Author
Listed:
- Adriano Bressane
(São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos 12245-000, Brazil
Civil and Environmental Engineering Graduate Program, São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Engineering, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- João Pedro da Cunha Pinto
(São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos 12245-000, Brazil)
- Julia Villalta da Silva
(São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos 12245-000, Brazil)
- Mirela Beatriz Silva
(Civil and Environmental Engineering Graduate Program, São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Engineering, Bauru 17033-360, Brazil)
- Alexandre Siminski
(Agricultural and Natural Ecosystems Graduate Program, Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Curitibanos 89520-900, Brazil)
- Líliam César de Castro Medeiros
(São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos 12245-000, Brazil)
- Rogério Galante Negri
(São Paulo State University (UNESP), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos 12245-000, Brazil
Natural Disasters Graduate Program, National Center for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters (CEMADEN)/UNESP, São José dos Campos 12247-016, Brazil)
Abstract
For the monitoring and assessment of Atlantic Forest ecosystems, key indicators of the regeneration stage are considered. However, the current classification of these stages by experts does not consider the possible differences among such ecosystems. In order to test the hypothesis of significant differences, Atlantic Forest ecosystems in southern Brazil were compared at the same stage (initial, medium, and advanced stages of regeneration). An extensive database of the floristic forest inventory of Santa Catarina state, southern Brazil, with 460 sampling units, was used, addressing the seasonal deciduous forest (SDF), dense ombrophilous forest (DOF), and mixed ombrophilous forest (MOF). The regeneration stage of each sample unit was previously classified by experts using five key indicators (basal area per hectare—BA/ha; number of individuals per hectare—N/ha; number of species—S; Shannon biodiversity index—H’; and diameter at breast height—DBH). The Kruskal–Wallis method and pairwise multiple comparisons based on Dunn’s procedure were applied, considering two-way tests with 5% significance, and 95% power. The statistical tests confirmed the research hypothesis, namely, that the key indicators had significant differences in the later regeneration stages of Atlantic Forest ecosystems. For instance, S in DOF was statistically higher ( p < 0.001) than in MOF and SDF (44 ± 9); N in SDF was significantly lower (394 ± 248 at mid-stage) compared to MOF (475 ± 233) and DOF (545 ± 173); and H’ showed increasing differences towards more advanced stages. Considering that the stage of forest regeneration is the main criterion for decision-making between suppression and conservation of forest ecosystems, the results achieved should support the review of current procedures applied to the classification of successional stages. Given the demonstrated differences, in the next steps of research, we will evaluate and propose specific standards for each Atlantic Forest ecosystem, i.e., intervals of discriminating values for the key indicators applicable to this biome.
Suggested Citation
Adriano Bressane & João Pedro da Cunha Pinto & Julia Villalta da Silva & Mirela Beatriz Silva & Alexandre Siminski & Líliam César de Castro Medeiros & Rogério Galante Negri, 2023.
"Atlantic Forest Ecosystems: Are There Significant Differences When Compared at the Same Stage of Regeneration?,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, April.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6823-:d:1126532
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6823-:d:1126532. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.