Contrasting tree-cover loss and subsequent land cover in two neotropical forest regions: sample-based assessment of the Mexican Yucatán and Argentine Chaco

Abstract

2018) Contrasting tree-cover loss and subsequent land cover in two neotropical forest regions: sample-based assessment of the Mexican Yucatán and Argentine ABSTRACTThe neotropical-forest's northern and southern extremes, covering the Mexican Yucatán and the Argentine Chaco, have among the highest rates of recent tree-cover loss in the biome. This study contrasts the character of loss in these regions, estimating proportions of types of loss and subsequent land cover. It is based on two-stage probability sampling design and field and satellite-image surveys. All estimates include uncertainties, which could be further reduced via model-assisted estimation or additional sampling. This approach can be replicated in other regions to estimate types of loss and associated land cover from a definitive, in-situ perspective. The character of loss in the two areas differed greatly. That in the Yucatán was 54% temporary, mostly under fallow or selectively logged, while that in the Chaco was 85% permanent, split nearly equally between crops and pasture. These data contribute to a quantitative basis for studies of socio-economic drivers of neotropical deforestation. ARTICLE HISTORY

Mixed Effectiveness of REDD+ Subnational Initiatives after 10 Years of Interventions on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico

“…Deforestation and degradation processes in the region have not been homogenous, and its causes are varied and complex. In our study area covering the Mexican states of Campeche, Quintana Roo, and Yucatan (Figure 1), contrast in forest cover loss have been demonstrated by land change studies [32][33][34], describing a dynamic forested landscape affected by multiple drivers. Degradation studies have been very few but suggest that it is a much greater factor in forest cover change compared to deforestation [35].…”

“…Annual forest cover loss data [38] from 2000 to 2018 was downloaded from the University of Maryland's Global Forest Change (GFC) 2000-2018 website [52]. On the Yucatan Peninsula, this data also includes temporary forest cover losses (52 to 64%) that can occur from natural disturbances, such as fire, to human-induced slash and burn agriculture [32,35]. Consequently, we recognize that the GFC data does not solely reflect deforestation processes but can also include forest degradation and nonpermanent tree cover loss [35].…”

The role of property rights in shaping the effectiveness of protected areas and resisting forest loss in the Yucatan Peninsula

“…Forest loss on the peninsula is primarily driven by (1) conversion to pasture for commercial cattle ranching, maize cultivation and, more recently, large-scale mechanized agriculture for crops like soybeans, sugar cane, and sorghum [20, 31, 32, 33], (2) urban development especially in areas that are important for tourism or can accommodate waterfront properties [29, 32,34], (3) parcelization of ejidos, which can follow increases in the demand for urban, tourism, or agricultural land and/or can be the result of informal land markets and local arrangements (e.g., [20, 32, 35]) (4) and the practice of the traditional for the area slash-and-burn subsistence agriculture (called milpa ) that results in small temporary openings in the forest canopy that are planted with maize, beans, squash and other subsistence crops, harvested for up to three years, and then left to regenerate into secondary forest [29, 31, 33]. In the Yucatán Península, greater forest cover loss from agricultural conversion was recently reported in Campeche and Yucatán compared to Quintana Roo, although forest cover loss from disturbances such as fires and from urbanization in tourist areas was greater in Quintana Roo [29].…”

Availability and accessibility of urban green spaces: the case of the urban zone of Queretaro Metropolitan Area, Mexico

“…The methodology used for the accuracy assessment is an adaptation of that proposed by Stehman (1996) and Krylov et al (2019) following recommendations by Olofsson et al (2013; and Stehman and Czaplewski (1988). Data were collected for independent validation using two sources.…”