Abstract
Urban landscape can support a many wild species, especially within green areas like remnants of native forests. Thus, conserving such remnants of native habitat patches is crucial for maintaining urban biodiversity. However, because limited resources and conflicting interests preclude the conservation of all patches, it is necessary to prioritize the most relevant ones, including the ones that facilitate organisms’ dispersal across landscapes, maintaining the landscape functional connectivity. Here we present a framework for prioritizing patches based on their functional connectivity role in the urban landscape, using Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as a model city. Functional connectivity was assessed through the Probability of the Connectivity Index of the entire landscape, using two model species that represent low- and high-dispersal scenarios. We then prioritized patches based on their individual contribution to the connectivity of the landscape (dPC values). Our results showed that Rio de Janeiro has very low functional connectivity, with only 20 priority forest fragments out of the ca. 1,400 available in the landscape. We propose four main strategies to ensure that prioritized patches can fulfil their functional connectivity role in urban landscapes: i) incorporate unprotected patches into the landscape’s Protected Areas network; ii) use other effective area-based conservation measures for patches unlikely to become PAs; iii) resolve legal uncertainties about the land ownership situation; and iv) effectively manage already protected patches. Our proposed methodological framework and recommendations apply to any urban landscapes that contain remnants of native habitat patches. It requires easily obtainable data and provides a step toward the implementation of more science-based conservation strategies for urban areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, RMVS, upon reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Alves-Pinto HN et al (2021) Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation. PECON 19:115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.01.004
Alves-Pinto HN et al (2022) The role of different governance regimes in reducing native vegetation conversion and promoting regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol Conserv 267:109473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109473
Aronson J et al (2007) Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC
Balbi M et al (2020) Least-cost path analysis for urban greenways planning: A test with moths and birds across two habitats and two cities. Appl Ecol 58(3):632–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13800
Bezerra BLM, Lira PK (2020) Unidades de Conservação Cariocas: histórico e cenário atual. Oecol 24:879–891. https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2020.2404.12
Brasil (2000) Lei nº 9.985 de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, § 1o, incisos I, II, III e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Available at https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm. Accessed in Sept 2022
Brasil (2002) Decreto nº 4.340 de 22 de agosto de 2002. Regulamenta artigos da Lei no 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000, que dispõe sobre o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza - SNUC, e dá outras providências. Available at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/d4340.htm. Accessed in Sept 2022
Brooks T et al (2006) Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313:58–61. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127609
Brovelli MA et al (2015) The first comprehensive accuracy assessment of global and 30 at a national level: methodology and results. Remote Sens 7:4191–4212. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs70404191
CBD (2018) Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity: Protected areas and other effective area-based measures. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, pp. 1–19
CBD (2022) Transformative actions on all drivers of biodiversity loss are urgently required to achieve the global goals by 2050. Expert Input to the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/16b6/e126/9d46160048cfcf74cadcf46d/wg2020-03-inf-11-en.pdf
Crouzeilles R et al (2013) The importance of using sustainable use protected areas for functional connectivity. Biol Cons 159:450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.023
Crouzeilles R et al (2014) The effects of the number, size and isolation of patches along a gradient of native vegetation cover: How can we increment habitat availability? Landscape Ecol 29:479–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9978-6
Crouzeilles R et al (2015) Incorporating habitat availability into systematic planning for restoration: a species-specific approach for Atlantic Forest mammals. Divers Distrib 21:1027–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12349
Dalloz MF et al (2017) Incorporating landscape ecology metrics into environmental impact assessment in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. PECON 15:216–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.07.002
Diniz MF et al (2018) Identifying key sites for connecting jaguar populations in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Anim Conserv 21:201–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12367
Diniz MF et al (2021) The underestimated role of small fragments for carnivore dispersal in the Atlantic Forest. PECON 19:81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.12.001
Enedino TH et al (2018) Protecting biodiversity in urbanizing regions: The role of urban reserves for the conservation of Brazilian Atlantic Forest birds. PECON 16:17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.11.001
Fearnside PM (2001) Land-tenure issues as factors in environmental destruction in Brazilian Amazonia: the case of southern Pará. World Dev 29(8):1361–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00039-0
Forero-Medina G, Vieira MV (2007) Conectividade funcional e a importância da interação organismo-paisagem. Oecologia Brasiliensis 11(4):493–502
Fusco N et al (2021) Urban Landscape Genetics: Are Biologists Keeping Up with the Pace of Urbanization? Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 6:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-021-00062-3
Gong P et al (2013) Finer resolution observation and monitoring of global land cover: First mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data. Int J Remote Sens 34:2607–2654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2012.748992
GTZ (2010) (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusmmenarbeit); IUCN International Union for Conservation Nature); ICLEI (Governos Locais Para a Sustentabilidade). Áreas de Conservación Municipal: una oportunidade para la conservación de la biodiversidade y el desarrollo local – reflexiones y experiências desde América Latina
Gutman G et al (2013) Assessment of the NASA-USGS Global Land Survey (GLS) datasets. Remote Sens Environ 134:249–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.02.026
Haddad NM et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052
Hamel P et al (2021) Mapping the benefits of nature in cities with the InVEST software. npj Urban Sustain 1:25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00027-9
Hansen MC et al (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342(6160):850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693
Hanski I (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Lin Soc 42(1–2):3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00548.x
Hejkal J et al (2017) Connectivity of public urban grasslands: implications for grassland conservation and restoration in cities. Urban Ecosyst 20:5011–5519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0611-8
Horta M et al (2018) Functional connectivity in urban landscapes promoted by Ramphastos toco (Toco Toucan) and its implications for policy making. Urban Ecosyst 21:1097–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0789-z
IBGE (2022) Instituto Brasileiro Geografia e Estatística. Rio de Janeiro. Available at http://www.ibge.gov.br. Accessed in Jun 2023
Iezzi ME et al (2022) Forest fragments prioritization based on their connectivity contribution for multiple Atlantic Forest mammals. Biol Conserv 266:109433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109433
IUCN (2020) IUCN Guidelines for Biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Jenkins CN et al (2011) How conservation GIS leads to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Nat Conserva 9:152–159. https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2011.021
Kong F et al (2010) Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modelling. Landsc Urban Plan 95(1–2):16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.11.001
LaPoint S et al (2015) Ecological connectivity research in urban areas. Funct Ecol 29:868–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12489
Lapola D et al (2014) Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nature Clim Change 4:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2056
Latham J et al (2014) Global land cover SHARE (GLC-SHARE). FAO: Rome, Italy. Version 1.0–20147
Lion MB et al (2016) The conservation value of small fragments for atlantic forest reptiles. Biotropica 48(2):265–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12277
Martins K et al (2016) The role of very small fragments in conserving genetic diversity of a common tree in a hyper fragmented Brazilian Atlantic forest landscape. Conserv Genet 17(3):509–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-015-0800-7
Norton BA et al (2016) Urban biodiversity and landscape ecology: patterns, processes and planning. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep 1:178–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-016-0018-5
Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: Towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z
Peixoto SL (2014) Áreas Protegidas Urbanas: a necessidade de fortalecimento institucional dos governos locais para a efetiva conservação da biodiversidade. In: A diversidade cabe na unidade? Áreas Protegidas no Brasil. Org. Ana Paula Prates, Nurit Bensusan. IEB Mil Folhas, Brasília
Pengra B et al (2015) A global reference database from very high resolution commercial satellite data and methodology for application to Landsat derived 30m continuous field tree cover data. Remote Sens Environ 165:234–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.01.018
Penteado HM (2021) Urban open spaces from a dispersal perspective: lessons from an individual-based model approach to assess the effects of landscape patterns on the viability of wildlife populations. Urban Ecosyst 24:753–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01074-3
Pope N (2020) Brokering an urban frontier: milícias, violence, and Rio de Janeiro’s West Zone (Doctoral dissertation, SOAS, University of London). Available at: https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/34168
Projeto MapBiomas – Coleção 5.0 da Série Anual de Mapas de Cobertura e Uso de Solo do Brasil. https://mapbiomas.org/. Accessed Apr 2020
Rezende C et al (2018) From hotspot to hopespot: An opportunity for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16:208–2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.10.002
Ribeiro MC et al (2009) Brazilian Atlantic forest: How much is left and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biol Cons 142:1411–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
Rocha ÉG et al (2021) Dispersal movement through fragmented landscapes: the role of stepping stones and perceptual range. Landscape Ecol 36:3249–3267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01310-x
Rosenzweig ML (2003) Win-win ecology: How the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press
Santana VV et al (2020) Contribuições do Plano de Manejo e do Conselho Gestor em Unidades de Conservação. Meio Ambiente (Brasil) 2(2):18–29
Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005
Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quanti-fying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.05.005
Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x
Siemers BM, Schaub A (2011) Hunting at the highway: traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in acoustic predators. Proc R Soc B 278:1646–1652. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2262
Silva KVKDA et al (2018) Who let the dogs out? Occurrence, population size and daily activity of domestic dogs in an urban Atlantic Forest reserve. PECON 16:228–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.09.001
SOS Mata Atlântica (2017) Unidades de Conservação Municipais da Mata Atlântica. 1–104. Available at: https://www.sosma.org.br/sobre/relatorios-e-balancos. Assessed in Apr 2021
Sparovek G et al (2019) Who owns Brazilian lands? Land Use Policy 87:0264–8377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104062
Tambosi LR et al (2014) A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on habitat amount and landscape connectivity. Restor 22:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12049
Taylor PD et al (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos Oikos 68:571–573. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544927
Vaz S et al (2021) Light pollution is the fastest growing potential threat to firefly conservation in the Atlantic Forest hotspot. Insect Conserv Divers 14:221–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12481
Wiens JA et al (1997) Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78(2):257–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/3546292
Wintle BA et al (2018) Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(3):909–914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813051115
Zaluar MT, Vale MM (2021) Are invasive marmosets harmful to Atlantic Forest birds? Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.02.007
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor Loren Byrne for their insightful and constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the quality of this manuscript. We are also thankful to the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Grant no. 001), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ, Grant Doutorado Nota 10 Grant no. E-26/200.611/2021), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Grant ID: 304309/2018-4, 154243/2020-5, 202284/2020-4 and 304908/2021-5) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ, Grant Cientista do Nosso Estado E-26/202.647/2019) for providing the necessary resources and facilities that supported our research endeavors. This paper was developed in the context of the National Institutes for Science and Technology in Ecology, Evolution, and Biodiversity Conservation, supported by CNPq (Grant ID: 465610/2014-5) and FAPEG (Grant ID: 201810267000023).
Funding
RMVS and SM received a fellowship from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Grant no. 001). SM also received the Grant ‘Doutorado Nota 10’ from Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ, Grant Doutorado Nota 10 Grant no. E-26/200.611/2021). MMV received fellowships from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Grant ID: 304309/2018–4, 154243/2020–5, 202284/2020–4, and 304908/2021–5), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ, Grant Cientista do Nosso Estado E-26/202.647/2019). This paper was developed in the context of the National Institutes for Science and Technology in Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation, supported by CNPq (Grant ID: 465610/2014–5) and FAPEG (Grant ID: 201810267000023).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by RMVS. PKL provided additional support on landscape connectivity analysis and GIS software. SM and MMV gave additional support in translating the manuscript from Portuguese to English. All authors contributed to interpreting data and critically revised the text.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflicts of interesting
The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Soares, R.M.V., Lira, P.K., Manes, S. et al. A methodological framework for prioritizing habitat patches in urban ecosystems based on landscape functional connectivity. Urban Ecosyst 27, 147–157 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01431-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01431-y