Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 857–870 | Cite as

Spatial determinants of Atlantic Forest loss and recovery in Brazil

  • Paulo G. Molin
  • Sarah E. Gergel
  • Britaldo S. Soares-Filho
  • Silvio F. B. Ferraz
Research Article



Despite continued forest cover losses in many parts of the world, Atlantic Forest, one of the largest of the Americas, is increasing in some locations. Economic factors are suggested as causes of forest gain, while enforcement has reduced deforestation.


We examine three aspects of this issue: the relative importance of biophysical versus anthropogenic factors in driving forest dynamics; role of forest mean patch age influencing areas targeted for losses; and what future forest mean patch age mosaic we can expect (more forest cover and full forest maturity?).


Three land cover maps from 1990, 2000 and 2010, were used in the study. We selected six biophysical and six anthropogenic spatial determinants to analyze by means of weights of evidence, using Dinamica software.


Results show that forest regrowth is influenced by multiple factors, working in synergy. Biophysical variables are related to forest gain while anthropogenic are associated with loss. Clear patterns of regrowth on pasture and sugarcane plantations occurred, especially near rivers and forest patches, on steeper slopes and with sufficient rainfall. Forest loss has targeted both older and newer forests. Future projections reveal forest gain in a slow pace, followed by specific ecosystem service losses, due to continuous trends of older mature forest loss.


Regrowth is linked to land abandonment, and to neighboring environmental conditions. It is important to question which mechanisms will guarantee and potentiate new regrowth, thus contributing to landscape restoration and reestablishment of ecosystem services in the Atlantic Forest.


Forest transition Drivers Regrowth Sugarcane Pastureland Weights of evidence 



This study was supported by FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation), under project number 2010/19670-8. The authors would also like to thank the CSR (Remote Sensing Center at Federal University of Minas Gerais), for their support on the Dinamica EGO software. We also thank graduate student Renata Siqueira Melo, for her support on running the sample plots.

Supplementary material

10980_2017_490_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)


