Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 15, Issue 10, pp 2136–2147 | Cite as

Land cover change and carbon stores in a tropical montane cloud forest in the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico

  • Edgar G. Leija-Loredo
  • Numa P. Pavón
  • Arturo Sánchez-González
  • Rodrigo Rodriguez-Laguna
  • Gregorio Ángeles-Pérez
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Tropical montane cloud forest is one of the ecosystems with the highest biomass worldwide, representing an important carbon store. Globally its deforestation index is –1.1%, but in Mexico it is higher than –3%. Carbon estimates are scarce globally, particularly in Mexico. The objective of this study was to simulate future land-cover scenarios for the Sierra Madre Oriental in Mexico, by analyzing past forest cover changes. Another objective was to estimate stored carbon in the two study areas. These objectives involve the generation of information that could be useful inputs to anti-deforestation public policy such as the REDD+ strategy. Remote sensing was used to measure land cover change and estimate carbon stocks. Satellite images from 2015, 2000 and 1986 were used, and Dinamica EGO freeware generated models of future projections. Between 1986 and 2015, 5171 ha of forest were converted to pasture. The annual deforestation rates were –1.5% for Tlanchinol and –1.3% for the San Bartolo Tutotepec sites. Distance to roads and marginalization were highly correlated with deforestation. By 2030, an estimated 3608 ha of forest in these sites will have been converted to pasture. Stored carbon was estimated at 16.35 Mg C ha−1 for the Tlanchinol site and 12.7 Mg C ha−1 for the San Bartolo site. In the Sierra Madre Oriental deforestation due to land cover change (–1.4%) is higher than levels reported worldwide. Besides having high values of stored carbon (14.5 Mg C ha−1), these forests have high biodiversity. The models’ outputs show that the deforestation process will continue if action is not taken to avoid the expansion of livestock pasturing. This can be done by paying incentives for forest conservation to the owners of the land. The results suggest that REDD+ is currently the most viable strategy for reducing deforestation rates in tropical montane cloud forests in Sierra Madre Oriental.

Keywords

Cloud forest Carbon stores C mitigation Climate change Dinamica EGO Forest management Remote sensing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author thanks was support with doctorate fellowship CONACyT (No. 266708) and Postgraduate Sciences in Biodiversity and Conservation of the Center for Biological Research, UAEH. Likewise to ERMEX (Satellite Monitoring) for Agri-Food and Fisheries Information Service (SIAP) of SAGARPA for SPOT satellite imagery. Finally, to the reviewers of the journal for their wise comments that contributed to the significant improvement of this work.

References

  1. Álvarez–Arteaga G, García–Calderón N, Krasilnikov P, et al. (2013) Carbon stores in montane fog forests of the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca, Mexico. Agro–science 2: 171–180. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  2. Bonham–Carter G (1994) Geographic information systems for geoscientists. Modelling with GIS. Computer Methods in the Geosciences 13. Pergamon/Elsevier, London, U.K.Google Scholar
  3. Buss C, Manh–Pham C, Quang–Nguyen T, et al. (2013) Field Dialogue on REDD+ Benefit Sharing, Co–Chairs’ Summary Report. The Forests Dialogue. pp 24–27.Google Scholar
  4. Burgheimer J, Wilske B, Maseyk K, et al (2006). Relationships between Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and carbon fluxes of biologic soil crusts assessed by ground measurements. Journal of Arid Environments 64: 651–669.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.06.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Card DH (1982) Using known map category marginal frequencies to improve estimates of thematic map accuracy. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 3: 431–439.Google Scholar
  6. Chuvieco E (1998) The temporal factor in remote sensing: phenomenological evolution and analysis of changes. Remote Sensing Magazine 10: 1–9. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  7. CONABIO (2010) The Mountain Mesophilic Forest in Mexico: Threats and Opportunities for its Conservation and Sustainable Management. National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity. Mexico D.F. p 197. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/ecosistemas/pdf/BMM_parte%201.pdf, accessed on 2016–08–27 (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  8. CONAFOR (2010) National Forestry and Soil Inventory, manual and procedures for field sampling, resampling 2010. Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico. p 140. Available online at: https://doi.org/187.218.230.5/media/library/get/004/4164/inventario-nacionalfore.pd, (accessed on 2016–07–14) (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  9. CONAPO (2010) National Population Council. Mexico: Ministry of the Interior. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.conapo.gob.mx/, accessed on 2016–03–19 (In Spanish).Google Scholar
  10. Corbera E, Estrada M, Brown K (2010) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions. Climatic Change 3–4: 355–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corbera E, Schroeder H (2011) Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy 14: 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CONAFOR–UACh (2013) National base line of land degradation and desertification. Final report. National Forestry Commission and Autonomous University Chapingo. Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.semarnat.gob.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/fomento/documentos/degradacion-tierras-desertificacion2.pdf, accessed on 2017–02–19 (In Spanish).Google Scholar
  13. Doumenge C, Gilmour D, Pérez MR, et al. (1995) Tropical montane cloud forests: conservation status and management issues. In Hamilton LS, Juvik JO, Scatena FN (eds) (1995) Tropical montane cloud forests. Springer. New York, NY. pp 24–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2500-3_2
  14. FAO (1996) Forest resources assessment 1990. Survey of tropical forest cover and study of change processes, Rome. https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/42607210 Google Scholar
  15. FAO (2010) Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO Forestry Paper 159: Impact of the global forest industry on atmospheric greenhouse gases, Rome. p 86. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1580e/i1580e00.pdf, accessed on 2017–02–20.Google Scholar
  16. FRA (2015) Evaluación de los Recursos Forestales Mundiales. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Data compendium. Rome. p 253. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.fao.org/3/a-i4808s.pdf, accessed on 2016–05–28Google Scholar
  17. Garbulsky MF, Peñuelas J, Ourcival JM, et al. (2008) Estimation of the efficiency of the use of radiation in Mediterranean forests from MODIS data. Use of the Photochemical Reflectance Index (PRI). Ecosystems 3: 89–97. (In Spanish).Google Scholar
  18. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2001) What drives tropical deforestation. LUCC Report series 4: 116. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.pik-potsdam.de/members/cramer/teaching/0607/Geist_2001_LUCC_Report.pdf, accessed on 2017–04–21.Google Scholar
  19. González–Espinosa M, Meave JA, Ramírez–Marcial N, et al. (2012) The cloud forests of Mexico: conservation and restoration of its arboreal component. Ecosystems Magazine 1–2: 36–52. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton LS (1996) A Campaign for Cloud Forests: Unique and Valuable Ecosystems at Risk. The George Wright Forum 13: 29–39.Google Scholar
  21. Hamilton LS, Juvik JO, Scatena FN (Eds.) (2012) Tropical montane cloud forests (Vol. 110). Springer Science & Business Media, New York. p 401. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2500-3. Google Scholar
  22. Harris NL, Brown S, Hagen SC, et al. (2012) Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336(6088): 1573–1576. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217962. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. INEGI (2005) National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics, Letter of Current Use of Soil and Vegetation, Series III (2002), scale 1: 250,000. INEGI, Mexico. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  24. INEGI (2013) National Land and Vegetation Use Set: Scale 1: 250 000 (vector). Series V. DGG–INEGI Mexico. (In Spanish).Google Scholar
  25. Karafyllidis I, Thanailakis A (1997) A model for predicting forest fire spreading using cellular automata. Ecological Modelling 99: 87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(96)01942-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, Friedlingstein P, et al. (2016) Global Carbon Budget 2016. Earth System Science Data 8: 605–649.  https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leija–Loredo EG, Reyes–Hernández H, Fortanelli J, et al. (2011) Current situation of the cloud forest in the state of San Luis Potosí. Research and Science 53: 3–11. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  28. Leija–Loredo EG, Pavón NP (2017) The northernmost tropical rain forest of the Americas: Endangered by agriculture expansion. Tropical Ecology 3: 641–652.Google Scholar
  29. Muñoz–Piña C, Alarcón G, Fernández JC, et al. (2003) Pixel patterns of deforestation in Mexico. Mexico: INE–Semarnat (Working paper). Mexico. D.F. p 26.Google Scholar
  30. Mas JF (2005) Change estimates by map comparison: A method to reduce erroneous changes due to positional error. Transactions in GIS 4: 619–629.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2005.00238.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mas JF, Flamenco–Sandoval A (2011) Modeling changes in coverage /land use in a tropical region of Mexico. GeoTropico 1: 1–24. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  32. Meneses–Tovar CL. (2011). The standardized differential index of vegetation as an indicator of forest degradation. Unasylva, 238: 38–46. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  33. Navarrete D, Méndez D, Flamenco A, et al. (2010) Current situation, fragmentation, priority conservation areas and main threats of the mesophilic mountain forest of Chiapas. In: Farrera MÁP, Cruz CT, Rivera ES (eds.), The mountain mesophilic forests in Chiapas. University of Sciences and Arts of Chiapas, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico. pp 295–326. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  34. Newsham A, Pulido MT, Ulrichs M, et al. (2018) Ecosystemsbased adaptation: Are we being conned? Evidence from Mexico. Global Environmental Change 49: 14–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nolte C, Warou YLP, Munger J, et al. (2017). Conditions influencing the adoption of effective anti–deforestation policies in South America’s commodity frontiers. Global Environmental Change 43: 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olofsson P, Foody GM, Herold M, et al. (2014) Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sensing of Environment 148: 42–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pijanowski BC, Brown DG, Shellito BA, et al. (2002) Using neural networks and GIS to forecast land use changes: A land transformation model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 26: 553–576.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00015-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pérez–Verdín G, Kim YS, Hospodarsky, et al. (2009) Factors driving deforestation in common pool resources in Northern Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 331–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ponce–Reyes R, Reynoso–Rosales VH, Watson JE, et al. (2012) Vulnerability of cloud forest reserves in Mexico to climate change. Nature Climate Change 6: 448–452.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodríguez–Laguna R, Jiménez PJ, Aguirre CO, et al. (2006) Estimation of carbon stored in a cloud forest in Tamaulipas, Mexico. UANL SCIENCE 2: 179–187. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  41. Ramírez–García AG, Castillo–Escalante IC (2009) The socioeconomic environment of the municipalities with the presence of mesophilic mountain forests in the state of Hidalgo. In: Monterroso Rivas AI (eds.), The mountain mesophile forest in the state of Hidalgo: ecological perspective in the face of climate change. 1st ed. Chapingo Autonomous University. Mexico. pp 27–38. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  42. Ruíz YM, Mendoza ME, Huicochea GES, et al. (2016) Spatiotemporal dynamics of the cloud forest and its successional status in the state of Michoacán, Mexico. Geography and Geographic Information Systems (GEOSIG) 8: 233–247. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  43. Ramírez–Bautista A, Sánchez–González A, Sánchez–Rojas G, et al. (eds.) (2017) Biodiversity of the state of Hidalgo. Volume II. Autonomous University of the State of Hidalgo/National Council of Science and Technology. Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico. pp 368. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  44. Ramírez BH, Teuling AJ, Ganzeveld L, et al. (2017) Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Hydrometeorological variability in three neighbouring catchments with different forest cover. Journal of Hydrology 552: 151–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ray DK, Nair US, Lawton RO, et al. (2006) Impact of land use on Costa Rican tropical montane cloud forests: Sensitivity of orographic cloud formation to deforestation in the plains. Journal of Geophysical Research 111 D02108.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006096 Google Scholar
  46. Sánchez–Ramos G, Dirzo G (2014) The mountain mesophile forest: a threatened priority ecosystem. In. Gual–Díaz M and Rendón–Correa A (eds.), Mesophilic mountain forests of Mexico: diversity, ecology and management. National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity. Mexico. p 352. (In Spanish)Google Scholar
  47. Sandel B, Svenning JC (2013) Human impacts drive a global topographic signature in tree cover. Nature Communications 4: 2474.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shehzad K, Qamer FM, Murthy MSR, et al. (2014). Deforestation trends and spatial modelling of its drivers in the dry temperate forests of northern Pakistan: A case study of Chitral. Journal of Mountain Science 11: 1192–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2932-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simonet G, Subervie J, Ezzine–de–Blas D, et al. (2018). Effectiveness of a REDD+ Project in Reducing Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, aay028 0: 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay028 Google Scholar
  50. Soares–Filho BS, Pennachin CL, Cerqueira G (2002) Dinamica a stochastic cellular automata model designed to simulate the landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier. Ecological Modelling 154: 217–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00059-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soares–Filho BS, Alencar AA, Nepstad DC, et al. (2004) Simulating the response of land–cover changes to road paving and governance along a major Amazon highway: The Santarém Cuiabá corridor. Global Change Biology 5: 745–764.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00769.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soares–Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, et al. (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440: 520–523.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spracklen DV, Righelato R (2014) Tropical montane forests are a larger than expected global carbon store. Biogeosciences 10: 2741–2754.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2741-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sun BF, Zhao H, Wang X (2016) Effects of drought on net primary productivity: Roles of temperature, drought intensity, and duration. Chinese Geographical Science 26: 270–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ter–Mikaelian, Korzukhin (1997) Biomasa equation for sixtofive North American tree species. Forest Ecology and Management 97:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ojf.2011.11002 Google Scholar
  56. Watson RT, Noble IR, Bolin B, et al. (2001) (eds.) Land use, land use change, and forestry. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. p 375. https://doi.org/asiannature.org/sites/default/files/2000%20Watson%20IPCC.pdf Google Scholar
  57. Weatherley–Singh J, Gupta A (2015) Drivers of deforestation and REDD+ benefit–sharing: A meta–analysis of the (missing) link. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 97–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu C, Li Y, Hu J, et al. (2012) Evaluating the difference between the normalized difference vegetation index and net primary productivity as the indicators of vegetation vigor assessment at landscape scale. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 184: 1275–1286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2039-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu G, Chen Z, Shilong P, et al. (2014) High carbon dioxide uptake by subtropical forest ecosystems in the East Asia monsoon region. Proceedings National Academy Sciences. USA 111: 4910–4915.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317065111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biological ResearchAutonomous University of HidalgoHidalgoMexico
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Academic Area of Forestry EngineeringAutonomous University of HidalgoHidalgoMexico
  3. 3.Postgraduate School, Campus MontecilloPostgraduate in Forest SciencesEstado de MexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations