4.3 Article

Land cover change in western Madagascar's dry deciduous forests: a comparison of forest changes in and around Kirindy Mite National Park

期刊

ORYX
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 275-283

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0030605309001756

关键词

Deforestation; dry forest; Kirindy Mite; Landsat; Madagascar; reforestation

资金

  1. Lazar Scholarship Fund for International Environmental Leadership
  2. Student International Discussion Group of Duke University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Western Madagascar's dry forests have suffered greater levels of deforestation than the island's humid eastern forests, and many of the largest remaining contiguous tracts of dry forest are conserved in Kirindy Mite National Park. To assist Kirindy Mite's management plan, we assessed land cover change in and around the Park, remotely sensing forest cover within the Park and an arbitrary 5-km buffer from Landsat images taken in 1990, 2000 and 2006. We then quantified forest cover and change and compared the values between the Park and buffer, interpreting the results through expert knowledge of the area. Kirindy Mite had lower rates of deforestation, higher rates of reforestation, and less net change than the unprotected zone in both 1990-2000 and 2000-2006. Park deforestation rates were approximately one third to one fourth those of the buffer, and Park reforestation rates were approximately double those of the buffer. Net change in the Park fluctuated between the two periods, with deforestation during 2000-2006 slightly exceeding reforestation during 1990-2000. All land cover changes accelerated over the study period, and disturbances in the Park were most frequent near its boundary. To maintain the forest as differences in forest cover across the Park boundary increase, we suggest including or intensifying measures to: (1) expand the Park boundary, simplifying its shape, (2) cooperate with the local people in managing a buffer zone, and (3) increase monitoring to minimize anthropogenic disturbances crossing the Park boundary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据