Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 175–184 | Cite as

Landforms and soil attributes determine the vegetation structure in the Brazilian semiarid

  • Daniel M. Arruda
  • Carlos E. G. R. Schaefer
  • Guilherme R. Corrêa
  • Priscyla M. S. Rodrigues
  • Reinaldo Duque-Brasil
  • Walnir G. Ferreira-JR
  • Ary T. Oliveira-Filho
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The semiarid region of Brazil consists of a great variety of landscapes, soils and vegetation forms, with complex interrelations. In order to better understand this interplay, we posed two questions: Are there greater pedological similarities among the different landforms of the same catena or among the same landforms from different catenas? Which soil attributes could be the most important to segregate communities of plants? We sampled soils and vegetation on different landforms in four different catenas and performed NMS (non-metric multidimensional scaling) and ANOVA (analysis of variance) to address the first question; also, we carried another NMS following GLM (general linear model regression) to answer the second question. The first NMS indicated the existence of a fertility gradient, grouping communities in relation to similar landforms, confirmed by ANOVA. The second NMS indicated the same gradient whereas the GLM showed that is controlled by aluminum saturation, sodium saturation, phosphorous and sand content. One extreme of the gradient has uplands associated with cerrado vegetation forms whereas the other extreme slopes were associated with dry forests. The lowlands associated with dry forest represent the central position of the fertility gradient. In general, soils at similar landforms showed greater pedological similarity, and their physico-chemical attributes determined the formation and structure of vegetation. This similarity across the same landform refers to the comparable soil formation at each landform and soil age at landscape scale. The characteristics of the vegetation and soils in the Brazilian southern semiarid region indicated a previously wetter climate, during which deep weathered latosols (oxisols) were formed and remain as relics in the present semiarid.

Keywords

cerrado climate transition gradient of vegetation seasonally dry tropical forest semiarid geomorphology vegetation-soil relationship 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors thank the FAPEMIG Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais) and the State Secretary of Science and Technology (SECTES-MG) for financing this project. We are grateful for Andreza Neri, Rubens Santos and Rúbia Fonseca for suggestions to the first version of rhw manuscript; Luiz Magnago for his suggestions and statistical support; Marcio Batista, Davi Gjorup, Bruno Vasconcelos and Vitor Moura for rich discussions during field work and Rubens Santos for identification of the botanical material. We also thank both anonymous reviewers, who provide valuable comments on earlier version of this paper.

Supplementary material

12224_2015_9221_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Ab’Sáber AN (1998) Participação das Depressões Periféricas e Superfícies Aplainadas na Compartimentação do Planalto Brasileiro – Considerações Finais e Conclusões. Rev Inst Geol 19:51–69Google Scholar
  2. Ab’Sáber AN (2003) Os domínios de natureza no Brasil: potencialidades paisagísticas. Ateliê Editorial, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade GO (1972) Os climas. In Azevedo A (ed.) Brasil, a terra e o homem. Companhia Editora Nacional, São Paulo, pp 397–462Google Scholar
  4. Arruda DM, Brandão DO, Costa FV, Tolentino GS, Duque-Brasil RD, D’Ângelo-Neto S, Nunes YRF (2011) Structural aspects and floristic similarity among tropical dry forest fragments with different management histories in North of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Rev Árv 35:133–144Google Scholar
  5. Arruda DM, Ferreira-JR WG, Duque-Brasil R, Schaefer CER (2013) Phytogeographical patterns of dry forests sensu stricto in northern Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Anais Acad Brasil Ci 85:283–294Google Scholar
  6. Askew GP, Montgomery RF, Searl JP (1970) Soil landscapes in north eastern Mato Grosso. Geogr J 136:211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlow J, Louzada J, Parry L, Hernandez MIM, Hawes J, Peres CA, Vaz-De-Mello FZ, Gardner TA (2010) Improving the design and management of forest strips in human-dominated tropical landscapes: a field test on dung beetles in the Brazilian Amazon. J Appl Ecol 47:779–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bigarella JJ, Becker RD, Santos GF, Passos E, Suguio K (1994) Estrutura e origem das paisagens tropicais e subtropicais. Editora da UFSC, FlorianópolisGoogle Scholar
  9. Botrel RT, Oliveira-Filho AT, Rodrigues LA, Curi N (2002) Influência do solo e topografia sobre as variações da composição florística e estrutura da comunidade arbóreo-arbustiva de uma Floresta Estacional Semidecidual em Ingá, MG. Revista Brasil Bot 25:195–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandão M, (1994) Área Mineira do Polígono das Secas, cobertura vegetal. Informe Agropecu 17:5–9Google Scholar
  11. Budke JC, Oliveira-Filho AT, Jarenkow JA (2006) Relationships between tree component structure, topography and soils of a riverside forest, Rio Botucaraí, Southern Brazil. Pl Ecol 89:187–200Google Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP (2011) AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR (1993) Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Austral J Ecol 18: 117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole MM (1960) Cerrado, Caatinga and Pantanal: The distribution and origin of the savanna vegetation of Brazil. Geogr J 126:168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durigan G, Ratter JA (2006) Successional changes in cerradão and cerrado/forest ecotonal vegetation in western São Paulo State, Brazil, 1962–2000. Edinburgh J Bot 63:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EMBRAPA – Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (1997) Manual de métodos de análise de solo. Ed. 2. Rio de Janeiro, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de SolosGoogle Scholar
  17. EMBRAPA – Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Embrapa (2006) Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. Ed. 2. EMBRAPA solos, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  18. Figueiredo FO, Costa FR, Nelson BW, Pimentel TP (2014) Validating forest types based on geological and land‐form features in central Amazonia. J Veg Sci 25:198–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreira-JR WG, Silva AF, Schaefer CEGR, Meira-Neto JAA, Dias AS, Ignácio M, Medeiros MCMP (2007) Influence of soils and topographic gradients on tree species distribution in a Brazilian Atlantic tropical semideciduous forest. Edinburgh J Bot 64:137–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felfili JM, Nascimento ART, Fagg CW, Meirelles EL (2007) Floristic composition and community structure of a seasonally deciduous forest on limestone outcrops in Central Brazil. Acta Bot Brasil 30:611–621Google Scholar
  21. Furley PA, Ratter JA (1988) Soil resources and plant communities of central Brazilian cerrado and their development. J Biogeogr 15:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gheyi HR (2000) Problemas de salinidade na agricultura irrigada. In Oliveira TS, Assis RN, Romero RE, Silva JRC (eds) Agricultura, sustentabilidade e o semiárido. UFS/SBCS, Fortaleza, pp 329–346Google Scholar
  23. Goodland R, Pollard R (1973) The Brazilian cerrado vegetation: a fertility gradient. J Ecol 61:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haridasan M (1992) Observations on soils, foliar nutrient concentration and floristic composition of cerrado sensu stricto and cerradão communities in central Brazil. In Furley PA, Proctor J, Ratter JA (eds) Nature and Dynamics of Forest-Savanna Boundaries. Chapman & Hall Publishing, London, pp 171–184Google Scholar