  1. Balvanera P, Uriarte M, Almeida-Leñero L, Altesor A, DeClerck F, Gardner T, Hall J, Lara A, Laterra P, Peña-Claros M, Silva Matos DM, Vogl AL, Romero-Duque LP, Arreola LF, Caro-Borrero ÁP, Gallego F, Jain M, Little C, de Oliveira Xavier R, Paruelo JM, Peinado JE, Poorter L, Ascarrunz N, Correa F, Cunha-Santino MB, Hernández-Sánchez AP, Vallejos M (2012) Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst Serv 2:56–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks-Leite C, Pardini R, Tambosi LR, Pearse WD, Bueno AA, Bruscagin RT, Condez TH, Dixo M, Igari AT, Martensen AC, Metzger JP (2014) Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Science 345(6200):1041–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baptista SR, Rudel TK (2006) A re-emerging Atlantic forest? Urbanization, industrialization and the forest transition in Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Environ Conserv 33(03):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bawa KS, Dayanandan S (1997) Socioeconomic factors and tropical deforestation. Nature 386(6625):562–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasil (1965) Federal Law 4.771. 15 September 1965Google Scholar
  6. Brasil (2012) Federal Law 12.651, 25 May 2012Google Scholar
  7. Brown S, Zarin D (2013) What does zero deforestation mean? Science 342(6160):805–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26(10):541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cancado JE, Saldiva PH, Pereira LA, Lara LB, Artaxo P, Martinelli LA, Arbex MA, Zanobetti A, Braga AL (2006) The impact of sugar cane-burning emissions on the respiratory system of children and the elderly. Environ Health Perspect 114(5):725–734CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassiano CC, de Barros Ferraz SF, Molin PG, Voigtlaender M, de Barros Ferraz PM, Maria K (2013) Spatial assessment of water-related ecosystem services to prioritize restoration of forest patches. Nat Conserv 11(2):176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chazdon RL (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320(5882):1458–1460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Oliveira JB (1999) Mapa pedológico do Estado de São Paulo: legenda expandida. IAC/Embrapa, Campinas/Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  14. de Rezende CL, Uezu A, Scarano FR, Araujo DSD (2015) Atlantic forest spontaneous regeneration at landscape scale. Biodivers Conserv 24(9):2255–2272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeFries RS, Rudel T, Uriarte M, Hansen M (2010) Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat Geosci 3(3):178–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Durigan G, Siqueira MFd, Franco GADC (2007) Threats to the Cerrado remnants of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Sci Agric 64:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farinaci JS, Batistella M (2012) Variação na cobertura vegetal nativa em São Paulo: um panorama do conhecimento atual. Rev Árvore 36:695–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferraz SB, Ferraz KPMB, Cassiano C, Brancalion P, Luz DA, Azevedo T, Tambosi L, Metzger J (2014) How good are tropical forest patches for ecosystem services provisioning? Landscape Ecol 29(2):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferraz SFB, Vettorazzi CA, Theobald DM, Ballester MVR (2005) Landscape dynamics of Amazonian deforestation between 1984 and 2002 in central Rondônia, Brazil: assessment and future scenarios. For Ecol Manag 204(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freitas SR, Hawbaker TJ, Metzger JP (2010) Effects of roads, topography, and land use on forest cover dynamics in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. For Ecol Manag 259(3):410–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52(2):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP, Brook BW, Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA, Bradshaw CJA, Laurance WF, Lovejoy TE, Sodhi NS (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478(7369):378–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldemberg J, Coelho ST, Guardabassi P (2008) The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane. Energy Policy 36(6):2086–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gomez MV, Beuchle R, Shimabukuro Y, Grecchi R, Simonetti D, Eva H, Achard F (2015) A long-term perspective on deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci 40(7):539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howe HF, Smallwood J (1982) Ecology of seed dispersal. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IBGE (2010) Census 2010. Accessed 3 July 2014
  27. IBGE (2013) IBGE downloads. IBGE, Brasilia. Accessed 3 July 2014
  28. Instituto Florestal - SP (2014) São Paulo State Forest Information System. São Paulo. Accessed 3 June 2014
  29. Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J, Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M (2011) High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477(7363):199–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lamb D (2014) Large-scale forest restoration. Earthscan-Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Lamb D, Erskine PD, Parrotta JA (2005) Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310(5754):1628–1632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lira PK, Tambosi LR, Ewers RM, Metzger JP (2012) Land-use and land-cover change in Atlantic Forest landscapes. For Ecol Manag 278:80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinelli LA, Filoso S (2008) Expansion of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: environmental and social challenges. Ecol Appl 18(4):885–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2011) Global forest transition: prospects for an end to deforestation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36(1):343–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molin PG, Miranda FTSE, Sampaio JV, Fransozi AA, Ferraz SFB (2015) Mapeamento de uso e cobertura do solo da bacia do rio Piracicaba, SP: Anos 1990, 2000 e 2010. Circular tecnica/Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais 207:11Google Scholar
  36. NASA, METI (2011) ASTER GDEM. Soux Falls, oputh Dakota. Accessed 10 Dec 2014
  37. Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333(6047):1289–1291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinto LFG, McDermott C (2013) Equity and forest certification—a case study in Brazil. For Policy Econ 30:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM (2009) The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 142(6):1141–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu J, Lambin E (2005) Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob Environ Change 15(1):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudorff BFT, Aguiar DA, Silva WF, Sugawara LM, Adami M, Moreira MA (2010) Studies on the rapid expansion of sugarcane for ethanol production in São Paulo State (Brazil) using Landsat data. Remote Sensing 2(4):1057–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silva AMd, Nalon MA, Kronka FJdN, Alvares CA, Camargo PBd, Martinelli LA (2007) Historical land-cover/use in different slope and riparian buffer zones in watersheds of the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Sci Agricola 64:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soares-Filho BS, Coutinho Cerqueira G, Lopes Pennachin C (2002) DINAMICA—a stochastic cellular automata model designed to simulate the landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier. Ecol Model 154(3):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soares-Filho BS, Rajão R, Macedo M, Carneiro A, Costa W, Coe M, Rodrigues H, Alencar A (2014) Cracking Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 344(6182):363–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Teixeira AMG, Soares-Filho BS, Freitas SR, Metzger JP (2009) Modeling landscape dynamics in an Atlantic Rainforest region: implications for conservation. For Ecol Manag 257(4):1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Theobald DM (2001) Land-use dynamics beyond the American urban fringe. Geogr Rev 91(3):544–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams MR, Filoso S, Martinelli LA, Lara LB, Camargo PB (2001) Precipitation and river water chemistry of the Piracicaba River Basin. Southeast Brazil. J Environ Qual 30(3):967–981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Woltzenlogel AA (1990) Isoietas de precipitação média anual. DAEE, PiracicabaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo G. Molin
    • 1
  • Sarah E. Gergel
    • 2
  • Britaldo S. Soares-Filho
    • 3
  • Silvio F. B. Ferraz
    • 1
  1. 1.Forest Hydrology Laboratory, Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Forest & Conservation Sciences, Faculty of ForestryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of Cartography, Institute of GeoscienceFederal University of Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations