Atlantic Forest scenarios under the parameters of forestry laws

Silva, Liliane Garcia da; Mendonça, Bruno Araujo Furtado de; Silva, Eliane Maria Ribeiro da; Francelino, Márcio Rocha

doi:10.1590/1413-70542018421003417

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Agricultural Sciences • Ciênc. agrotec. 42 (1) • Jan-Feb 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-70542018421003417 copy

Atlantic Forest scenarios under the parameters of forestry laws

Cenários da Mata Atlântica sob os parâmetros das leis florestais

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Remote sensing allows for identification of regularities and irregularities in land use and land coverage (LULC) change in relation to environmental legislation. The aim of this study was to delimit scenarios in the permanent preservation areas (PPAs) according to the Brazilian forestry law, with or without consolidated uses in the basin of Capivari River and the State of Rio de Janeiro in the Atlantic Forest biome. Mapping and analysis were performed on LULC in areas of permanent preservation using the following data: RapidEye-REIS satellite scenes acquired in 2012 and Bhattacharyya distance classifier and hydrography of the basin and digital elevation model (1:25.000) using Spring and ArcGIS software. The legal scenarios adopted were as follows: I) Federal Law N°. 4,771/1965 and the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA) N°. 303/2002; II) Federal Law N°. 12,651/2012; and III) Federal Law N°. 12,651/2012 and N°. 12,727/2012. The classification presented an excellent overall accuracy of 91.15% and a Kappa Index of 0.86 in relation to the samples of the six multipurpose classes having the anthropic uses of agriculture, burned pasture, exposed soil and urbanization, which were present with conflicting uses for Scenarios I, II and III. The new forest legislation for the PPAs of Scenario III impacted the reduction of 68% compared to Scenario I, which corroborates with the concerns on the conservation of water and soil resources.

Index terms:
Permanent preservation areas; remote sensing; conflicting uses; hotspot; Brazilian New Forest Code.

Editora da Universidade Federal de Lavras Editora da UFLA, Caixa Postal 3037 - 37200-900 - Lavras - MG - Brasil, Telefone: 35 3829-1115 - Lavras - MG - Brazil
E-mail: revista.ca.editora@ufla.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] ^*Corresponding author: lilianegarcia@ifto.edu.br

Scenario I	PPAs	Methodology
	PPAWS	Buffer was elaborated with a radius of 50 metres at the starting point of the hydrography.
	PPAWC	Buffer was delimited 30 metres surrounding the hydrography.
	PPAH	Hilltops with hills at least 50 m high and with most slopes above 30% in the upper third of the hillsides, according to Ribeiro et al. (2005RIBEIRO, C. A. A. S. et al. The challenge of the delineation of natural preserves. Brazilian Journal of Forest Science , 29(2): 203-212, 2005.).
	PPAS	Slope Reclassify tools were used on the cells (grid) in MDEs that have a steepness greater than 45°.
Scenario II	PPAs	Methodology
	PPAWS	Buffer was elaborated with a radius of 50 metres at the starting point of the hydrography.
	PPAWC	Buffer was delimited 30 metres from the surrounding hydrography.
	PPAH	Hilltops with hills at least 100 m high and with most slopes above 25% in the upper third of the hillsides in relation to the base, as defined by the horizontal plane, which is determined by adjacent plain or water surfaces or, in wavy relief, the height of the nearest saddle point, using Oliveira; Fernandes-Filho (2016OLIVEIRA, G. C.; FERNANDES-FILHO, E. I. Automated mapping of permanent preservation areas on hilltops. Cerne, 22(1):111-120, 2016.) instructions.
	PPAS	Slope Reclassify tools were used on the cells (grid) in MDEs that have a steepness greater than 45°.
Scenario III	PPAs	Methodology
	PPAWS	Buffer was elaborated with a radius of 15 metres at the starting point of the hydrography.
	PPAWC	Buffer was delimited 15 metres surrounding the hydrography.
	PPAH	Hilltops with hills at least 100 m high and with most slopes above 25% in the upper third of the hillsides in relation to a base, defined by the horizontal plane, which is determined by adjacent plain or water surfaces or, in wavy relief, the height of the nearest saddle point, using the method of Oliveira; Fernandes-Filho (2016OLIVEIRA, G. C.; FERNANDES-FILHO, E. I. Automated mapping of permanent preservation areas on hilltops. Cerne, 22(1):111-120, 2016.).
	PPAS	Slope Reclassify tools were used on the cells (grid) in the MDE that have steepness greater than 45°.

