Site selection for restoration planning: A protocol with landscape and legislation based alternatives

Natureza a Conservacao

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 158-169

  Gama, Verônica F ^a   Martensen, Alexandre C ^b,c   Ponzoni, Flávio J ^d   Hirota, Márcia M ^e   Ribeiro, Milton C ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b Taki Ambiental   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE PESQUISAS ESPACIAIS   (Brazil)

^e Programa Costa Atlântica   (Brazil)

^f SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Connectivity; Fragment size; Restoration planning; Site selection; Spatially explicit simulations

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901656417     PISSN: 16790073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4322/natcon.2013.025     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ball IR, Possingham HP & Watts M 2009. Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA & Possingham HP (eds.). Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. v. 14, p. 185-195.
2. Bell SS, Fonseca MS & Motten LB, 1997. Linking restoration and landscape ecology. Restoration Ecology, 5: 318-323. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00545.x
3. Benayas JMR et al., 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta{reversed not sign}analysis. Science, 325: 1121-1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1172460
4. Bergès L et al., 2013. Unexpected long-range edge-to-forest interior environmental gradients. Landscape Ecology, 28: 439-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9841-1
5. Butchart SHM et al., 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328: 1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1187512
6. Calmon M et al., 2011. Emerging Threats and Opportunities for Large-Scale Ecological Restoration in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Restoration Ecology, 19: 154-158. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00772.x
7. Cipollini KA, Maruyama AL & Zimmerman CL, 2005. Planning for Restoration: A Decision Analysis Approach to Prioritization. Restoration Ecology, 13: 460-470. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00057.x
8. Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente-CONAMA, 2010. Resolução Conama no 425. Available from: < http://www. mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=630> . Access in: 01 Mar 2013.
9. Echeverria C, Gatica P & Fuentes R. 2013. Habitat edge contrast as an indicator to prioritize sites for ecological restoration at the landscape scale. Natureza & Consevação, 11: 170-175.
10. Garcia L et al. 2013. Restoration challenges and opportunities for increasing landscape connectivity under the new Brazilian Forest Act. Natureza & Consevação, 11: 181-185.
11. Garcia D & Martinez D, 2012. Species richness matters for the quality of ecosystem services: a test using seed dispersal by frugivorous birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279: 3106-3113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2012.0175
12. Gilbert-Norton L et al., 2009. A Meta-Analytic Review of Corridor Effectiveness. Conservation Biology, 24: 660-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x
13. Hobbs RJ & Norton DA, 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4: 93-110. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x
14. Holl KD & Aide TM, 2011. When and where to actively restore ecosystems? Forest Ecology and Management, 261: 1558-1563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.004
15. Holvorcem CGDA et al., 2011. Anchor Areas to Improve Conservation and Increase Connectivity within the Brazilian Mesopotamia of Biodiversity. Natureza & Conservação, 9: 225-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2011.030
16. Joint Research Center-European Commission 2011. Graphical User Interface for the Description of image Objects and their Shapes-GUIDOS software. Available from: < http://forest. jrc.ec.europa.eu/download/software/guidos> . Access in: 01 Mar 2013.
17. Lamb D, Erskine PD & Parrotta JA, 2005. Restoration of Degraded Tropical Forest Landscapes. Science, 310: 1628{reversed not sign}1632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1111773
18. Lovett GM et al. 2005. Ecosystem function in heterogeneous landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc. p. 489. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/b104357
19. Majka D, Jenness J & Beier P 2007. CorridorDesigner: ArcGIS tools for designing and evaluating corridors. Available from: < http://corridordesign.org> .
20. Martensen AC. 2008. Importâ ncia relativa da perda e da fragmentação do habitat (tamanho do fragmento e conectividade) na conservação de espé cies em paisagens alteradas. [Dissertação]. São Paulo: Instituto de Biociê ncias, Universidade de São Paulo.
21. Martensen A, Pimentel R & Metzger JP, 2008. Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 141: 2184-2192. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.008
22. Martensen AC et al., 2012. Associations of forest cover, fragment area, and connectivity with neotropical understory bird species richness and abundance. Conservation Biology, 26: 1100-1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01940.x
23. Mansourian S, Vallauri D & Dudley N (eds. in cooperation with WWF International) 2005. Forest restoration in landscapes: beyond planting trees. New York: Springer. 437 p.
24. McGarigal K, Cushman SA & Ene E 2012. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available from: < http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/ fragstats/fragstats.html> .
25. Metzger JP, 2003. Como restaurar a conectividade de paisagens fragmentadas? In: Kageyama PY et al. Restauração ecoló gica de ecossistemas naturais. Botucatu: FEPAF. v. 3, p. 51-76.
26. Metzger JP, 2010. O Có digo Florestal tem base cientí fica? Natureza & Conservação, 8: 92-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.4322/ natcon.00801017
27. Metzger JP et al. 2008. Uso de í ndices de paisagem para a definição de ações de conservação e restauração da biodiversidade do Estado de São Paulo. In: Rodrigues RR et al. (eds.). Diretrizes para Conservação e Restauração da Biodiversidade no Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo: Secretaria do Meio Ambiente e Fapesp. p. 120-127.
28. Rempel RS, Kaukinen D & Carr AP 2012. Patch Analyst and Patch Grid. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Thunder Bay: Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research.
29. Pressey RL et al. 2009. The C-plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. In: Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 211-234.
30. Ribeiro MC et al. 2011. The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: a shrinking biodiversity hotspot. In: Zachos FE & Habel JC (org.). Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. London New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. v. 1, p. 405-434.
31. Rodrigues RR et al., 2009. On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation, 142: 1242-1251. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.008
32. Rodrigues RR et al., 2011. Large-scale ecological restoration of high-diversity tropical forests in SE Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 261: 1605-1613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. foreco.2010.07.005
33. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ & Margules CR, 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology, 5: 18-32. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x
34. Tambosi LR & Metzger JP, 2013. A framework for setting local restoration priorities based on landscape context. Natureza & Consevação, 11: 152-157.
35. Tambosi LR et al., In press. A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity. Restoration Ecology. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12049
36. Thomson JR et al., 2009. Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. Ecological Applications, 19: 817-828. http://dx.doi. org/10.1890/08-0915.1
37. Twedt DJ, Uihlein III WB & Elliott AB, 2006. A spatially explicit decision support model for restoration of forest bird habitat. Conservation Biology, 20: 100-110. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00303.x
38. Wiens JA 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In: Hanski I & Gilpin ME (eds.). Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. San Diego: Academic Press. p. 43-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012323445-2/50005-5