PRIORITY AREAS TO RESTORATION OF STRUCTURAL CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN FOREST FRAGMENTS OF BUFFER ZONE OF RIBEIRÃO PRETO ECOLOGICAL STATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4322/rif.2015.005Keywords:
Semideciduous Seasonal Forest, protected areas, conservancy, structural connectivity, buffer zone, geoprocessingAbstract
The Ribeirão Preto Ecological Station – EERP is a Conservation Unit of Full Protection located within the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Its Buffer Zone – BZ, with 70% of its area located in the urban or urban expansion area, has only 17% of the vegetation cover distributed in 129 vegetation patches. In order to subsidize the forest restoration actions, a map of priority areas was generated for the reestablishment of the connectivity between the fragments of BF. The considered criteria for the production of the map were: the structure and configuration of the landscape, the conservation status of the remnant and the Brazilian legislation. The results demonstrate the urgency to achieve actions to restore the connectivity of Buffer Zone in EERP, demonstrating the high degree of fragmentation and degradation of this area. The methodology used to determine the areas of priority for the connectivity was comprehensive and resulted in a reliable and realistic map. The generated map indicates that the actions of forest restoration in BZ of Ribeirão Preto Ecological Station should be focused on two strategies: forest corridors and enrichment of the fragments, prioritizing the restoration of riparian forests. These procedures would act as facilitators for the structural connectivity between the green areas nearby the streams present in BF and so minimizing the impact of the edge effects. The generated result has the approval of all those directly or indirectly involved with the management of the protected area and its BF, it is also an excellent tool to assist management and should be used in future projects of restoration in partnership with the landowners.
Downloads
References
BORGES, L.A.C. et al. Áreas de preservação permanente na legislação ambiental brasileira. Ciência Rural, v. 41, n. 7, p. 1202-1210, 2011.
BRASIL. Lei no 4.771/1965, de 15 de setembro de 1965. Institui o novo Código Florestal. Diário Oficial dos Estados Unidos do Brasil, ano 103, no 117, 16 set. 1965. Seção I, Parte I, p. 9531. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 18 ago. 2011.
BRASIL. Lei no 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, § 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, v. 138, 19 jun. 2000. Seção 1, p. 45. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 15 fev. 2011.
BRASIL. Ministério do Meio Ambiente – MMA. Lista nacional das espécies da fauna brasileira ameaçadas de extinção. 2014. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 7 nov. 2014.
CAMARA, G. et al. SPRING: integrating remote sensingand GIS by object-oriented data modelling. Computers & Graphics, v. 20, n. 3, p. 395-403, 1996.
CAMARGO, U.M. Grupos ecológicos da vegetação arbórea de um trecho degradado de Floresta Estacional Semidecidual – Mata de Santa Tereza – no município de Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil. 2008. 49 f. Monografia (Graduação em Ciências Biológicas) – Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto.
EMPRESA BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA AGROPECUÁRIA – EMBRAPA. Banco de dados climáticos do Brasil. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 15 nov. 2011.
FAHRIG, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 34, p. 487-515, 2003.
FALCY, M.R.; ESTADES, C.F. Effectiveness of corridors relative to enlargement of habitat patches. Conservation Biology, v. 21, n. 5, p. 1341-1346, 2007.
FISCHER, J.; LINDENMAYER, D.B.; MANNING, A.D. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 4, n. 2, p. 80-86, 2006.
GROOM, M.J.; MEFFE, G.K.; CARROLL, C.R. Principles of conservation biology. Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 2006. 779 p.
HADDAD, N.M. Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecological Applications, v. 9, n. 2, p. 612-622, 1999.
INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA – IBGE. Censo Populacional 2010. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 1 abr. 2013. INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE – IUCN. 2014. Red list of threatened species. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 6 de janeiro de 2015.
LEONEL, C. et al. Plano de Manejo da Estação Ecológica de Ribeirão Preto: volume principal e anexos. Ribeirão Preto: Secretaria do Meio Ambiente. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 19 jan. 2015.
LINDENMAYER, D.B.; FISCHER, J. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2006. 329 p.
LOEBMANN, D. Guia ilustrado: os anfíbios da região costeira do extremo sul do Brasil. Pelotas: USEB, 2005. 76 p. (Manuais de Campo USEB, 4).
LOISELLE, B.A.; BLACKE, J.G. Population variation in a tropical bird community: implications for conservation. BioScience, v. 42, p. 838-845, 1992.
LOPES, A.V. et al. Long-term erosion of tree reproducyive trait diversity in edge-dominated Atlantic forest fragments. Biological Conservation, v. 142, n. 6, p. 1154-1165, 2009.
MANNING, A.D.; FISCHER, J.; LINDENMAYER, D.B. Scattered trees are keystone structures – implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, v. 132, p. 311-321, 2006.
MARTINELLI, G.; MORAES, M.A. (Ed.). Livro vermelho da flora brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Andrea Jakobson Estúdio: Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, 2013. 1100 p.
McGARIGAL, K. et al. Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2002. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 25 jul. 2011.
METZGER, J.P. O Código Florestal tem base científica? Natureza & Conservação v. 8, n.1, p. 1-5, 2010.
______. et al. Brazilian law: full speed in reverse? Science, v. 329, p. 276-277, 2010.
MYERS, N. et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, v. 403, p. 853-858, 2000.
NAIMAN, R.J.; DECAMPS, H.; POLLOCK, M. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecological Applications, v. 3, n. 2, p. 209-212, 1993.
PARDINI, R. et al. Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. Plos One, v. 5, n. 10, e.13666, 2010. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 25 jun. 2011.
REIS, N. R. et al. (Ed.). Mamíferos do Brasil. 2. ed. Londrina: [s.n.], 2011. 439 p. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 16 set. 2014.
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, v. 142, p. 1141-1153, 2009. RICKETTS, T.H. et al. Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions.
PNAS, v. 102, n. 51, p. 18497-18501, 2005.
ROSENBERG, D.K.; NOON, B.R; MESLOW, E.C. Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. BioScience, v. 47, p. 10, p. 677-687, 1997.
SÃO PAULO (Estado). Decreto Estadual nº 60.133, de 7 de fevereiro de 2014. Espécies de vertebrados e invertebrados da fauna silvestre ameaçadas de extinção do Estado de São Paulo. Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo, Poder Executivo, v. 124, 8 fev. 2014. Seção I, 27, p. 25-32, 2014.
SOS MATA ATLÂNTICA. 2013. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 29 jul. 2014.
TEWKSBURY, J.J. et al. Corridors affect plants, animal, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. PNAS, v. 99, n. 20, p. 12923-12926, 2002.
TILMAN, D. et al. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, v. 371, p. 65-66, 1994.
VIANA, V.M.; PINHEIRO, L.A.F.V. Conservação da biodiversidade em fragmentos florestais. Série Técnica IPEF, v. 12, n. 32, p. 25-42, 1998.
WILLIS, E.O. The composition of avian communities in remanescent woodlots in southern Brazil. Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia, v. 33, p. 1-25, 1979.
WILSON, D.E.; REEDER, D.M. Mammals species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3th ed.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsoniam Institution Press, 2005. 2000 p. WRIGHT, S.J. et al. Poachers alter mammal abundance, seed dispersal, and seed predation in a neotropical forest. Conservation Biology, v. 14, p. 227-239, 2000
