology 48, 668–678.
48.
Hunter-Ayad, J and Hassall, C 2020. An empirical, cross-taxon evaluation of landscape-scale connectivity. Biodiversity Conservation 29, 1339–1359.
49.
Shirabe, T 2018. Buffered or bundled, least-cost paths are not least-cost corridors: Computational experiments on path-based and wide-path-based models for conservation corridor design and effective distance estimation. Ecological Informatics 44, 109–116.
50.
Luo, Y et al. 2020. Can policy maintain habitat connectivity under landscape fragmentation? A case study of Shenzhen, China. Science of the Total Environment 715, 136829.
| eISSN: | 2450-8594 |
| ISSN: | 2080-5187 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
