LAND USE SYSTEMS AND LANDSCAPE FOOTPRINTS IN INDIGENOUS, CABOCLOS, AND FRONTIER FARMERS SETTLEMENTS...
1
LAND USE SYSTEMS AND LANDSCAPE FOOTPRINTS IN INDIGENOUS, CABOCLOS, AND FRONTIER FARMERS SETTLEMENTS IN AMAZONIA Eduardo S. Brondizio, Fabio de Castro and Mateus Batistella Indiana University / ACT, USA 1. INTRODUCTION Landscape composition .Socioeconomic unit: farm, community, region .Biophysical unit: class, landscape levels .Land cover classes diversity .Land cover classes distribution (e.g., area, area change .Proportion between LC classes e.g.1: SS1/forest Bare/forest Bare/SS1, SS2, SS3 e.g.2: contribution to total landscape A.G. biomass Landscape configuration .Socioeconomic unit: farm, community, region .Biophysical unit: class, landscape levels .Number of patches .Area of patches .Neighborhood and density .Shape Land cover dynamics .Socioeconomic units: farm, community, region .Biophysical units: class, landscape .Inter-annual deforestation cycle .Inter-annual secondary succession cycle .Inter-annual crop/pasture cycle .Biomass change/land cover class Landscape, Class, and Patch Analysis: To develop a Level I classification (aggregate sub-classes into major land cover classes) Igarape-Acu, PA Degrees of co-existence Swidden-Agroforestry Mechanized Agriculture, Pasture, Agroforestry Long Degrees of fallow cycle Short Vaupes, R. Negro Ponta de Pedras, Marajo, PA (3 sites) Tome-Acu, PA Altamira, PA Santarem, PA Anari, RO Machadinho, RO Land use systems and landscape footprints: Indigenous, Caboclos, Old Colonization Research Sites Land use systems and landscape footprints: Recent Colonization Research Sites Forest Gap Degrees of Fragmentation Forest Patch Definition of major land cover classes: To develop a Level I classification (aggregate sub-classes into major land cover classes) Vaupes, R. Negro Ponta de Pedras, Marajo, PA (3 sites) Igarape-Acu, PA Tome-Acu, PA Altamira, PA Ituqui, Santarem, PA Anari, RO Machadinho, RO Land Cover Classification (multiple dates) Upland Forest, Floodplain Forest, Acai Agroforestry, Savanna SS1, SS 2, SS 3, Bare, Pasture, Water Upland Forest, SS1, SS 2, SS 3, Bare, Pasture, Water Upland Forest, Savanna 1,2 SS1, SS 2, SS 3, Bare, Sparse Vegetation, Water Upland Forest, SS1, SS 2, SS 3, Bare, Pasture, Water Upland Forest, SS Bare, Pasture, Water Elements Conditioning Landscape Configuration & Composition in Amazonia Socioeconomic, cultural characteristics .Composition of Land use systems and their spatial-temporal characteristics .Settlement spatial pattern and demographics .Land tenure structure .Institutional arrangements and resource appropriation Biophysical Structure .Soil type and distribution .Watershed and access to water .Topographic compartments .Land cover type Infrastructure .Local and regional networks .Access and distances (market, urban center) .Change in infrastructure .Market opportunities and constrains .Demographic dynamics .Change in Governmental Policy .Change in land tenure .Access to technology Drivers 2. BACKGROUND 4. RESULTS 1 – Altamira, PA 2 – Ponta de Pedras, PA (Marajo Acu, Paricatuba, Praia Grande) 3 – Igarape Acu, PA 4 – Tome Acu, PA 5 – Vaupes, Colombia (Yapu, Acariquara) 6 – Rondonia (Machadinho d’Oeste, Vale do Anari) 7 – Santarem, PA Study Sites Altam ira,PA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest S uccession D irectU se L a n d C over Ig arap e A cu,PA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Succession D irectUse Land C over P aricatu b a,P A 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Savannah Succession D irectU se Land C over P raia G ran d e ,P A 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Savannah Succession D irectU se Land C over M arajo A cu,PA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Savannah Succession D irectUse Land C over M ach ad in h o d 'O este,RO 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Succession D irectUse Land C over V ale d o A n ari,R O 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Succession D irectUse Land C over Santarem ,PA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Succession D irectU se Land C over Tom e A cu,PA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Succession D irectU se Land C over A cariquara,V aupes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Savannah Succession D irectUse Land C over Yapu,Vaupes 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Forest Savannah Succession D irectU se Land C over A cariquara,V aupes (n=71) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u en c y o f F o re st P atches A ltam ira,P A (n=1183) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u en cy o f F o re st P atches V ale d o A n ari,RO (n=829) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e n c y o f F ore st P atches Ig arap e A cu ,P A (n=449) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P a tc h e s M achadinho do O este,RO (n=580) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P atches P aricatu b a,PA (n =9) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P a tc h e s Praia G rande,PA (n =26) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P atches S an tarem ,PA (n =44) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P a tc h e s Tom e A cu,PA (892) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P a tc h e s Yapu,V au p e s (n =67) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e n c y o f F o re st P atches M arajo A cu ,P A (n =10) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R elative Frequency of Forest P a tc h e s A cariq u ara,V aupes (n=311) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e Fre q u en c y o f S u c c e ssio n P atches A ltam ira,PA (n=1295) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 3 6 9 30 60 90 300 R e la tiv e F re q u e n cy o f S u c c e ssio n P atches V ale d o A n ari,RO (n=3133) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 3 6 9 30 60 90 300 R e la tiv e F re q u e n cy o f S u c c e ssio n Patches Igarape A cu ,P A (n =100) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F req u e n cy o f S u c c e ssio n P a tc h e s M achadinho d'O este,RO (n=2841) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e n c y o f S u c c e ssio n P atches M arajo A cu,PA (n =66) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e Fre q u en c y o f S u c c e ssio n P atches P aricatub a,P A (n=54) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u en c y o f S u c c e ssio n Patches P raia G rande,PA (n=43) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e n c y o f S u cc e ssio n Patches S an tarem ,PA (n =179) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e nc y o f S u c e ssio n P atches Tom e A cu,PA (n=462) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e n c y o f S uc c e ssio n P a tc h e s Yapu,V aupes (n=186) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e Fre q u en c y o f S u c ce ssio n Patches A cariq uara,V au p es (n =99) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u en c y o f D ire c t U se P atches A ltam ira,P A (n=1853) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e nc y o f D ire c t U se P atches V ale d o A nari,R O (n=1519) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re qu e n c y o f D ire c t U se P atches Igarape A cu ,P A (n =737) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F req u e n c y o f D ire c t U se Patches M achadinho d'O este,RO (n=1208) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u en c y o f D ire c t U se P atches M arajo A cu,PA (n=18) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u e n c y o f D ire c t U se P atches Paricatu b a,PA (n =16) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q ue n c y o f D ire c t U se P a tc h e s Praia G rande,PA (n =41) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re q u en c y o f D ire c t U se P atches S an tarem ,P A (n=166) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e F re qu e n c y o f D ire c t U se Patches Tom e A cu,PA (n =777) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e Fre q u en c y o f D ire c t U se P atches Yapu,V au pe s (n =121) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 0 4 8 30 70 200 R e la tiv e Fre q u e n c y o f D ire c t U se P a tc h e s Land Cover Distribution Relative Frequency of Forest Patches per Class of Patch Size Relative Frequency of Succession Patches per Class of Patch Size Relative Frequency of Direct Use Patches per Class of Patch Size Forest fragmentation is influenced by drivers to land access, land value, and human assets (see table below for proxy variables). The Amazon Basin offers a natural experiment where different combination of those factors affect land use practices (such as agricultural intensification and extensification, urbanization, agroforestry and so on), which in turn are reflected in landscape patterns. In particular, native populations and colonists seem to adopt two major strategies in regard to land access, value, and human assets. In this paper, we present preliminary results of research on land use practices and forest fragmentation in eleven sites throughout the Amazon. Our main goal is to provide an exploratory, comparative landscape analysis in order to raise questions for in depth intra- and inter-site research. Ecological Economic Social Land Access Relief Infrastructure Land tenure Distance Pathways Land Value Productivity Market Ethics Seasonality Diet requirement Predictability Human Assets Risk resistance Labor force Ecological knowledge Money source Social organization Technology 5. DISCUSSION In general, forest class dominates most of the sites, except for areas of old colonization or intensified agriculture among native populations. The sites show a trend from forest gap to forest patches, representing cases of recent and old occupation, respectively. Larger and continuous forest patches disappear in some colonization areas, but are not necessarily affected by the age of settlement. Small forest patches dominate most landscapes. One exception is the area characterized by agroforestry economy. Areas of secondary succession dominate in the two oldest colonization sites. Sites encompassing private lots, mechanized agriculture, and pasture tend to have large patches of secondary succession and direct use. Forest fragmentation between native populations and colonists present differences based on land access (e.g. land tenure, infrastructure) and land value (e.g. soil fertility). Contacts: [email protected][email protected][email protected]In general, land use and occupation among native populations is characterized by a stronger influence of collective property rights and biophysical opportunities. For colonists, land use and occupation is strongly influenced by private property rights, infrastructure, and settlement age. However, mixed situations offer potential cases to analyze coexistence and overlapping of those features, such as private-based colonization of caboclos in Santarém, topographic constrained colonization in Machadinho, and missionary colonization in Vaupes. The definition of boundaries for comparative landscape fragmentation analysis still needs better refinement, since results may vary according to choice of area of influence. This ongoing research has studied advantages and limitations of fragmentation analysis to the study of land use dynamics. Further multi-temporal analyses will inform other approaches about changes in landscape structure and 3. PROCESSING STEPS Image subset: To select areas associated with a particular land use system and/or a combination of systems Image filtering: To eliminate isolated pixels (1 or 2 pixels) surrounded by another class Site Area of direct use of community / village Area defined by property boundaries or inside colonization area Concentric area around settlement Yapu, Vaupes, Colombia X Acariquara, Vaupes Colombia X Marajo-Acu, PA X Paricatuba, PA X Praia Grande, PA X Santarem, PA X Machadinho d’Oeste, RO X Vale do Anari, RO X Altamira, PA X Tome-Acu, PA X Igarape-Acu, PA X
LAND USE SYSTEMS AND LANDSCAPE FOOTPRINTS IN INDIGENOUS, CABOCLOS, AND FRONTIER FARMERS SETTLEMENTS IN AMAZONIA Eduardo S. Brondizio, Fabio de Castro and
Igarape-Acu, PA4. RESULTS1 Altamira, PA2 Ponta de Pedras, PA
(Marajo Acu, Paricatuba, Praia Grande)3 Igarape Acu, PA4 Tome Acu,
PA5 Vaupes, Colombia (Yapu, Acariquara)6 Rondonia (Machadinho
dOeste, Vale do Anari)7 Santarem, PAStudy SitesForest fragmentation
is influenced by drivers to land access, land value, and human
assets (see table below for proxy variables). The Amazon Basin
offers a natural experiment where different combination of those
factors affect land use practices (such as agricultural
intensification and extensification, urbanization, agroforestry and
so on), which in turn are reflected in landscape patterns. In
particular, native populations and colonists seem to adopt two
major strategies in regard to land access, value, and human assets.
In this paper, we present preliminary results of research on land
use practices and forest fragmentation in eleven sites throughout
the Amazon. Our main goal is to provide an exploratory, comparative
landscape analysis in order to raise questions for in depth intra-
and inter-site research.