  25. Ibraimo MM, Schaefer CEGR, Ker JC, Lani JL, Rolim-Neto FC, Albuquerque MA, Miranda VJ (2004) Gênese e micromorfologia de solos sob vegetação xeromórfica (caatinga) na Região dos Lagos (RJ). Revista Brasil Ci Solo 28:695–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2012). Manual técnico da vegetação brasileira. Ed. 2. IBGE, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaramillo VJ, Sanford R (1995) Nutrient cycling in tropical deciduous forests. In Bullock SH, Mooney HA, Medina E (eds) Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 346–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuo S (1996) Phosphorus. In Sparks DL et al. (eds) Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 – Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, pp 869–919Google Scholar
  29. Magnago LFS, Edwards DP, Edwards FA, Magrach A, Martins SV, Laurance WF (2014) Functional attributes change but functional richness is unchanged after fragmentation of Brazilian Atlantic forests. J Ecol 102:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marimon-Jr BH, Haridasan M (2005) Comparação da vegetação arbórea e características edáficas de um cerradão e um cerrado sensu stricto em áreas adjacentes sobre solo distrófico no leste de Mato Grosso, Brasil. Acta Bot Brasil 19:913–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2006) PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 5.10 MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  32. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Rev Pl Biol 59:651–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy PG, Lugo AE (1986) Ecology of tropical dry forest. Annual Rev Ecol Syst 17:67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neri AV, Schaefer CER, Souza AL, Ferreira-Junior WG, Meira-Neto JAA (2013) Pedology and plant physiognomies in the cerrado, Brazil. Anais Acad Brasil Ci 85:87–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oliveira LBD, Fontes MPF, Ribeiro MR, Ker JC (2009) Morfologia e classificação de luvissolos e planossolos desenvolvidos de rochas metamórficas no semiárido do nordeste brasileiro. Revista Brasil Ci Solo 33:1333–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oliveira-Filho AT, Curi N, Vilela EA, Carvalho DA (1998) Effects of canopy gaps, topography, and soils on the distribution of woody species in a central Brazilian deciduous dry forest. Biotropica 30:362–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinheiro EDS, Durigan G (2009). Dinâmica espaço-temporal (1962-2006) das fitofisionomias em unidade de conservação do Cerrado no sudeste do Brasil. Revista Brasil Bot 32:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  39. RADAMBRASIL, 1982. Folha SD 23 Brasília, geologia, geomorfologia, pedologia, vegetação e uso potencial da terra. Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  40. Ratter JA, Richards PW, Argent G, Gifford DR (1973) Observations on the vegetation of northeastern Mato Grosso: I. The woody vegetation types of the Xavantina-Cachimbo Expedition area. Philos Trans, Ser B 266:449–492Google Scholar
  41. Ratter JA, Askew GP, Montgomery RF, Gifford DR (1978) Observations on forests of some mesotrophic soils in Central Brazil. Revista Brasil Bot 1:47–58Google Scholar
  42. Ruggiero PGC, Batalha MA, Pivello VR, Meirelles ST (2002) Soil-vegetation relationships in cerrado (Brazilian savanna) and semideciduous forest, Southeastern Brazil. Pl Ecol 160:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scariot A, Sevilha AC (2005) Biodiversidade, estrutura e conservação de florestas estacionais deciduais no Cerrado. In Scariot A, Felfili JM, Souza-Silva JC (eds) Cerrado: ecologia, biodiversidade e conservação. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, pp 121–139Google Scholar
  44. Schaefer CEGR (2013) Bases físicas da paisagem brasileira: estrutura geológica, relevo e solos. In Araújo AP, Alves BJR (eds) Tópicos em ciência do solo. Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, Viçosa, pp 1–69Google Scholar
  45. Soil Survey Staff (2010) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Ed. 11. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Webster R, Oliver MA (1990) Statistical methods in soil and land resource survey. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. Arruda
    • 1
  • Carlos E. G. R. Schaefer
    • 2
  • Guilherme R. Corrêa
    • 3
  • Priscyla M. S. Rodrigues
    • 1
  • Reinaldo Duque-Brasil
    • 4
  • Walnir G. Ferreira-JR
    • 5
  • Ary T. Oliveira-Filho
    • 6
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia VegetalUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrasil
  2. 2.Departamento de SolosUniversidade Federal de ViçosaViçosaBrasil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal de UberlândiaUberlândiaBrasil
  4. 4.Universidade Federal de Juiz de ForaGovernador ValadaresBrasil
  5. 5.Instituição Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Sul de MinasMachadoBrasil
  6. 6.Departamento de BotânicaUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrasil

Personalised recommendations