Avaliação ecológica de áreas ciliares em processo de restauração florestal na Zona da Mata Norte, Pernambuco

• Ano de defesa: 2017
• Autor(a) principal: SILVA, Marília Isabelle Oliveira da
• Orientador(a): MARANGON, Luiz Carlos
• Banca de defesa: CHAVES, Lúcia de Fatima de Carvalho, LONGHI, Régis Villanova, MARANGON, Luiz Carlos
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Florestais
• Departamento: Departamento de Ciência Florestal
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Indicador ecológico; Mata ciliar; Reflorestamento
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS AGRARIAS::RECURSOS FLORESTAIS E ENGENHARIA FLORESTAL
• Link de acesso: http://www.tede2.ufrpe.br:8080/tede2/handle/tede2/7403

Due to the importance of studying restoration areas, using ecological indicators and using reference ecosystems as the final goal, the main objective of this study was to obtain a current diagnosis of forest restoration in riparian areas of the Capibaribe River in Pernambuco. In order to do this, two restoration areas (AR1 and AR2) and a reference fragment (ER) were selected, hoth properties of the Petribú Factory and are located between the municipalities of Paudalho and Lagoa de Itaenga - PE. For the evaluation, ecological indicators were selected within five groups: landscape, anthropic disturbances, composition, structure and function, which allowed to infer about the areas. And for the application of these indicators, 20 permanent plots of 250 m², with subplots of 25m², were installed in each study environments, using the same methodology to obtain the data. As a main result, it was observed that ARs differ from ER in many aspects, mainly in the degree of human interference and floristic composition. But, they resemble in the structure, and as well, some ecological processes are common to environments. However, it can be seen that there are similarities among ARs, although AR1 is less developed than AR2, both have the same barriers that may be hindering the restoration process, with many anthropic traces, a high percentage of invading grasses, a large amount of exotic species in the arboreal component and low number of regenerating individuals. In order to minimize these factors and favor the restoration process, corrective actions were proposed that should be adopted with the purpose of changing the current restoration trajectory in the areas and making them sustainable based on the reference ecosystem.