Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Utility of landscape mosaics and boundaries in forest conservation decision making in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluated changes in the Atlantic Forest landscape over the last 40 years based on changes in boundaries and mosaics, including the hypothetical landscape resulting from the application of Brazilian laws for forest protection. Mosaics were identified as sets of land-use patches with a similar pattern of boundaries. Landscapes of different years, therefore, can be distinguished by differences in mosaics. We developed a technique to identify boundaries between patches from land-use maps using ArcGis® and to build the patch x boundary matrix required for mosaic identification by means of a factorial and cluster analysis. The mosaics were characterized by some key uses as well as by their boundaries with other land uses. The mosaics were scored for forest conservation according to five issues: landscape permeability, cover, availability, quality, and fragmentation of forest. The values were based on land use and boundary patterns. Although Brazilian laws regarding forest protection have promoted conservation and the hypothetical legal landscape has presented the highest forest habitat availability, this expansion perpetuates a boundary pattern that complicates conservation and management, thus increasing the pressure on forest patches and favoring the further fragmentation of protected forest patches. These conclusions cannot be reached by simply recording changes in land uses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antrop M (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes in the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70:21–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett GW, Peles JD (1999) Landscape ecology of small mammals. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baudry J, Bourel F (2004) Trophic flows and spatial heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GH (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. The University Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 317–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierregaard RO Jr, Dale VH (1996) Islands in an ever-changing sea: the ecological and socioeconomic dynamics of Amazonian rain forest fragments. In: Schelhas J, Greenberg R (eds) Forest patches in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington, pp 187–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2004) Driving forces of landscape change—current and new directions. Landscape Ecol 19:857–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso MI, Pickett STA, Weathers KC, Jones CG (2003) A framework for a theory of ecological boundaries. BioScience 53(8):750–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell MD, Forman RTT (1993) Landscape graphs: ecological modelling with graph theory to detect configurations common to diverse landscapes. Landscape Ecol 8:239–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheshire P (1995) A new phase of urban development in Western Europe? The evidence for the 1980s. Urban Stud 32(7):1045–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colli GR, Accacio GM, Antonini Y, Constantino R, Franceschinelli EV, Laps RR, Scariot A, Vieira MV, Wiederhecker HC (2003) A fragmentação dos ecossistemas e a biodiversidade brasileira: uma síntese [Ecosystem fragmentation and Brazilian biodiversity: a synthesis]. In: Rambaldi DM, Oliveira DAS (eds) Fragmentação de Ecossistemas: causas, efeitos sobre a biodiversidade e recomendações de políticas públicas. [Ecosystem Fragmentation: causes, effects on biodiversity and recommendations for public policies]. Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Secretaria Nacional de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Brasília, pp 318–324

  • Crooks KR (2002) Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conserv Biol 16:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Pablo CL, Roldán-Martín MJ, Martín de Agar P (2012) Magnitude and significance in landscape change. Landsc Res. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.641949

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortin MJ, Olson RJ, Ferson S, Iverson L, Hunsaker C, Edwards G, Levine D, Butera K, Klemas V (2000) Issues related to the detection of boundaries. Landscape Ecol 15:453–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3(2):202–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (2001) Population dynamic consequences of dispersal in local population and in metapopulations. In: Danchin JC, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University press, Oxford, pp 283–298

  • Hardt E (2010) Conservação ambiental em cenários de uso: medidas de mudanças, heterogeneidade e valoração da paisagem (Environmental conservation in land use scenarios: measurements of changes, heterogeneity and landscape valuation). PhD Thesis, State University of Campinas. http://cutter.unicamp.br/document/?code=000772667

  • Hardt E, Santos RF, Pereira-Silva EFL (2012) Landscape changes in Serra do Japi: legal protection or scientific expectation? Bosque 33(3):339–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardt E, Pereira-Silva EFL, dos Santos RF, Tamashiro JY, Ragazzi S, Lins DBS (2013) Influence of natural and anthropogenic matrix on edge effect. Landsc Urban Plan (under review)

  • Hawbaker TJ, Radeloff VC, Clayton MK, Hammer RB, Gonzalez-Abraham CE (2006) Road development, housing growth, and landscape fragmentation in northern wisconsin: 1937–1999. Ecol Appl 16(3):1222–1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hersperger AM (2006) Spatial adjacencies and interactions: neighborhood mosaics for landscape ecological planning. Landsc Urban Plan 77:227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetation 42:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent M (2007) Biogeography and landscape ecology. Prog Phys Geog 31(3):345–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kepner W, Watts C, Edmonds C, Maingi J, Marsh S, Luna G (2000) Landscape approach for detecting and evaluating change in a semiarid environment. Environ Monit Assess 64:179–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Ockinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Rodà F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24(10):564–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Landeiro VM, Bini LM, Costa FRC, Franklin E, Nogueira A, Souza JLP, Moraes J, Magnusson WE (2012) How far can we go in simplifying biomonitoring assessments? An integrated analysis of taxonomic surrogacy, taxonomic sufficiency and numerical resolution in a megadiverse region. Ecol Ind 23:366–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett GM, Jones CG, Turner MG, Weathers KC (eds) (2005) Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Springer, New York, pp 1–30

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Margalef R (1963) On certain unifying principles in ecology. Am Nat 897:357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margalef R (1979) The organization of space. Oikos 33:152–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margalef R (1996) Information and uncertainty in living systems, a view from ecology. Biosystems 38:141–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger JP (2004) Estrutura da paisagem: o uso adequado de métricas. In: Cullen JrL, Rudran R, Valladares-pádua C (eds) Métodos de estudo em biologia da conservação e manejo da vida silvestre. Ed. da UFPR e Fundação O Boticário de Proteção à Natureza, Curitiba, pp 423–453

  • Metzger JP, Décamps H (1997) The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecol 18:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger JP, Muller E (1996) Characterizing the complexity of landscape boundaries. Landscape Ecol 11:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1983) A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardini R, Faria D, Accacio GM, Laps RR, Mariano-Neto E, Paciencia MLB, Dixo MLB, Baumgarten J (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic forest biodiversity: a multi-taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in an agro-forestry mosaic in Southern Bahia. Biol Conserv 142:1178–1190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardini R, Souza SM, Braga-Neto R, Metzger JP (2005) The role of forest structure, fragment size and corridors in maintaining small mammal abundance and diversity in an Atlantic forest landscape. Biol Conserv 124:253–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Pires AS, Lira PK, Fernández FAS, Schitini GM, Oliveira CO (2002) Frequency of movements of small mammals among Atlantic Coastal Forest fragments in Brazil. Biol Conserv 108(2):229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescia AJ, Schmitz MF, Martín de Agar MP, De Pablo CL, Atauri JA, Pineda FD (1994) Influence of landscape complexity and land management on wood plant diversity in northern Spain. J Veg Sci 5:505–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescia AJ, Schmitz MF, Martín de Agar MP, De Pablo CL, Pineda FD (1995) Ascribing plant diversity values to historical changes in landscape: a methodological approach. Landsc Urban Plan 31:181–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roldán-Martín MJ, De Pablo CTL, Martín de Agar P (2003) Landscape mosaics recognition and changes over time: a methodological approach. In: Mander U, Antrop M (eds) Multifunctional landscapes: continuity and change. Wit Press, Boston, pp 55–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Roldán-Martín MJ, De Pablo CTL, Martín de Agar P (2006) Landscape changes over time: comparison of land uses, boundaries and mosaics. Landscape Ecol 21:1075–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder B, Seppelt R (2006) Analysis of pattern-process interactions based on landscape models—overview, general concepts, and methodological issues. Ecol Model 199:505–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Cardille JA (2007) Spatial heterogeneity and ecosystem processes. In: WU J, Hobbs RJ (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 62–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Chapin FI (2005) Causes and consequences of spatial heterogeneity in ecosystem function. In: Lovett G, Jones C, Turner M, Weathers K (eds) Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. Springer, New York, pp 9–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Corlett RT (1996) The conservation value of small isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Trends Ecol Evol 11:330–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Valverde V, Roldán-Martín MJ, Campos GA, Pérez P, Martín de Agar P, De Pablo CTL (2008) Análisis de la estructura espacial del paisaje: mosaicos del paisaje. In: Maestre FT, Escudero A, Bonet A (eds) Introducción al análisis espacial de datos en ecología y ciencias ambientales: métodos y aplicaciones. Dykinson, Madrid, pp 747–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Apeldoorn RC, Oostenbrink WT, Van Winden A, Van Der Zee FF (1992) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, in an agricultural landscape. Oikos 65:265–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen CG (1966) A relational theoretical approach to pattern and processes in vegetation. Wentia 15:25–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1995) Landscape mosaics and ecological theory. In: Hansson L, Fahrig L, Merrial G (eds) Mosaics landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 1–26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1999) The science and practice landscape ecology. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York, pp 371–383

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (2005) Toward a unified landscape ecology. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 365–373

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Crawford CS, Gosz JR (1985) Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45(3):421–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zebisch M, Weschsung F, Kenneweg H (2004) Landscape response functions for biodiversity—assessing the impact of land-use changes at the county level. Landsc Urban Plan 67:157–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng H, Ben WuX (2005) Utilities of edge-based metrics for studying landscape fragmentation. Comput Environ Urban 29:159–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support received from FAPESP (São Paulo State Foundation for Science Funding) through a PhD scholarship (process number 06/55385-0) and financial support (process number 08/01505-0). We also acknowledge the comments of two anonymous referees and Dra. L.A. Schulte, who helped us improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Environmental Planning, Campinas State University, av. Albert Einstein, 951, Caixa Postal 6021, Campinas, 13083-852, Brazil

    Elisa Hardt & Rozely F. dos Santos

  2. Department of Ecology, University of São Paulo, rua do Matão, 321, travessa 14, São Paulo, 05508-900, Brazil

    Rozely F. dos Santos

  3. Department of Ecology, Complutense University of Madrid, c/José Antonio Novais 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Carlos L. de Pablo & Pilar Martín de Agar

  4. Municipal Faculty “Professor Franco Montoro”, rua dos Estudantes s/n, Caixa Postal 293, Mogi-Guaçu, 13843-971, Brazil

    Erico F. L. Pereira-Silva

Authors
  1. Elisa Hardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rozely F. dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos L. de Pablo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pilar Martín de Agar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erico F. L. Pereira-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Hardt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hardt, E., dos Santos, R.F., de Pablo, C.L. et al. Utility of landscape mosaics and boundaries in forest conservation decision making in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Landscape Ecol 28, 385–399 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9845-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9845-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation