Forest Patch Conservation Indicators

Abstract

Abstract. This work presents indicators to assess the conservation status of forest patches in fragmented landscapes. However, how can we evaluate the conservation status of forest patches in order to compare it to a hypothetical situation of well-preserved vegetation without human disturbance? It is possible to measure some ecological processes, like nutrient cycling, canopy, edaphic, topographic and hydrological parameters, as well as landscape attributes, and associate them to conservation status. When the attributes of original well-preserved forest are unknown because they are seldom found, it is possible to compare patches by assessing the variability of their attributes. To this end, parameters related to canopy, soil, topography and landscape were analyzed to establish indicators and their integrated analysis was developed to assess the conservation status of forest patches and identify possible causes of shortcomings or obstacles to reach the conservation status. The study area is located in a Semidecidual Forest region, in Brazil. The methodology was developed considering plots distributed in sites within forest patches. The results allowed the identification of patches in different conditions of conservation and provided information of the factors that contribute to this status, in order to help guide and select the most appropriate measures to mitigate degradation and identify forest conservation strategies.

A Forest Growth Dynamic Indicator

“…The parameters of canopy, relief, hydrography and soil (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) were used [33]. In the evaluation of the canopy, the sites with the largest leaf area (Lai) were 31, 82, 81, 41, 52, the lowest density of trees was 71, with the lowest basal area were 11, 12, 13 and 71.…”

“…Regarding the relief parameters, the sites with the lowest slope are 11,13,21,31,81,82. And the indicators of water proximity (DstWat, ElevWat) show that 41, 51, 52, 61 and 71 sites have a lower chance of water supply from subsurface zone [33], although sites 41, 52 and 71 are in concave regions with drainage convergences and higher humidity.…”

“…One factor that differentiates sites 61 and 81 is the presence of groundwater in most favorable conditions in site 81. It is likely that fertility indicators and groundwater are compensations, as observed at sites 31 and 81, which present low fertility, but good water supply, which may have led to a greater structure and diversity of the vegetation in those sites [33]. The growth dynamics variation of the forest was evaluated based on the results of environmental parameters and size classes.…”

“…Patch 6 was partially covered and patch 1 was fully covered by pasture or other agricultural activity. Therefore, authors estimated that parts of patches 1 and 6 are between 40 and 50 years old [33].…”

“…That fire induced strong leaf fall because of stress. At the end of the rainy season, in March 2013, few traces of fire were visible [33].…”