打印

作者

Marina Pannunzio Ribeiro;Kaline de Mello;Roberta Averna Valente

来源

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING,Vol.74,Issue1,Article 127683

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

The Program in Planning and Use of Renewable Resource, Federal University of São Carlos, Sorocaba Campus, João Leme dos Santos Road (SP-264), km 110, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil;Department of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, R. do Matão, 321, São Paulo, SP, Brazil;Department of Environmental Science, Federal University of São Carlos, Sorocaba Campus, João Leme dos Santos Road (SP-264), km 110, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil;The Program in Planning and Use of Renewable Resource, Federal University of São Carlos, Sorocaba Campus, João Leme dos Santos Road (SP-264), km 110, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil;Department of Ecology, Institute of Biosciences, University of São Paulo, R. do Matão, 321, São Paulo, SP, Brazil;Department of Environmental Science, Federal University of São Carlos, Sorocaba Campus, João Leme dos Santos Road (SP-264), km 110, Sorocaba, SP, Brazil;USDA Forest Service/Davey Institute, Davey Tree Expert Company, 5 Moon Library, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA;US Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Water Science Center, 8505 Research Way, Middleton, WI 53562, USA;Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53716, USA;Wayne State University, College of Engineering, 5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Detroit, MI 48202, USA;US Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Water Science Center, 5840 Enterprise Drive, Lansing, MI 48911, USA;University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, Room 278 Trainer Natural Resources Building, Stevens Point, WI 54481, USA;Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, SUNY ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA;USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis, 5 Moon Library, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA;University of Minnesota, College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, 1420 Eckles Ave #190, St. Paul 55108, MN, United States;The Martin Centre for Architecture, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PX, UK;Geospatial Sciences, School of Science, STEM College, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Victoria 3001, Australia;School of Tourism and Geography Science, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China;Universidade Federal de São Paulo - UNIFESP, Diadema, Estado de São Paulo, Brazil;Secretaria do Verde e Meio Ambiente (SVMA) - Prefeitura do Município de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil;Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais, Secretaria de Infraestrutura e Meio Ambiente, São Paulo, Brazil;Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura, Universidade de São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil;Department of Geomatics, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan;Department of Leisure Industry and Health Promotion, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei 112, Taiwan;National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Health Research Institutes, Miaoli 35053, Taiwan;Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, United States

摘要

Cities continue to grow worldwide, and the highly modified urban landscape becomes an inhospitable environment for many species because the natural vegetation cover is commonly fragmented, and the remnants are often isolated. Protected Areas (PAs) located surrounding or within urban areas may not achieve their goal of protecting local or regional biodiversity. Thus, an urban ecological network is essential to support their PAs. Thus, this study aimed at assessing the PAs connectivity in an urban landscape in Brazil and understanding whether urban forest fragments can support an urban ecological network. Besides spatial models based on functional connectivity and graph theory, we used participatory techniques to design the resistance surface and the least-cost paths (LCPs) for Atlantic Forest birds. The results showed critical paths (LCPs), important areas for restoration programs for improving PAs connectivity, and essential forest fragments for conservation and restoration. Although the landscape has a forest structure with 1873 forest fragments and 516 links through which the LCPs were structured, most forest fragments and LCPs cannot provide the necessary support for the PAs connectivity. The current ecological network is dependent on forest fragments neighboring (outside PAs) and the flux dispersions occurred mainly in the peri-urban areas. Riparian zones and anthropic grasslands also showed importance for the PAs connectivity. We identified only 28 forest fragments spatially connected, presenting several sizes, and located near large forest areas, relevant PAs, and riparian zones. Six of these forest fragments, smaller than ten hectares and strategically located in the urban matrix, were indicated for restoration actions. The current low connectivity among PAs brings the importance of native vegetation restoration in the riparian zone and anthropic grassland and the importance of the periurban areas to promote biodiversity connectivity in the urban landscape.