Rumo à gestão em paisagens de conservação: um framework de código aberto para análise de gradientes do regime de fogo

Cíntia Fernanda  da Costa; Christhian Santana Cunha; Maria João Ramos Pereira

doi:10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v16i3.2961

Autores/as

Cíntia Fernanda da Costa Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul/UFRGS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1942-444X
Christhian Santana Cunha Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul/UFRGS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0755-6760
Maria João Ramos Pereira Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul/UFRGS, Porto Alegre/RS, Brasil. Universidade de Aveiro/UA, Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Aveiro, Portugal. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9365-5166

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v16i3.2961

Palabras clave:

herramienta de código abierto , dNBR , NB , sabana , severidad del fuego

Resumen

– Los incendios forestales se han convertido en un gran desafío ambiental, agravado por el cambio climático. Aunque las tecnologías de teledetección han avanzado, su uso para monitorear la frecuencia y la severidad de los incendios sigue siendo limitado, especialmente en regiones con recursos limitados. Para abordar este problema, desarrollamos una herramienta de código abierto en Google Earth Engine que genera mapas de regímenes de incendios, combinando datos de frecuencia y de severidad. La herramienta utiliza datos satelitales de acceso gratuito, incluyendo el MapBiomas Fogo (1985–2023) y los índices de incendio (NBR, dNBR) derivados de imágenes de Sentinel-2A (2019–2023). Aplicada a dos unidades de conservación en sabanas brasileñas, la herramienta reveló regímenes de fuego contrastantes: en el APA Chapada dos Guimarães, el 68% de las áreas quemadas presentó baja frecuencia y baja severidad, consistente con la vegetación de cerrado adaptada al fuego, mientras que los regímenes de mayor intensidad se concentraron en pastizales; en la RPPN SESC Pantanal, el 90% del área quemada fue afectada por severidad moderada a alta, fuertemente influenciada por los eventos excepcionales de 2019 y 2020. La herramienta ofrece una solución rentable, escalable y replicable para monitorear la dinámica del fuego, identificar áreas prioritarias para intervención y apoyar la toma de decisiones en unidades de conservación. Su carácter de código abierto y el uso de datos satelitales gratuitos democratizan el monitoreo ambiental, haciéndolo accesible incluso en contextos con recursos limitados. Este enfoque se alinea con las estrategias globales para mitigar los impactos del cambio climático y contribuye a iniciativas científicas y políticas orientadas a la mitigación de incendios y al manejo sostenible de los ecosistemas.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

1. Bond WJ, Keeley JE. Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005; 20(7): 387–94. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025

2. Bowman DM, Balch JK, Artaxo P, Bond WJ, Carlson JM, Cochrane MA, et al. Fire in the earth system. Science. 2009; 324(5926): 481–84. doi:10.1126/science.1163886 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163886

3. Pausas JG, Keeley JE. A burning story: The role of fire in the history of life. Bioscience. 2009; 59: 593–601. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.10

4. McLauchlan KK, Higuera PE, Miesel J, Rogers BM, Schweitzer J, Shuman JK, et al. Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers. Journal of Ecology. 2020; 108(5): 2047–069. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.13403 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13403

5. Salgado L, Alvarez MG, Díaz AM, Gallego JR, Forján R. Impact of wildfire recurrence on soil properties and organic carbon fractions J Environ Manage. 2024; 354: 120293. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120293

6. Kelly LT, Fletcher MS, Menor IO, Pellegrini AF, Plumanns-Pouton ES, Pons P, et al. Understanding fire regimes for a better Anthropocene. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2023; 48: 163-92. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357

7. Behling H, Pillar VD, Müller SC, Overbeck GE. Late-Holocene fire history in a forest-grassland mosaic in southern Brazil: Implications for conservation. Appl Veg Sci. 2007; 10(1): 81-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109X.2007.tb00506.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2007.tb00506.x

8. Coutinho LM. Ecological effects of fire in Brazilian Cerrado. In: Huntley BJ, Walker BH, editors. Ecology of tropical savannas. Berlin: Springer; 1982. p. 273-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-68786-0_13

9. Arruda WDS, Oldeland J, Paranhos Filho AC, Pott A, Cunha NL, Ishii IH, et al. Inundation and Fire Shape the Structure of Riparian Forests in the Pantanal, Brazil. PLoS One. 2016; 11(6): e0156825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156825

10. Souza CM, Shimbo JZ, Rosa MR, Parente LL, Alencar AA, Rudorff BF, et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and earth engine. Remote Sens. 2020; 12(17): 2735. doi: 10.3390/rs12172735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172735

11. Schmidt IB, Eloy L. Fire regime in the Brazilian Savanna: Recent changes, policy and management. Flora. 2020; 268: 151613. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2020.151613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2020.151613

12. Li P, Xiao C, Feng Z, Li W, Zhang X. Occurrence frequencies and regional variations in Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) global active fires. Glob Change Biol. 2020; 26(5): 2970-87. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15034

13. White BLA. Satellite detection of wildland fires in South America. Floresta. 2019; 49(4): 557-66. doi: 10.5380/rf.v49i4.60117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/rf.v49i4.60117

14. Alencar AA, Arruda VL, da Silva WV, Conciani DE, Costa DP, Crusco N, et al. Long-Term Landsat-Based Monthly Burned Area Dataset for the Brazilian Biomes Using Deep Learning. Remote Sens. 2022; 14(11): 2510. doi: 10.3390/rs14112510 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14112510

15. Eiten G. The Cerrado vegetation of Brazil. Bot Rev. 1972; 38: 201-341. doi: 10.1007/BF02859158 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02859158

16. Ribeiro JF, Walter BMT. 1998. Fitofisionomias do bioma Cerrado. In: Sano SM, Almeida SP, editors. Cerrado: ambiente e flora. Planaltina: EMBRAPA-CPAC; 1998. p. 89-166.

17. Ivory SJ, McGlue MM, Spera S, Silva A, Bergier I. Vegetation, rainfall, and pulsing hydrology in the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland. Environ Res Lett. 2019; 14(12): 124017. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4ffe DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4ffe

18. Berlinck CN, Batista EK. Good fire, bad fire: It depends on who burns. Flora. 2020; 268: 151610. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2020.151610 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2020.151610

19. Durigan G. Zero-fire: Not possible nor desirable in the Cerrado of Brazil. Flora. 2020; 268: 151612. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2020.151612 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2020.151612

20. Frizzo TL, Bonizário C, Borges MP, Vasconcelos HL. Revisão dos efeitos do fogo sobre a fauna de formações savânicas do Brasil. Oecol Aust. 2011; 15(2): 365-79. doi: 10.4257/oeco.2011.1502.13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2011.1502.13

21. Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Mittermeier CG, Gil PR. Hotspots: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Mexico City: CEMEX; 1999.

22. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAD, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000; 403(6772): 853-58. doi: 10.1038/35002501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501

23. Hofmann GS, Cardoso MF, Alves RJ, Weber EJ, Barbosa AA, de Toledo PM, et al. The Brazilian Cerrado is becoming hotter and drier. Glob Change Biol. 2021; 27(17): 4060-73. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15712 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15712

24. Correa DB, Alcântara E, Libonati R, Massi KG, Park E. Increased burned area in the Pantanal over the past two decades. Sci Total Environ. 2022; 835: 155386. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155386 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155386

25. Shimabukuro YE, Dutra AC, Arai E, Duarte V, Cassol HLG, Pereira G, et al. Mapping burned areas of Mato Grosso state Brazilian Amazon using multisensor datasets. Remote Sens. 2020; 12(22): 3827. doi: 10.3390/rs12223827 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223827

26. de Oliveira VA, Santos GG, Ker JC, Couto EG, Jacomine PKJ, Corrêa GR, et al. Soils of Cerrado, the Brazilian Savannas. In Schaefer, C. E. G. R., editor, The Soils of Brazil. Cham: Springer; 2023. p. 129-73. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031 19949-3_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19949-3_5

27. Araujo A, Obregón G, Sampaio G, Monteiro A, Silva L, Soriano B, et al. Relationships between variability in precipitation, river levels, and beef cattle production in the Brazilian Pantanal. Wetl Ecol Manag. 2018; 26: 135-46. doi: 10.1007/s11273-018-9612-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-018-9612-0

28. Arruda FV, Teresa FB, Layme VM, Vicente RE, Camarota F, Izzo TJ. Fire and flood: How the Pantanal ant communities respond to multiple disturbances? Perspect Ecol Conserv. 2022; 20(3): 197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2022.04.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2022.04.002

29. Marques JF, Alves MB, Silveira CF, Silva AA, Silva TA, dos Santos VJ, et al. Fires dynamics in the Pantanal: Impacts of anthropogenic activities and climate change. J Environ Manage. 2021; 299: 113586. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113586

30. Pivello VR, Vieira I, Christianini AV, Ribeiro DB, da Silva Menezes L, Berlinck CN, et al. Understanding Brazil’s catastrophic fires: Causes, consequences and policy needed to prevent future tragedies. Perspect Ecol Conserv. 2021; 19(3): 233-55. doi: 10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.005

31. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). Banco de dados de queimadas [Internet]. São José dos Campos: INPE; 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 22]. Available from: http://www.inpe.br/queimadas/bdqueimadas

32. Tomas WM, Berlinck CN, Chiaravalloti RM, Faggioni GP, Strüssmann C, Libonati R, et al. Distance sampling surveys reveal 17 million vertebrates directly killed by the 2020’s wildfires in the Pantanal, Brazil. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 23547. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02844-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02844-5

33. Pereira JMC, Sá ACL, Sousa AMO, Silva JMN, Santos TN, Carreiras JMB. Spectral characterization and discrimination of burnt areas. In: Chuvieco E, editor. Remote sensing of large wildfires in the European Mediterranean basin. Berlin: Springer; 1999. p. 123-38. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-60164-4_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-60164-4_7

34. Assis LFFG, Ferreira KR, Vinhas L, Maurano L, Almeida C, Carvalho A, et al. Terra Brasilis: a spatial data analytics infrastructure for large-scale thematic mapping. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf. 2019; 8(11): 513. doi: 10.3390/ijgi8110513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8110513

35. Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ. 2017; 202: 18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031

36. Key CH, Benson NC. Landscape Assessment (LA). In: Lutes DC, Keane RE, Caratti J F, Key CH, Benson NC, Sutherland S, Gangi LJ. 2006. FIREMON: Fire effects monitoring and inventory system. Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR 164-CD. Fort Collins (CO): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; 2006. p. LA-1-LA-55.

37. dos Santos SMB, Bento-Gonçalves A, Franca-Rocha W, Baptista G. Assessment of burned forest area severity and postfire regrowth in Chapada Diamantina national park (Bahia, Brazil) using dNBR and rdNBR spectral indices. Geosciences. 2020; 10(3): 106. doi: 10.3390/geosciences10030106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10030106

38. Roy DP, Boschetti L, Trigg SN. Remote sensing of fire severity: assessing the performance of the normalized burn ratio. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2006; 3(1): 112-16. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2005.858485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2005.858485

39. Alves DB, Pérez-Cabello F. Multiple remote sensing data sources to assess spatio-temporal patterns of fire incidence over Campos Amazônicos Savanna Vegetation Enclave (Brazilian Amazon). Sci Total Environ. 2017; 601-602: 142-58. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.194 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.194

40. Silva PS, Nogueira J, Rodrigues JA, Santos FLM, Pereira JMC, DaCamara CC, et al. Putting fire on the map of Brazilian savanna ecoregions. J Environ Manage. 2021; 296: 113098. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113098 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113098

41. Dos Santos JFC, Romeiro JMN, de Assis JB, Torres FTP, Gleriani JM. Potentials and limitations of remote fire monitoring in protected areas. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 616-617: 1347-55. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.182

42. Galvanin EADS, Caldas MM. Evaluating Public Policies in Fire-affected Conservation Priority Areas of the Brazilian Pantanal. Environ Manage. 2025; 75(12): 3248-60. doi: 10.1007/s00267-025-02253-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02253-8

43. MapBiomas Project. Collection 9 of the annual land cover and land use maps of Brazil [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Jan 22]. Available from: https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/colecoes-mapbiomas/

44. Mato Grosso State Government. Law No. 7,804, 5 December 2002. Official Gazette of the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil. 2002.

45. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). Plano de manejo do Parque Nacional da Chapada dos Guimarães. Brasília: ICMBio; 2009.

46. Araújo LM, França AB, Potter PE. Aquífero Gigante do Mercosul no Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay: Hydrologic maps of the Formations Botucatu, Pirambóia, Rosário do Sul, Buena Vista, Misiones and Tacuarembo. Curitiba: Universidade Federal do Paraná, Biblioteca de Ciência e Tecnologia, Centro Politécnico; 1995. p. 1-16.

47. Hofmann GS, Hasenack H, Oliveira LFB. Microclima e a estrutura de formações vegetais. In: SESC, editor. O clima na Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural SESC Pantanal. Rio de Janeiro: SESC Departamento Nacional; 2010. p. 11 53.

48. Russell A, Mittermeier CG, Gil PR, Pilgrim J. Wilderness: Earth’s last wild places. Mexico City: CEMEX; 2003. 49. Cunha C, Junk WJ, Leitão-Filho HF. Woody vegetation in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil: a preliminary typology. Amazoniana. 2007; 19: 159-84.

50. Catian G, Scremin-Dias E, Pott A. Reproductive phenology of macrophyte community in response to wetland flooding cycle. Oecol Aust. 2019; 23(4): 759-72. doi: 10.4257/oeco.2019.2304.11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4257/oeco.2019.2304.11

51. QGIS Development Team. QGIS geographic information system [Internet]. Beaverton (OR): Open Source Geospatial Foundation; 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 22]. Available from: http://qgis.osgeo.org

52. Williams BA, Watson JEM, Beyer HL, Grantham HS, Simmonds JS, Alvarez SJ, et al. Global drivers of change across tropical savannah ecosystems and insights into their management and conservation. Biol Conserv. 2022; 276: 109786. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109786 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109786

53. He T, Lamont BB, Pausas JG. Fire as a key driver of Earth’s biodiversity. Biol Rev. 2019; 94(6): 1983-2010. doi: 10.1111/brv.12544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12544

54. Hofmann GS, Silva RC, Weber EJ, Barbosa AA, Oliveira LF, Alves RJ, et al. Changes in atmospheric circulation and evapotranspiration are reducing rainfall in the Brazilian Cerrado. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1): 12317. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023 38174-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38174-x

55. Francos M, Úbeda X. Prescribed fire management. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2021; 21: 100250. doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100250 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100250

56. Knapp EE, Estes BL, Skinner CN. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: a literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-224. Albany (CA): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station; 2009. doi: 10.2737/PSW-GTR-224 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2737/PSW-GTR-224

57. Halofsky JE, Donato DC, Hibbs DE, Campbell JL, Cannon MD, Fontaine JB, et al. Mixed- severity fire regimes: lessons and hypotheses from the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. Ecosphere. 2011; 2(4): art40. doi: 10.1890/ES10-00184.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/ES10-00184.1

58. Rego FC, Morgan P, Fernandes P, Hoffman C. Extreme fires. In: Fernandes PM, editor. Fire science: from chemistry to landscape management. Cham: Springer; 2021. p. 175-257. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69815-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69815-7_8

59. Huang X, Gao J. A review of near-limit opposed fire spread. Fire Saf J. 2021; 120: 103141. doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.103141

60. Nawaz MO, Henze DK. Premature deaths in Brazil associated with long- term exposure to PM2. 5 from Amazon fires between 2016 and 2019. GeoHealth. 2020; 4(8): e2020000268. doi: 10.1029/2020GH000268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GH000268

61. Sant’Anna AA, Rocha R. Health impacts of deforestation-related fires in the Brazilian Amazon. Inst Estud Políticas Saúde Nota Téc. 2020; 11: 1-7.

62. Ross T, Srivastava SK, Shapcott A. Investigating the relationship between fire severity and post-fire vegetation regeneration and subsequent fire vulnerability. Forests. 2023; 14(2): 222. doi: 10.3390/f14020222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f14020222

63. Forney RR, Peacock MM. The effects of fire on large-and medium-sized mammal communities: what do we know? A review. Mamm Rev. 2024; 54(2): e12350. doi: 10.1111/mam.12350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12350

64. Guerra A, de Oliveira Roque F, Garcia LC, Ochoa-Quintero JM, de Oliveira PTS, Guariento RD, et al. Drivers and projections of vegetation loss in the Pantanal and surrounding ecosystems. Land Use Policy. 2020; 91: 104388. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104388 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104388

65. Viana LF, do Amaral Crispim B, Kummrow F, de Lima NA, Dias MA, Montagner CC, et al. Occurrence of contaminants of emerging concern and their risks to the Pantanal Sul-Mato-Grossense aquatic biota, Brazil. Chemosphere. 2023; 337: 139429. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139429 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139429

66. de Oliveira Roque F, Guerra A, Johnson M, Padovani C, Corbi J, Covich AP, et al. Simulating land use changes, sediment yields, and pesticide use in the Upper Paraguay River Basin: Implications for conservation of the Pantanal wetland. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021; 314: 107405. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107405 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107405

67. Bonner MR, Alavanja MC. Pesticides, human health, and food security. Food Energy Secur. 2017; 6(3): 89-93. doi: 10.1002/fes3.112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.112