Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02578-y

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Defining priorities areas for biodiversity conservation and

trading forest certificates in the Cerrado biome in Brazil

Samuel Fernando Schwaida1,2 · Rejane Ennes Cicerelli1 · Tati de Almeida1 ·

Edson Eyji Sano1 · Carlos Henrique Pires2 · Ana Paula Marques Ramos3

Received: 5 September 2022 / Revised: 22 February 2023 / Accepted: 3 March 2023 /

Published online: 18 March 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract
Habitat loss and natural vegetation fragmentation are significant causes of global biodi-
versity decline, impacting plant and animal species negatively. This issue is worrisome
in the private areas of Cerrado in Brazil, which is the second-largest biome, considered
a hotspot for biodiversity conservation, and a provider of ecosystem services. Herein, we
present a novel integrated approach to define priority areas for biodiversity conservation
and environmental compensation in Cerrado, using multicriteria analysis. Our approach
combines variables like deforestation projection, integral index of connectivity, threatened
species occurrence, and environmental information of rural properties, ranking the impor-
tance of remaining native vegetation for biodiversity conservation and forest certificate
issuance. Landscape metrics were used to observe and predict land use and land cover
changes from 1988 to 2038. We found a loss of native vegetation in the Cerrado superior
to 20% between 1988 and 2018, associated with increased of its fragmentation and its
connectivity loss, especially after 2008. Natural cover was replaced mostly by pasture and
more recently by agriculture. Moreover, we determined that is expected a loss of native
vegetation of around 55% by 2038 in the study area. The proposed approach can predict
the consequences of future changes in the landscape of the private areas in the Cerrado
biome. It should be replicated in other ecosystems, supporting the decision-making pro-
cess for biodiversity protection.

Keywords Brazilian savanna · Threatened species · Habitat loss · Land use and land
cover dynamics

Communicated By Pedro Eisenlohr

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
1808 Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

Introduction

Habitat loss and natural vegetation fragmentation are major causes of global biodiversity
decline (Grande et al. 2020; Villard and Metzger 2014; Wang et al. 2016). In Brazil, land-
scape changes caused by agriculture and infrastructure expansion are the main threat to
more than the 3,286 plant and animal species, according to the surveying of the Official
National List of Threatened Species (Martinelli and Moraes 2013; Mustin et al. 2017). A
total of 25% of the threatened species in Brazil still lack protection and are considered “gap
species” (Brasil 2016; Martins et al. 2018), even though efforts for reducing the deforesta-
tion areas and increasing the protected areas have been made in the past 20 years (Fonseca
and Venticinque 2018).
The aforementioned situation is critical in Cerrado, which is the second-largest Brazil-
ian biome. Cerrado is considered a hotspot for biodiversity conservation and a provider of
ecosystem services (Colli et al. 2020; Strassburg et al. 2017). Despite its importance, almost
half of Cerrado natural areas had already been converted to other land uses (Alencar et
al. 2020), and only 9% of them are under legal protection (Françoso et al. 2015). In addi-
tion, about 39 million ha of natural vegetation in the Cerrado biome may be suppressed in
the next future, most of them in the MATOPIBA region (Vieira et al. 2018). This region
is located in the northeastern part of the Cerrado, encompassing the states of Maranhão,
Tocantins, Piauí, and Bahia.
A total of 53% of the vegetation in Brazil is inside private properties (Soares-Filho et
al. 2014) and, to promote environmental protection in these areas, it was created the Law
n°. 12,651 of 25 May 2012 (popular name: New Forest Code), which regulates forest con-
servation in Brazil. The two main instruments of the New Forest Code are the Rural Envi-
ronmental Registry (CAR), and the Environmental Reserve Quotas (CRA) (Soares-Filho
et al. 2016; Strassburg et al. 2017). CAR is a mandatory electronic registry where farmers
must upload information about their properties like borders, cultivars, and natural vegeta-
tion distribution. CRA consists of forest trading certificates, comprising 1 ha of intact or
regenerating natural vegetation, that exceeds the Legal Reserve (LR) of a property and can
be purchased by landowners with debts in LR. According to Law n°. 12,651, the LR is a
fraction of the property that must remain covered with native vegetation. In the Cerrado
biome, this fraction is 20%, increasing to 35% if the property is located in the Legal Amazon
(Brasil 2012).
The CRA mechanism has the potential to evolve into the largest market of trading forest
certificates in the world (Pacheco et al. 2021; Soares-Filho et al. 2016). However, its effec-
tiveness for biodiversity maintenance depends on an integrated approach to defining priority
areas for this protection (Strassburg et al. 2017). This integrated approach should involve
factors related to the occurrence of threatened species and ecosystem services provision,
and consider the prioritization of landscape connectivity and deforestation trends (Stan and
Sanchez-Azofeifa 2017; Wang et al. 2016). Land use and land cover dynamics can be evalu-
ated using landscape metrics, which allow analyzing landscape connectivity and deforesta-
tion trends. Nonetheless, up to the writing moment, this integrated approach for predicting
the consequences of future changes in the landscape and supporting the decision-making
process of biodiversity protection is unknown in the Cerrado biome. Therefore, herein, we
define priority areas for biodiversity conservation and environmental compensation in the
Cerrado of the Tocantins, Brazil, based on multicriterial analysis. This work presents the

13
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820 1809

Fig. 1 Location of the study area in the Tocantins State nthropic use areas and natural vegetation cover in
1988, 1998, 2008 and 2018.

following three-fold major contributions: a description of the landscape dynamics in the

Cerrado in the last 30 years (1988–2018), a presentation of the deforestation projections to
2028 and 2038 in the study area, and a determination of the priory areas for conservation in
the Cerrado biome.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study area refers to a portion of the Cerrado biome located in southeastern Tocantins
State (Fig. 1). Due to its ecological attributes and occurrence of threatened species, this
region of Cerrado is considered a priority region for biodiversity conservation, according to
the Ministry of Environment of Brazil (MMA) (Brasil 2016). The area covers 740 thousand
ha, encompassing the municipalities of Natividade, Chapada da Natividade, and São Valério.
Natural vegetation covers 73% of the area (Mapbiomas 2021). The dominant climate is Aw
(tropical savanna with dry winter), according to the Köppen climate classification (Alvares
et al. 2013), and there is potential for intensive land use for agriculture (SEPLAN 2017).
Population density is low (2.17 inhabitants km-²), and the Municipal Human Development
Index (HDI) is equal to 0.645 on average, which is lower than the national HDI of 0.765
(UNDP 2020).

13
1810 Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

Methods

The land use and land cover dynamics of the study area were analyzed based on the Map-
Biomas 4.1 maps (Souza et al. 2020) for the years 1988, 1998, 2008, and 2018, using
landscape metrics and indexes. In the Fragtstats 4.2 software (McGarigal et al. 2012), the
following landscape metrics were calculated: total class area (CA), percentage of landscape
(PLAND), number of patches (NP), patch density (PD), mean patch area (AREA_MN),
mean euclidean nearest neighbor distance (ENN_MN), aggregation index (AI), largest
patch index (LPI), and division index (DIVISION). Both PLAND and DIVISION were
also calculated at the municipal level. In Conefor 2.6 software (Saura and Torné 2009),
the overall values for the Integral Index of Connectivity (IIC) and the Equivalent of Con-
nectivity (EC) were calculated considering only fragments larger than 1 hectare. We used
a maximum dispersion distance of 1,300 m, as suggested by Grande et al. (2020), based on
the literature information about the biology of non-flying mammals significantly affected by
fragmentation in the Cerrado.
From the results obtained in the analysis aforesaid, we made projections of deforesta-
tion for the years 2028 and 2038, using the Dinamica EGO 5.0.0 software (Soares-Filho et
al. 2002). This software operates with input parameters in raster format, and the model´s
generation depends on cellular automata, where the future condition of a cell depends on its
current status, its neighboring cells, and the transition rules determined by the Bayesian sta-
tistical method of Weights of Evidence (Osis et al. 2019; Stan and Sanchez-Azofeifa 2017).
Our model assumes continuity of transition rates of the natural and anthropic land use and
land cover classes between 2013 and 2018 on the MapBiomas 4.1 maps.
Transition rules were calculated using categorical, continuous, and dynamic variables
(Supplementary Material, Table S1) selected from the literature (Molin et al. 2017; Osis
et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2016). For the projections’ validation, we calculated the minimum
similarity between the actual map of 2018 and the simulated one. For that, a constant decay
function was used in multiple windows (sizes from 1 × 1 to 13 × 13), seeking similarities
above 50% in any of the windows and similar distribution patterns (Soares-Filho et al.
2009). The same metrics and indexes applied to the 1988‒2018 maps were used to evaluate
the simulated maps for 2028 and 2038.
Finally, we defined the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and CRA issuing in
the study area, applying a multicriteria analysis with the Weighted Linear Combination
method. Exceeding vegetation was classified from very low (1) to very high (5) using a
qualitative scale of importance. A total of five variables were used in the multicriteria anal-
ysis: distance to Permanent Preservation Areas (PPA); distance to Legal Reserves (LR);
distance to point-occurrence records of gap species; fragment importance for landscape
connectivity; and the possibility of deforestation until 2038. Exceeding vegetation refers to
vegetation outside Permanently Protected Areas (PPA) and Legal Reserves (LR) (Supple-
mentary Material, Table S2).
The multicriteria analysis was built based on the literature (Castro et al. 2020; May et
al. 2015; Metzger et al. 2019; Soares-Filho et al. 2014, 2016; Tubelis et al. 2004), and on
the opinions of eight experts, gathered through interviews and forms following the Delphi
technique (Mukherjee et al. 2015). Data on PPA, LR, and gap-species occurrence were
provided by MMA.

13
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820 1811

LR limits were estimated considering the CAR data available for the study area on
30 October 2019. Topological correction was applied to remove overlaps and the informa-
tion was validated with the aid of Rapideye and Sentinel-2 images according to the registra-
tion date in the CAR database. PPA limits consist of a reference layer generated according
to the categories established by law (Brasil 2012; Cicerelli et al. 2021; Oliveira Filho 2016).
Fragment importance refers to the IIC deltas of fragments larger than 1 ha in the 2018 map.
The values were grouped into five classes using Jenks’ optimization (Castro et al. 2020).
The deforestation layer refers to a temporal possibility map of deforestation, generated from
the Dinamica EGO software and indicates the deforested areas every five years (2023, 2028,
2033, and 2038) and those that will remain unchanged until 2038 (Supplementary material,
Figure S1). The five variables were integrated using map algebra considering their respec-
tive weights, resulting in a map with exceeding vegetation classified according to its impor-
tance for biodiversity conservation and CRA issuing.

Results

Landscape dynamics and structure in the Cerrado biome

Natural vegetation remained predominant in the study area between 1988 and 2018, regard-
less of more than 20% loss (Table 1). The mean patch area and the AI decreased, but NP, PD,
and DIVISION increased in this period. We noted that pastures replaced natural vegetation.
Agricultural and urban areas expanded more between 2008 and 2018, occupying around
2.3% and 0.5% of the landscape, respectively. All anthropic classes increased in terms of
NP, AI, and mean patch area values (Table 1).
Natural vegetation would still be predominant in a future scenario (Fig. 2), but with an
increase in PD, reaching 4.58 in 2038. The DIVISION, which increased in 1988‒1998 and
2008‒2018, would reach 0.75 in 2038. We observed a downward trend for the LPI, IIC,
and EC, including a significant decrease between 2008 and 2018. The ENN mean distance
varied little among the years, remaining close to 100 m until 2038 (Table 1).
The municipality of São Valério showed the lowest vegetation cover (45%) and high-
est division (0.85) in 2038 based on the historical series analysis. Chapada da Natividade
municipality presented larger natural coverage (1988: 96.7%; 2018: 75.1%) and smaller
fragmentation (1988: 0.07; 2018: 0.46). However, São Valério presented less vegetation
cover (2028: 64.2%; 2038: 58.1%) and greater division in the simulated scenario (2028:
0.66; 2038: 0.75) compared with the Chapada da Natividade municipality, with greater cov-
erage (2028: 67.1%; 2038: 63.5%) and smaller division in the simulated scenario (2028:
0.59; 2038: 0.68).

Priority areas for conservation and CRA issuing

The potential exceeding vegetation was estimated at around 399 thousand ha, classified
mostly as high (55%) and medium importance (39%), and located in Natividade municipal-
ity mainly. Very high important surpluses (2.5%) are concentrated in Natividade and Cha-
pada da Natividade. Low or very low important surpluses sum 3.5% (Fig. 3).

13
 1812

13
Table 1 Values of landscape metrics and indexes calculated from MapBiomas maps (1988–2018) and simulated maps (2028–2038): Class area (CA), Percentage of landscape
(PLAND), Number of patches (NP), Patch density (PD), Mean patch size (AREA_MN), Mean euclidean nearest neighbour distance (ENN_MN), Aggregation index (AI),
Largest patch index (LPI), Division index (DIVISION), Integral index of connectivity (IIC), Equivalent of connectivity (EC). IIC and EC values are multiplied by1019 and 109,
respectively.
CLASS YEAR CA PLAND NP PD AREA_MN ENN_MN AI LPI DIVISION IIC EC
Natural 1988 689,769.2 92.97 682 0.09 1,011.4 102.18 98.92 92.85 0.14 4.76 6.9
1998 651,106.8 87.76 1,398 0.19 465.7 100.07 98.17 87.47 0.24 4.23 6.51
2008 613,812.4 82.73 1,990 0.27 308.4 107.66 97.8 82.27 0.32 3.75 6.13
2018 522,908.6 70.48 4,687 0.63 111.6 106.91 96.27 69.26 0.52 2.67 5.17
2028 449,616.6 60.62 28,804 3.88 15.6 86.98 93.91 54.85 0.7 1.92 4.38
2038 407,679.9 54.97 33,935 4.58 12.0 92.08 93.32 49.51 0.75 1.54 3.92
Pasture 1988 48,664.4 6.56 8,066 1.09 6.03 218.27 86.53 Not calculated
1998 87,537.4 11.8 13,510 1.82 6.4 171.29 87.34
2008 123,071.6 16.59 12,912 1.74 9.5 160.41 89.62
2018 195,959.9 26.41 16,188 2.18 12.1 137.11 89.95
Agriculture 1988 104.5 0.01 44 0.01 2.3 4,368.37 81.24 Not calculated
1998 327.7 0.04 182 0.02 1.8 1,533.64 70.84
2008 1,566.6 0.21 197 0.05 7.9 814.35 87.8
2018 16,701.2 2.25 845 0.19 19.7 329.42 91.57
Urban area 1988 931.8 0.13 547 0.07 1.7 893.14 69.29 Not calculated
1998 729.7 0.1 356 0.05 2.0 1,172.57 73.61
2008 1,124.5 0.15 402 0.05 2.8 920.48 76.15
2018 3,728.4 0.5 1,235 0.17 3.0 573.45 76.66
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820 1813

Discussion

The annual deforestation rate of 0.8% observed in the study area for the period 1988−2018
is slightly higher than the annual average of 0.5% observed for the Cerrado between 1985
and 2017 (Alencar et al. 2020). If the period 2008–2018 is considered, the average annual
deforestation rate in the area is 1.5%. Considering the changes observed for the other land
use classes, this increase may be related mainly to the expansion of pasture areas. Char-
coal production may also have contributed to the increase in deforestation rates. The three
municipalities are among the eight that concentrated 32% of the total charcoal production
from native vegetation in the Tocantins State between 2009 and 2016, whose main con-
sumer was the steel industry in the Minas Gerais State (Cachoeira et al. 2019).
Agricultural expansion may be another cause for the increase in deforestation rates
observed in the study area, following a trend observed in MATOPIBA region (Alencar et al.
2020). However, further analysis are necessary to confirm if agricultural expansion resulted
from new deforestations or from the replacement of degraded areas.
The Weights of Evidence analysis identified a significant correlation between deforesta-
tion with shrublands and grasslands, which is possibly linked to a greater concentration of
these phytophysiognomies in the region (Alencar et al. 2020). New deforestation is related
to the proximity to converted areas, access roads, and rivers, as well as to low slopes and
clayey soils and Latosols (greater agricultural suitability) and also Planosols in Natividade
municipality. The use of Planosols − poorly drained and hydromorphic soils − may be
related to planted pastures or rice production (Manzatto et al. 2002). LR showed a repelling
effect on deforestation, indicating their potential for protecting vegetation and biodiversity.
However, these data should not be extrapolated, as there has been some degree of deforesta-
tion in these areas and the compliance with the law varies across the country (Pacheco et al.
2021; Vieira et al. 2018).
Despite the possible predominance of natural vegetation until 2038, a gradual process of
vegetation loss and fragmentation is in course. The continuous decrease of the IIC and EC
values suggests a decrease in connectivity, especially from 2008. However, the observed
and projected values ​​can still be considered high, and, beyond the great natural cover, may
be linked to a low density of patches and proximity between fragments, characteristics of
landscapes with a strong presence of livestock (Carvalho et al. 2009; Grande et al. 2020).
Considering the LPI and IIC delta values and the close values of the relative variation in
EC (dEC = ECt1-ECt0/ECt0) and the relative variation in the amount of native area in the
landscape (dA = At1-At0/At0), the fragmentation may be related to the clearing of adjacent
vegetation from a single large fragment (Grande et al. 2020).
If deforestation rates and trends are maintained until 2038, the fragmentation threshold
identified by Grande et al. (2020) for the Cerrado as 40% of the original vegetation would
not be reached. This is a breakpoint in which functional connectivity is drastically reduced
and the survival of some species can be compromised. Below this threshold, additional veg-
etation losses have little impact on the quite low functional connectivity and the configura-
tion of the remaining habitat becomes more important than its total amount (Grande et al.
2020; Saura and Pascual-Hortal 2007; Villard and Metzger 2014). However, economic and
social factors and changes in the national environmental policy can result in higher rates of
deforestation and fragmentation and more critical effects on biodiversity (Carvalho et al.
2019; Metzger et al. 2019).

13
1814 Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

Fig. 2 Metrics for

​​ the natural vegetation class in the periods of 1988‒2018 and 2028‒2038

There are, therefore, opportunities to plan the use and occupation of the landscape to
ensure minimum vegetation cover and connectivity. Besides the encouragement of sustain-
able productive activities, CRA issuance and trade could be stimulated and supported in
medium to very high importance areas in Natividade and Chapada da Natividade, enhancing
environmental protection and also generating income for owners with vegetation surpluses
(May et al. 2015; Soares-Filho et al. 2016). Conservation units could be established in the
center-south and northeast of the study area, where there is high vegetation cover and a
low probability of deforestation. Areas unsuitable for production, PPAs, and LR totally or
partially preserved would play a significant role in maintaining connectivity (Grande et al.
2020; Metzger et al. 2019).
The methodology for prioritizing areas for conservation is satisfactory for territorial
planning at the regional and local levels and can be adopted as a later stage of prioritiza-
tion analysis carried out on a national scale (Fonseca and Venticinque 2018). By using free
and user-friendly data and software and a simple decision-making process, it is affordable
for any state environmental agency (Oakleaf et al. 2017) and can be easily replicated and
adapted to any region or biome. The combination of medium resolution data (30 m) and the

13
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820 1815

Fig. 3 A) Probability of deforestation in the next 20 years, based on the modeling carried out in the
Dinamica EGO software in a “Business as Usual” scenario. B) Result of multicriteria analysis with im-
portance classes of remnants outside LR or PPA. Blank areas refer to anthropized areas and water. C)
Distribution of exceeding vegetation outside LR and PPA by importance class and municipality

13
1816 Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

IIC, a robust connectivity index suitable for conservation planning, allows the identification
of remnants that may guarantee the maintenance of critical habitats and landscape connec-
tivity (Castro et al. 2020; Saura and Pascual-Hortal 2007).
The use of Jenks break to define classes for IIC delta values seems to be more adequate
than breaks with arbitrary values since they can
​​ vary according to the characteristics of the
analyzed landscape. The inclusion of gap-species occurrence data can avoid the elimination
of areas important for these species. However, considering the limitations in knowledge and
data on the occurrence of species in Brazil (Veiga et al. 2017), the use of the IIC consider-
ing the patch area may be effective to balance the prioritization process, valuing intrapatch
connectivity and benefiting small-sized species or those with low dispersal capacity (Castro
et al. 2020; Grande et al. 2020; Saura and Pascual-Hortal 2007).
The CAR data, despite not covering the entire landholding network and, as self-declara-
tory information, require validation and topological corrections before their use (Santos et
al. 2021), have been proved to be strategic for territorial planning. As they allow locating
PPA, LR, and vegetation surpluses, vegetation recovery or compensation may be better
oriented to reach greater environmental gains. The issuance of CRA close to PPA and LR
may ensure greater protection of ecosystem services, connectivity, and a greater amount of
available protected habitat, benefiting groups of native species (Metzger et al. 2019; Tubelis
et al. 2004).
The inclusion of deforestation modeling allows for identifying where and how strong the
deforestation pressure is. This can favor a more appropriate use of resources available for
conservation, as it is possible to avoid the selection of areas that may be deforested in the
short term - more suitable for production and more difficult to preserve - and of areas with
“zero environmental additionality” – which are those passively protected by their produc-
tive ineptitude, environmental sensitivity or distance from consumer markets (May et al.
2015; Soares-Filho et al. 2014, 2016). Due to its absence in the study area, protected areas
were not included in the deforestation model and multicriteria analysis. However, it is rec-
ommended to add conservation units, indigenous lands, and military areas in these analyzes
when present, due to their role in protecting native vegetation and biodiversity (Osis et al.
2019; Paiva et al. 2015; Silva Arimoro et al. 2017).

Conclusion

The study area, although still conserved and little fragmented, faces a gradual process of
deforestation and fragmentation, especially in areas with greater productive aptitude. There
was a significant loss of vegetation cover and an increase in agriculture between 2008 and
2018, but if current trends are maintained, the region will not approach the breakpoint of
connectivity in the next 20 years. At the municipality level, São Valério has higher defor-
estation rates and greater current and future fragmentation, approaching the breakpoint in
2038.
The proposed deforestation model and the prioritization methodology using Weighted
Linear Combination and Delphi Technique can be considered satisfactory, integrative, and
easily replicable. The prioritization results can support regional environmental planning to
preserve key areas for gap species and maintain landscape connectivity.

13
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820 1817

The results demonstrate the potential and importance of investment in the generation,
organization, and availability of land use and land cover data, including time series, species
occurrence data, and validated CAR information for environmental planning and biodiver-
sity conservation.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-023-02578-y.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq); the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazil (CAPES); the Gradu-
ate Program in Applied Geosciences and Geodynamics of the University of Brasília; the Ministry of Environ-
ment; Esri and Imagem (contract nº 2011 MLK 8733), for making available the package of tools that make
up the ArcGis 10.x family and supporting the programs.

Author Contributions Samuel Fernando Schwaida conceptualized the work (methodology, data acquisition,
analysis, and validation) and wrote the original draft manuscript. Rejane Ennes Cicerelli conceptualized
the work (methodology, analysis, and validation) and helped to write the original draft manuscript. Tati de
Almeida conceptualized the work (methodology, analysis, and validation) and helped to write the original
draft manuscript. Edson Eyji Sano participated in the data analysis and writing-review and editing. Carlos
Henrique Pires participated in the data analysis. Ana Paula Marques Ramos helped to write the original draft
manuscript.

Funding This work was supported by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazil (CAPES).

Declarations

Competing Interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

References
Alencar A, Shimbo JZ, Lenti F, Balzani Marques C, Zimbres B, Rosa M, Arruda V, Castro I, Ribeiro JPFM,
Varela V, Alencar I, Piontekowski V, Ribeiro V, Bustamante MMC, Sano EE, Barroso M (2020) Map-
ping three decades of changes in the Brazilian savanna native vegetation using Landsat data processed
in the Google Earth Engine platform. Remote Sens 12, 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060924
Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Gonçalves JLM, Sparovek G (2013) Köppen’s climate classification
map for Brazil. Meteorol Z 22:711–728. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507
Brasil (2012) Law no 12.651, 15 May 2012. Disposes about the protection of native vegetation. Brasília, DF.
Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm
Brasil (2016) National Strategy for the Conservation of Threatened Species Project (PRO-SPECIES). Project
description. Brasília, DF, FUNBIO. Available at: https://www.funbio.org.br/en/programas_e_projetos/
gef-pro-especies/
Cachoeira JN, Silva ADP, Oliveira LN, Ganassoli Neto E, Giongo M, Batista AC (2019) Mercado interestad-
ual de carvão vegetal no estado do Tocantins. Rev Verde Agroecol Des Sust 14:258–265. https://doi.
org/10.18378/rvads.v14i2.6351
Carvalho FMV, de Marco Júnior P, Ferreira LG (2009) The Cerrado into-pieces: Habitat fragmentation as a
function of landscape use in the savannas of central Brazil. Biol Conserv 142:1392–1403. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.031
Carvalho WD, Mustin K, Hilário RR, Vasconcelos IM, Eilers V, Fearnside PM (2019) Deforestation control
in the Brazilian Amazon: A conservation struggle being lost as agreements and regulations are subverted
and bypassed. Perspect Ecol Conserv 17:122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.06.002
Castro RB, Pereira, JLG, Saturnino R, Monteiro PSD, Albernaz ALKM (2020) Identification of priority areas
for landscape connectivity maintenance in the Xingu area of endemism in Brazilian Amazonia. Acta
Amaz 50:68–79. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201903080

13
1818 Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

Cicerelli RE, Menke AB, Almeida T, Roig HL, Pires MO, Soares N (2021) Quantifying illegal deforestation
in front of the Forest Code: Potentiality and challenge. Floresta 51:272–281. https://doi.org/10.5380/
RF.V51I2.61804
Colli GR, Vieira CR, Dianese JC (2020) Biodiversity and conservation of the Cerrado: Recent advances and
old challenges. Biodivers Conserv 29:1465–1475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01967-x
Fonseca CR, Venticinque EM (2018) Biodiversity conservation gaps in Brazil: A role for systematic conser-
vation planning. Perspect Ecol Conserv 16:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2018.03.001
Françoso RD, Brandão R, Nogueira CC, Salmona YB, Machado RB, Colli GR (2015) Habitat loss and the
effectiveness of protected areas in the Cerrado biodiversity hotspot. Nat Conserv 13:35–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.04.001
Grande TO, Aguiar LMS, Machado RB (2020) Heating a biodiversity hotspot: Connectivity is more impor-
tant than remaining habitat. Landsc Ecol 35:639–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-00968-z
Manzatto CV, Freitas Júnior E, Peres JRR (eds) (2002) Uso agrícola dos solos brasileiros. Embrapa Solos,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Mapbiomas (2021) Projeto MapBiomas – Coleção 6 da série anual de mapas de cobertura e uso de solo do
Brasil [WWW Document]. URL: https://mapbiomas.org/
Martinelli G, Moraes M (eds) (2013) Livro vermelho da flora do Brasil, 1st edn. Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim
Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Martins E, Martinelli G, Loyola R (2018) Brazilian efforts towards achieving a comprehensive extinction risk
assessment for its known flora. Rodriguésia 69:1529–1537. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860201869403
May PH, Bernasconi P, Wunder S, Lubowski R (2015) Environmental reserve quotas in Brazil’s new forest
legislation: An ex ante appraisal. Occasional Paper 131, Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and
continuous maps. Available at: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5888ed89e4b05ccb964c396e
Metzger JP, Bustamante MMC, Ferreira J, Fernandes GW, Librán-Embid F, Pillar VD, Prist PR, Rodrigues
RR, Vieira ICG, Overbeck GE (2019) Why Brazil needs its legal reserves. Perspect Ecol Conserv
17:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.07.002
Molin PG, Gergel SE, Soares-Filho BS, Ferraz SFB (2017) Spatial determinants of Atlantic Forest loss and
recovery in Brazil. Landsc Ecol 32:857–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0490-2
Mukherjee N, Hugé J, Sutherland WJ, McNeill J, van Opstal M, Dahdouh-Guebas F, Koedam N (2015) The
Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: Applications and guidelines. Methods Ecol
Evol 6:1097–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12387
Mustin K, Carvalho WD, Hilário RR, Costa-Neto SV, Silva CR, Vasconcelos IM, Castro IJ, Eilers V, Kauano
ÉE, Mendes-Junior RNG, Funi C, Fearnside PM, Silva JMC, Euler AMC, Toledo JJ (2017) Biodiver-
sity, threats and conservation challenges in the Cerrado of Amapá, an Amazonian savanna. Nat Conserv
22, 107. https://doi.org/10.3897/NATURECONSERVATION.22.13823
Oakleaf JR, Matsumoto M, Kennedy CM, Baumgarten L, Miteva D, Sochi K, Kiesecker J (2017) LegalGEO:
Conservation tool to guide the siting of legal reserves under the Brazilian forest code. Appl Geogr
86:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.025
Oliveira GC, Fernandes Filho EI (2016) Automated mapping of permanent preservation areas on hilltops.
Cerne 22:111–120. https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760201622012100
Osis R, Laurent F, Poccard-Chapuis R (2019) Spatial determinants and future land use scenarios of Para-
gominas municipality, an old agricultural frontier in Amazonia. J Land Use Sci 14:258–279. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1747423X.2019.1643422
Pacheco R, Rajão R, van der Hoff R, Soares-Filho B (2021) Will farmers seek environmental regularization
in the Amazon and how? Insights from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) questionnaires. J
Environ Manage 284:112010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112010
Paiva RJO, Brites RS, Machado RB (2015) The role of protected areas in the avoidance of anthropogenic
conversion in a high pressure region: A matching method analysis in the core region of the Brazilian
Cerrado. PLoS One 10:e0132582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132582
Santos PP, Menezes SJMC, Jesus Júnior WC, Telles LAA, Souza MH, Silva SF, Santos AR (2021) Geotech-
nologies applied to analysis of the rural environmental cadastre. Land Use Policy 101, 105127. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105127
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 quantifying the importance of habi-
tat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsoft.2008.05.005

13
Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820 1819

SEPLAN (2017) Secretaria do Planejamento e Orçamento do Estado de Tocantins: Perfil Socioeconômico

dos Municípios. Palmas. Palmas, TO, Brazil, SEPLAN-TO. Available at: https://central.to.gov.br/
download/214140
Silva Arimoro OA, Lacerda ACR, Tomas WM, Astete S, Roig HL, Marinho-Filho J (2017) Artillery for
conservation: The case of the mammals protected by the Formosa Military Training Area, Brazil. Trop
Conserv Sci 10:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917727654
Soares-Filho BS, Cerqueira GC, Pennachin CL (2002) DINAMICA-a stochastic cellular automata model
designed to simulate the landscape dynamics in an Amazonian colonization frontier. Ecol Modell
154:217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00059-5
Soares-Filho B, Rajão R, Macedo M, Carneiro A, Costa W, Coe M, Rodrigues H, Alencar A (2014) Cracking
Brazil’s Forest Code. Science 344:363–364. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246663
Soares-Filho B, Rajão R, Merry F, Rodrigues H, Davis J, Lima L, Macedo M, Coe M, Carneiro A, Santiago L
(2016) Brazil’s market for trading forest certificates. PLoS One 11, e0152311. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0152311
Soares-Filho B, Rodrigues HO, Costa WL (2009) Modeling environmental dynamics with Dinamica EGO,
1st ed. Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.1.5179.4641
Souza Jr. CM, Shimbo JZ, Rosa MR, Parente LL, Alencar AA, Rudorff BFT, Hasenack H, Matsumoto M,
Ferreira LG, Souza-Filho PWM, Oliveira SW, et al. (2020) Reconstructing three decades of land use
and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens 12,
2735. https://doi.org/10.3390/RS12172735
Stan KD, Sanchez-Azofeifa A (2017) The Edmonton-Calgary corridor: Simulating future land cover change
under potential government intervention. Land Use Policy 63:356–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2017.01.039
Strassburg BBN, Brooks T, Feltran-Barbieri R, Iribarrem A, Crouzeilles R, Loyola R, Latawiec AE, Oliveira
Filho FJB, De Scaramuzza CAM, Scarano FR, Soares-Filho B, Balmford A (2017) Moment of truth for
the Cerrado hotspot. Nat Ecol Evol 1:0099. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0099
Tubelis DP, Cowling A, Donnelly C (2004) Landscape supplementation in adjacent savannas and its implica-
tions for the design of corridors for forest birds in the central Cerrado, Brazil. Biol Conserv 118:353–
364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.014
UNDP (2020) Human Development Report 2020: the Next Frontier. - Human Development and the Anthro-
pocene. Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2020
Veiga AK, Saraiva AM, Chapman AD, Morris PJ, Gendreau C, Schigel D, Robertson TJ (2017) A concep-
tual framework for quality assessment and management of biodiversity data. PLoS One 12, e0178731.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178731
Vieira RRS, Ribeiro BR, Resende FM, Brum FT, Machado N, Sales LP, Macedo L, Soares-Filho B, Loyola R
(2018) Compliance to Brazil’s Forest Code will not protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Divers
Distrib 24:434–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12700
Villard M-A, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: A conceptual model to predict when
habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12190
Wang L, Young SS, Wang W, Ren G, Xiao W, Long Y, Li J, Zhu J (2016) Conservation priorities of forest
ecosystems with evaluations of connectivity and future threats: Implications in the Eastern Himalaya of
China. Biol Conserv 195:128–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.044

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

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 manu-
script version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Authors and Affiliations

Samuel Fernando Schwaida1,2 · Rejane Ennes Cicerelli1 · Tati de Almeida1 ·

Edson Eyji Sano1 · Carlos Henrique Pires2 · Ana Paula Marques Ramos3

Rejane Ennes Cicerelli

13
1820 Biodiversity and Conservation (2023) 32:1807–1820

rejaneig@unb.br
Samuel Fernando Schwaida
samuelschwaida@gmail.com
Tati de Almeida
tati_almeida@unb.br
Edson Eyji Sano
edson.sano@embrapa.br
Carlos Henrique Pires
cpiresluiz@gmail.com
Ana Paula Marques Ramos
anaramos@unoeste.br
1
Graduate Program in Applied Geosciences and Geodynamics, Institute of Geosciences,
University of Brasília (UnB), Brasília 70910-900, DF, Brazil
2
Ministry of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, Bloco B, Eixo Monumental,
Brasília 70068-900, DF, Brazil
3
Environment and Regional Development Program – PPGMADRE, University of Western São
Paulo (UNOESTE), Campus II Rodovia Raposo Tavares, km 572,
Presidente Prudente 19067-175, SP, Brazil

13