Classes	A	WB	C	BP	ES	U	DV	UA	CE	K	Quality
A	280	2	0	1	0	1	10	294	0.05	0.94	Excellent
WB	2	21	0	0	0	0	0	23	0.09	0.91	Excellent
C	0	0	10	0	0	1	0	11	0.09	0.91	Excellent
BP	0	0	0	48	0	5	0	53	0.09	0.90	Excellent
ES	1	1	0	2	90	15	0	109	0.17	0.81	Excellent
U	14	2	2	13	17	43	10	101	0.57	0.39	Reasonable
DV	0	0	0	1	1	5	600	607	0.01	0.98	Excellent
PA	297	26	12	65	108	70	620	1198	--	--	--
OE	0.06	0.19	0.17	0.26	0.17	0.39	0.03	--	--	--	--

Classes	Area (km²)	Occupied area in the basin (%)
Agriculture	96,650.79	60.25
Water bodies	3,164.45	1.97
Clouds	2,343.20	1.46
Burned pasture	1,102.07	0.69
Exposed soil	3,771.27	2.35
Urbanization	6,385.90	3.98
Dense vegetation	47,004.32	29.30
Total	160,403.19	100%

PPAs	Scenario I		Scenario II		Scenario III
PPAs	Area (km²)	% Basin	Area (km²)	% Basin	Area (km²)	% Basin
PPAWS	1,269.00	0.79	1,269.00	0.79	380.70	0.24
PPAWC	13,916.72	8.68	13,916.72	8.68	6,958.36	2.88
PPAH	10,923.03	6.81	319.95	0.20	319.95	0.20
PPAS	904.09	0.56	904.09	0.56	904.09	0.56
Total	27,012.84	16.84	16,409.76	10.23	8,563.10	3.88

PPAs	Scenario I
	Agriculture		Burned pasture		Exposed soil		Urbanization		Total PPA use
	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%
PPAWS	64.35	1.5	1.25	8.9	1.2	0.85	0.73	0.6	67.53	1.4
PPAWC	1,610.42	36.4	12.25	87.3	42.6	30.17	99.0	78.9	1,764.27	37.4
PPAH	2,682.76	60.7	20.48	1.6	91.7	64.94	25.5	20.3	2,820.44	59.7
PPAS	63.27	1.4	0.32	2.3	5.7	4.04	0.26	0.2	69.55	1.5
Total classes	4,420.80	100	34.30	100	141.20	100	125.49	100	4,721.80	100
PPAs	Scenario II
	Agriculture		Burned pasture		Exposed soil		Urbanization		Total PPA use
	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%
PPAWS	64.35	3.63	1.25	8.90	1.2	2.42	0,73	0.73	67.53	3.49
PPAWC	1,610.42	90.9	12.25	87.25	42.6	86.0	99.0	99.01	1,764.27	91.23
PPAH	32.40	1.83	0.22	1.57	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	32.62	1.69
PPAS	63.27	3.57	0.32	2.28	5.7	11.5	0,26	0.26	69.55	3.60
Total classes	1,770.44	100	14.04	100	49.5	100	99.99	100	1,933.97	100
PPAs	Scenario III
	Agriculture		Burned pasture		Exposed soil		Urbanization		Total PPA use
	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%	Area (km²)	%
PPAWS	0.96	0.9	0.01	1.23	0.02	0.30	0.0	0.0	0.99	0.49
PPAWC	805.21	89.2	6.12	91.7	21.3	78.8	43.0	99.4	875.63	89.4
PPAH	32.40	30.5	0.22	27.16	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	32.62	16.11
PPAS	63.27	59.6	0.32	39.51	5.7	88.5	0.26	0.3	69.55	34.35
Total classes	901.84	100	6.67	100	27.02	100	43.26	100	978.79	100