Conservation In Practice
Print
Conservation In Practice
Biodiversity, threats and conservation challenges in the Cerrado of Amapá, an Amazonian savanna
expand article infoKaren Mustin, William D. Carvalho§, Renato R. Hilário|, Salustiano V. Costa-Neto|, Cláudia Silva, Ivan M. Vasconcelos#, Isai J. Castro¤, Vivianne Eilers«, Érico E. Kauano#, Raimundo N. G. Mendes-Junior#, Cláudia Funi», Philip M. Fearnside˄, José M. C. Silva|˅, Ana M. C. Euler¦, José Júlio Toledo|
‡ University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
§ Universidade Federal do Amapá, Macapa, Brazil
| Universidade Federal do Amapá, Macapá, Brazil
¶ Universidade Federal do 12 Amapá, Macapá, Brazil
# Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Macapá, Brazil
¤ Instituto de Pesquisas Científicas e Tecnológicas do Estado do Amapá (IEPA), Macapá, Brazil
« Instituto do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, Macapá, Brazil
» Governo do Estado do Amapá, Macapá, Brazil
˄ National Institute for Research in Amazonia (INPA), Manaus, Brazil
˅ University of Miami, Miami, United States of America
¦ Embrapa Amapá, Macapá, Brazil
Open Access

Abstract

An Amazonian savanna in northern Brazil known as the Cerrado of Amapá is under imminent threat from poor land-use planning, the expansion of large-scale agriculture and other anthropogenic pressures. These savannas house a rich and unique flora and fauna, including endemic plants and animals. However, the area remains under-sampled for most taxa, and better sampling may uncover new species. We estimate that only ~9.16% of these habitats have any kind of protection, and legislative changes threaten to further weaken or remove this protection. Here we present the status of knowledge concerning the biodiversity of the Cerrado of Amapá, its conservation status, and the main threats to the conservation of this Amazonian savanna. To secure the future of these unique and imperilled habitats, we suggest urgent expansion of protected areas, as well as measures that would promote less-damaging land uses to support the local population.

Keywords

Brazil, Protected areas, Development policy, Land clearing

Introduction

Tropical savannas are dynamic systems of grassland and open woodland that cover 15 to 24.6 million km2 of South America, Africa and Asia (Silva and Bates 2002), occupying one-fifth of the Earth’s surface (Scholes and Archer 1997). A large part of the human population lives and works within these ecosystems, which house more pastoral land and wild herbivores than any other in the world, and which have a significant impact on the global economy (Sankaran et al. 2005; Scholes and Archer 1997). Tropical savannas are also recognised globally for their rich and unique biodiversity, and this, together with high levels of anthropogenic disturbance, has led to increasing conservation concern (e.g. Klink and Machado 2005). In South America, the largest savanna complexes are the Cerrado in Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay, and the Llanos in Venezuela and Colombia (Silva and Bates 2002). However, further islands of savanna of varying size occur throughout the Amazon biome, known as Amazonian savannas (Carvalho and Mustin 2017; Prance 1996). The Amazonian savannas represent a distinct ecosystem within the large Amazonian region (see Prance 1996), different also from the white-sand ecosystems that further pepper the Amazon biome (see Adeney et al. 2016). These Amazonian savannas have generally been under-studied (see Carvalho and Mustin 2017) and are highly threatened, principally as a result of land-grabbing and the advance of cultivation of grãos (grains and pulses, mainly soybeans and maize), plantations of exotic woody species (eucalyptus and acacia), and un-controlled fires (Barbosa et al. 2007; Carvalho and Mustin 2017; Aguiar et al. 2014).

It has been estimated that, in Brazil, 12.3% of Amazonian savannas are within Strictly Protected areas (IUCN categories I-IV), 5.1% in Multiple Use areas (IUCN categories V-VI) and 40.3% in Indigenous Lands (Carvalho and Mustin 2017). Indigenous Lands have been shown to be effective in preventing deforestation (Nepstad et al. 2006), however, the effectiveness of protected areas in preventing degradation depends not only on protection type but also on the level of anthropogenic pressure to which the areas are exposed, and the intensity of enforcement among other factors (Nolte et al. 2013; Pfaff et al. 2014). Furthermore, some types of multiple use areas can offer protection of both biodiversity and local communities in the face of large-scale development, but it should not be assumed that local needs, expectations and attitudes toward conservation are easily compatible with conservation goals (Kohler and Brondizio 2017).

In recent years, a lack of protection of less isolated areas of Amazonian savannas (Cerrado of Amapá, Lavrados of Roraima and smaller fragments including those at Humaitá, Santarém and Monte Alegre), has facilitated the opening up of new areas to plantations of grãos and associated degradation of savanna areas (Barbosa 2013; Barbosa and Campos 2011; Carvalho and Mustin 2017; Vidal 2017). Since 2006, deforestation of Amazonian forests to make way for soybean plantations has declined considerably, thanks largely to the implementation of a moratorium on soya (Gibbs et al. 2015). However, the expansion of soybean cultivation in Brazil has shifted the agricultural frontier to other areas such as the region between the states of Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins, and Bahia, known as MAPITOBA, and has maintained its expansion across the Cerrado (Gibbs et al. 2015). The moratorium on soya is not applicable in the Cerrado biome, and is also seemingly not being applied to savanna habitats within the Amazon, opening up these areas to large-scale production of grãos. This can lead to deforestation and degradation, conservation conflicts and conflicts over land, increased burning, and displacement of traditional populations (Barbosa 2013; Barbosa et al. 2007; Domingues and Bermann 2012; Fearnside 2006; Gibbs et al. 2015; Vidal 2017).

The Cerrado of Amapá

The Cerrado of Amapá is one of the largest, least protected and arguably the most threatened complexes of Amazonian savanna in Brazil at present (see Carvalho and Mustin 2017). It covers approximately ~7.2% of the total area (~140,012 km2) of the state of Amapá, in the far north of Brazil. Amapá has no road connections to the rest of the country and has very limited connections with neighbouring French Guiana. These facts have doubtless contributed to protecting the Cerrado of Amapá from large-scale agricultural activities until now. However, the state does have a port at the mouth of the Amazon River that allows for export of grãos, wood and minerals to China (via the Panama Canal) and Europe (Monteiro 2015).

The Cerrado of Amapá is characterised by a mosaic of areas with open woody vegetation, areas with a denser woody shrub layer, and open grassy areas with sparser shrubs and trees, and by seasonally flooded areas in the transition zone with floodplains (Castro 2009; Mochiutti and Meirelles 1994; Oliveira 2009). This ecosystem is also intersected by gallery forests (Castro 2009; Mochiutti and Meirelles 1994). The Cerrado of Amapá can be subdivided in to areas dominated by one of four main vegetation types: shrub savanna (savana arborizada), woodland savanna (savana florestada), grass savanna (savana gramíneo-lenhosa) and park savanna (savana parque) (Figures 1 and 2). There is clear variation in the composition and number of species that can be encountered in different locations in the Cerrado of Amapá. For example, the woody species Salvertia convallariodora is not found in the savanna areas to the north of the Araguari River, despite being one of the most abundant species in the savannas to the south of this same river (GEA et al. 2016).

The Cerrado of Amapá is among the most threatened ecosystems in the state (IBGE 2004b) and is subject to high human pressure containing both the largest urban centres and the majority of the network of highways of the state (see Figure 3). Since 2004 it has been recognised as a “very high” conservation priority for Brazil (Brazil 2004). Despite this recognition, and despite representing ~7% of the area of the state, as well as a significant percentage of its economically productive area, the Cerrado of Amapá has not received the attention that we argue it deserves. Here we present the status of knowledge concerning the biodiversity of the Cerrado of Amapá, its conservation status, and the main threats to the conservation of this Amazonian savanna. We further suggest pathways necessary to conserve this unique ecosystem and to secure its future in the face of mounting anthropogenic threats.

Figure 1.

Spatial distribution of dominant savanna types and protected areas in the state of Amapá. Distribution of the four dominant savanna vegetation types (based on the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) vegetation cover map for the Amazon (IBGE 2004a), and the three categories of protected areas (based on the shapefiles of Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands available from the Amapá State Environmental Secretariat (SEMA-AP 2016) and the World Database on Protected Areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2016) in the state of Amapá. Solid grey lines show the limits of the sixteen municipalities that make up the state. The shapefile of boundaries of the municipalities was also obtained from the Amapá State Environmental Secretariat.

Figure 2.

Images of habitat types and soybean plantations in the Cerrado of Amapá. A Grass savanna with gallery forests in the background, showing characteristic presence of palms B Area of park savanna C Area of park savanna converted to plantations of soybeans and maize D The right-hand side of the image shows what is left of an area of park savanna, the left-hand side shows an area prepared for planting with soybeans and maize, and in the background are natural forest fragments that occur within the Cerrado of Amapá E An area of park savanna after being burned; and F flooded savanna with grass savannas and a natural forest fragment behind.

Figure 3.

Highways and conurbations in the Cerrado of Amapá. The network of main highways (black lines), and municipal limits (grey lines) in the state of Amapá obtained from the Amapá State Environmental Secretariat (SEMA-AP 2016). The total length of highways in the state is 3,578.5 km, of which 1,999.9 km (55.9%) is within the Cerrado of Amapá. Of the 16 urban centres, 11 are within 10 km of the Cerrado of Amapá (points, with the size of the point proportional to the population – information obtained from IBGE (2016)).

Biodiversity

To date, at least 378 plant species, 350 species of invertebrates, 200 bird species, 108 mammals (including 38 bat species), 26 species of fish, 41 amphibian species and 26 reptile species have been reported in the Cerrado of Amapá (Aguiar and Naiff 2010; Avila-Pires 1995; Azevedo 1967; Barbosa and Souto 2011; Boss 2009; Boss and Silva 2015; Cantuáriua 2012; Carvalho et al. 2009; Castro 2009; Costa-Campos 2015; Costa-Neto 2014; Costa-Neto et al. 2017; Deus et al. 2013; França et al. 2006; Galardo et al. 2013; Hamada et al. 2003; Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro 2016; Jesus-Barros et al. 2012; Lima et al. 2017; Melo 2006; Mendes-Júnior 2013; Mesquita 2005; Mesquita et al. 2007; Nunes 2001; Pereira-Junior et al. 2013; Rocha et al. 2014; Saraiva et al. 2011; Schunck et al. 2011; Silva et al. 2013; Silva et al. 1997; Silva et al. 2006; Silveira 2003; 2006). Of the plant species reported, two are endemic to the state of Amapá – the carpet grass Axonopus amapaensis G. A. Black and the herb Borreria amapaensis E. L. Cabral & Bacigalupo (Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro 2016; Rocha et al. 2014). Furthermore, the species’ Appendicularia thymifolia (Bompl.) DC and Chamaecrista desvauxii var. saxatilis (Amshoff) H.S.Irwin & Barneby (Collad.) Killip occur only in the Guianan shield (Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro 2016; Silva et al. 2015). The species Philodendron carinatum E.G.Gonç., also found in the Cerrado of Amapá, is considered rare in Brazil (Temponi et al. 2009). Amphibian species richness is high relative to other Amazonian savannas, likely maintained by the complex mosaic of savanna, forest patches, swamps and temporary ponds (Lima et al. 2017). Two fish species have also been described from the Cerrado of Amapá – the Amapá tetra Hyphessobrycon amapaensis (Zarske and Géry 1998), and Melanorivulus schuncki (Costa and De Luca 2010). The Amapá tetra has a very restricted distribution, and as such maintaining the integrity of the streams in which it is found is extremely important for the conservation of this species (Nogueira et al. 2010). At least two of the mammals that have been recorded are endemic to the Amazonian savannas – Alston’s cotton rat Sigmodon alstoni and a recently discovered species of opossum Cryptonanus sp. (Silva et al. 2013; Voss 2015). However, the area remains under-sampled for most taxa, and new state records of species of amphibians, birds and mammals have been made in the Cerrado of Amapá (Costa-Campos and Freire 2015; Schunck et al. 2011; Silva et al. 2013; Silva et al. 1997), highlighting the possibility of encountering new species and/or extending the ranges of existing species with better sampling of the region.

Owing to its geographic isolation and therefore relatively well-preserved state, Amapá is particularly important for the conservation of some species. For example, the only known populations of red-handed howler monkey (Alouatta belzebul) to the north of the Amazon River are found in the state of Amapá, where preliminary surveys show that occurrence of this species is predominantly limited to riparian forest within the Cerrado of Amapá (R. Hilário, unpublished data). To the south of the Amazon River, most populations of this species are highly threatened by the arc of deforestation, with just 10 small populations of this species remaining outside of the main area of deforestation pressure, in the Northeast Region of Brazil (Veiga et al. 2008). The species is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN (IUCN 2016). The Cerrado of Amapá is also recognised as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Bird Life International, owing largely to the presence of large numbers of two declining bird species – the shrike-like tanager Neothraupis fasciata and the rufous-sided pygmy tyrant Euscarthmus rufomarginatus (De Luca et al. 2009). Both species are listed as near threatened in the IUCN Red List, with the principal threat being destruction and degradation of their Cerrado habitats (IUCN 2016). Importantly, E. rufomarginatus was previously listed as vulnerable, and was down-graded specifically due to its presence outside the highly threatened Cerrado biome, in the Amazonian savannas (IUCN 2016). As such, the massive conversion of the Cerrado of Amapá for agricultural production would represent a substantial loss of important habitat for E. rufomarginatus, and the species would almost certainly be up-graded once more in the IUCN Red List.

Conservation status

While the state of Amapá has ~72% of its territory covered by protected areas (Dias et al. 2016), these areas are almost entirely made up of terra firme (lowland tropical forest) and várzea (floodplain) forests, and flooded areas, and just 917.69 km2 (~9.16%) of the Cerrado of Amapá has protection in strictly protected areas, multiple use areas and Indigenous Lands (Table 1). At least an additional 68.9 – 274.9 km2 of savanna habitats fall within quilombos, traditional lands of the descendants of escaped African slaves, which are recognised under Brazilian Federal law as protected areas (Brazil 2006). However, biodiversity conservation is not usually a primary objective of these areas and their effectiveness in protecting against degradation has not been well documented. The vast majority of protected savanna habitats in Amapá are within multiple use or sustainable use areas (IUCN category V-VI; 850.42 km2, 8.49% of the total area) (Table 1).

Protection also varies across the four dominant vegetation types. For example, the grass savannas, the second most common savanna type in the Cerrado of Amapá, are the least protected, with just 1.19% of their 930.22 km2 falling within the Amapá State Forest, a multiple use area (Table 1). This PA covers a total of ~403 km2 of the Cerrado of Amapá, including areas of each of the four dominant savanna vegetation types. However, there have been proposals to revoke the act of creation of the Amapá State Forest (Euler 2016), originally established to consolidate the Biodiversity Corridor of Amapá (GEA 2010). This PA contains significant stretches of savanna-forest transition zones, and is incorporated in the mosaic of protected areas of the state (see Dias et al. 2016), in recognition of its importance for biodiversity conservation (Euler 2016). The Amapá State Forest also protects the only stretches of woodland savanna found within PAs, and about two-thirds of the shrub savannas that have protection (Table 1). As such, were it to be down-sized or degazetted, the grass savannas and woodland savannas of the Cerrado of Amapá could lose all protection, and shrub savannas could have their protection substantially reduced.

Park savannas represent ~60% of the total area of the Cerrado of Amapá, and are the only dominant vegetation type to be protected outside of multiple use areas (Table 1). However, most of their protection is still offered by multiple use areas including the Amapá state forest, the Rio do Cajari Extractive Reserve, and the Curiaú Environmental Protection Area (Table 1). Environmental Protection Areas (APAs), such as Curiaú, are not, however, subject to the same environmental licensing requirements for activities that have the potential to be polluting or to cause environmental degradation that govern other conservation units in Brazil (Brazil 2011). Instead, the large-scale planting of crops is controlled by the same legislation (Resolution CONAMA 237/97) that governs environmental licensing of crop plantations and other activities in any part of the country (CONAMA 1997). Furthermore, Curiaú does not currently have a management plan, meaning that specifics of what is or is not permitted within the PA limits have not been made official.

Approximately 40 km2 of park savanna is also protected by strictly protected areas – the Cabo Orange National Park and the Seringal Triunfo Private Reserve (Table 1), and a further ~27 km2 fall within the Uaça Indigenous Land (Table 1). There is an overlap between Cabo Orange National Park and the Cunani Quilombo and owing to conflicting legislation, negotiations are on-going regarding the limits of the two protected areas which could eventually lead to a reduction in the amount of savanna habitat under strict protection. In Brazil, Indigenous Lands offer very effective protection (Nepstad et al. 2006), but the Brazilian federal government is currently considering modifications to legislation that would allow for exploitation of natural resources within Indigenous Lands (Fearnside 2016). As such, should the legislation be approved, Indigenous Lands could be opened up to mining and large-scale planting of crops (Fearnside 2016). Taking all of this into consideration, we conclude that the Cer rado of Amapá does not currently have effective long-term protection.

Major threats: present and future

While there is no good estimate available of the total area of the Cerrado of Amapá that has been cleared and/or degraded, estimates suggest that at least 450 km2 have been cleared (Sano et al. 2017), and one estimate does suggest that up to ~1,949 km2 (~19.5% of the total area) have been altered for use in silviculture, mechanized agriculture, livestock production and exploration of mineral resources (GEA et al. 2016). This includes at least 148.6 km2 planted with soybeans in 2016 (an increase of almost 70% from 2013) (see Figure 2 C, D; IBGE 2017), with an expected increase to ~4,000 km2 planted with soybeans by 2026 (almost 40% of the total area of the Cerrado of Amapá) (Silva 2016), with export facilitated by improvements to the Port of Santana (Monteiro 2015). Approximately 1,657.5 km2 of the Cerrado of Amapá is also already planted with plantations of eucalyptus (Table 1). Massive silvicultural plantations in the Cerrado of Amapá were planned in the 1990s as a contribution to migrating global carbon emissions (Ab’Sáber et al. 1990; Fearnside 1998), but have not been planted as planned. However, such plans could be revived as Brazil’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (iNDC), announced at the 2015 Paris Conference of the Parties under the climate convention, calls for “restoring and reforesting 12 million hectares of forests by 2030, for multiple purposes” (Brazil 2015).

Increases in infrastructure, including the construction of a new port, are acting to increase interest in use of the Cerrado of Amapá for plantations of crops and woody species, and the area has been recently referred to as Brazil’s “final frontier” of soybean production (Silva 2016). Grilagem (land grabbing, or the illegal appropriation of public land) with subsequent ‘legalisation’ of land-ownership rights is a further key contributing factor to the increase in area planted with eucalyptus and soybeans in the Cerrado of Amapá (CPT 2015; Silva 2014). With deeds of ownership in hand, future owners will be able to sell their lands or to acquire financing for investments in equipment and infrastructure for planting soybeans and eucalyptus (Gallazzi 2016; Silva 2016). Despite legislative tools to control deforestation (e.g. permanent preservation areas, legal reserves, and the Rural Environmental Register or CAR – Cadastro Ambiental Rural in Portuguese), and promotion of zero deforestation, land-grabbing continues in Amapá and other parts of the Amazon, contributing to on-going deforestation and conflicts (Benatti et al. 2006; Hill 2016; Oliveira 2013; Silva 2014; Tinoco and Sá 2016). This situation may be aggravated by the passing of Federal Lands to the state of Amapá, which occurred on 15th April 2016 (see decree in Brazil 2016), though land grabbing, land conflicts and the expulsion of local farmers have been on-going in the state since 2002 (Silva 2014).

The Cerrado of Amapá and other Amazonian savannas are further threatened by un-controlled burning over large areas that occurs as a result of poor fire management practices in areas where fire is used to clear areas for plantation and for livestock production (see Figure 2 E; Barbosa et al. 2007). Indeed, thousands of fire outbreaks have devastated the Cerrado of Amapá each year (Figure 4), mainly in the dry season (Figure 5). The number of “hot pixels”, or 1-km2 areas on a MODIS satellite image that contain one or more fires, has been on the increase since 2007 with dramatic increases in more recent years, with the number more than doubling between 2014 and 2015, and remaining very high in 2016 (Figure 4). In general, the number of fire outbreaks is higher in municipalities with a greater area of savanna habitats, including Tartarugalzinho and Macapá, where the highest numbers of fires occur and which are also the two municipalities with the largest areas of savanna habitats (Figure 4). Obvious exceptions to this pattern are Ferreira Gomes and Porto Grande, which is probably a reflection of the replacement of much of the savanna habitats in these municipalities with plantations of eucalyptus and acacia (see Figures 1 and 4), where fires are controlled by the companies that administer these plantations. While fire in Amazonian savannas has been present since pre-Columbian times, as indicated by charcoal in the soil (e.g. Turcios et al. 2016), these clear increases in recent years could be driven by climatic influences or by the expansion of commercial agriculture in some municipalities. Indeed, expansion of agriculture and livestock production across the state is likely to aggravate this threat, and in turn lead to a loss of biodiversity from the Cerrado of Amapá. The presence of roads, and consequent ignition sources, dramatically increases the frequency of fires in Amazonian savannas (Barbosa and Fearnside 2005b) and the Cerrado of Amapá contains more than half of the inter-city highways in the state (Figure 3).

The Cerrado of Amapá, other Amazonian savannas and forest areas that are still well-preserved in the states of Amapá and Roraima, and to the north of the Amazon River in the state of Pará, also face increased threats from the potential completion of the BR-210 Highway. The BR-210, if completed, would link Boa Vista in the state of Roraima with Macapá in the state of Amapá, crossing the state of Pará (G1 - GLOBO 2016). The stretch of the BR-210 that has already been constructed in Roraima has led to the loss of large areas of forest along the highway (Barni et al. 2015), and in Amapá, practically all the deforestation that has occurred in recent years has occurred immediately adjacent to highways (SEMA-AP 2014). This construction, and the subsequent advance of illegal mining, land occupation and conflicts led to the organisation and ultimate recognition of the land rights of the Waiãpi indigenous people in 1996 (Gallois 1998). However, if completed, the planned highway would cross well-preserved areas and pass through Indigenous Lands, including those of the Waiãpi, and other protected areas. The threat to these areas would increase even further should legislation currently awaiting approval in the Brazilian National Congress be passed, thereby authorising mining within Indigenous Lands, and transferring the power to create new protected areas and Indigenous Lands to the legislative branch, where representatives of large landholders are a dominant influence (see Fearnside 2016).

Total area and area protected of the four savanna types, and area of exotic plantations. Total area and area protected in each of three protection categories, of each of the four main vegetation types in the Cerrado of Amapá, and the total recorded area of plantations of exotic woody species. All values were calculated in ArcGIS v10.4.1 (ESRI 2011) using the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics’ vegetation cover map for the Amazon (IBGE 2004a), and the shapefiles of Conservation Units and Indigenous Lands available from the Amapá State Environmental Secretariat (SEMA-AP 2016) and the World Database on Protected Areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2016).

Vegetation type Total area (km2) Strictly Protected (IUCN I-IV) (km2) Indigenous Lands (km2) Multiple Use (IUCN V-VI) (km2) Total area protected (km2)
Park Savanna 6048.76 40.241,2 27.033 414.54,5,6 481.77 (8%)
Grass Savanna 930.22 11.095 11.09 (1.19%)
Woodland Savanna 835.36 247.195 247.19 (29.6%)
Shrub Savanna 549.6 177.645,6 177.64 (32.32%)
Plantations 1657.46 NA
TOTAL 10,021.4 40.24 (0.4%) 27.03 (0.27%) 850.42 (8.49%) 917.69 (9.16%)
Figure 4.

Fire in the Cerrado of Amapá, 2007 – 2016. Total number of hot pixels between 2007 and 2016, and total area of savanna habitats per municipality, in order of total number of outbreaks between 2007 and 2016. The hot pixels were quantified from shapefiles of the occurrence of burns obtained from the databases of the Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) (https://prodwww-queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/bdqueimadas/). Based on these shapefiles, and using ArcGIS v10.4.1 (ESRI 2011) the total number of hot pixels per year and per month within the Cerrado of Amapá were quantified in accordance with the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics vegetation cover map for the Amazon (IBGE 2004a) and overlaid with the municipality boundaries available from the Amapá State Environmental Secretariat (SEMA-AP 2016). The area of savanna habitats was quantified as described in the legend of Figure 1.

Figure 5.

Total fires per month in the Cerrado of Amapá, 2007 – 2016. Total number of hot pixels in the Cerrado of Amapá between 2007 and 2016 in the rainy and dry seasons (summed across all municipalities and all years). The hot pixels were quantified as described in the legend of Figure 4. The classification of months in to the rainy and dry seasons followed Tavares (2014).

The way forward

The current network of protected areas is insufficient to ensure the protection of the Cerrado of Amapá in the face of looming threats from large-scale planting of soybeans, plantation trees and other crops. Plans are already underway for zoning of the area for these economic activities (GEA et al. 2016), and we assert that this process must be open, equitable and participatory, involving local researchers, conservationists and crucially the rural, traditional and indigenous populations living in and around the Cerrado of Amapá, following the rules established in Brazilian Federal law concerning Ecological-Economic Zoning (Brazil 2002). To allow for the identification of representative areas for the protection of the region’s biodiversity, investment of resources in research is now urgently required. Indeed, while many parts of the Cerrado of Amapá remain under-sampled, it is already clear that much heterogeneity exists in the flora and fauna of these savannas. As such, implementation of new protected areas within the Cerrado of Amapá must now be guaranteed, and these PAs must be positioned to be representative of the savanna ecosystem, taking in to account this heterogeneity and the social value of the different areas (Fearnside 2015; Fearnside and Ferraz 1995). Without such a process, there is a risk of losing a unique and important biodiversity before it has been properly documented.

Other priorities for sustainable development of the Cerrado of Amapá should include implementation of sustainable management practices, including appropriate management of the fire regime (Borges et al. 2016), soil conservation measures (Hudson 1995) and reduced pesticide and herbicide usage (Grovermann et al. 2017). Mechanisms should also be put in place to protect the many freshwater springs that originate in, or feed into, the Cerrado of Amapá. Crucially, proper monitoring will be required to evaluate the impacts of all activities in these unique savanna habitats, and particularly to ensure that negative biodiversity and social impacts of large-scale intensive agriculture and plantations are minimised. Indeed, sustainable development in the region will be impossible without a planning approach that generates income to sustain local rural populations (Dias et al. 2016). Mechanisms that support and favour the continued development of markets and incentives for small-scale producers will be crucial for the sustainable development of the state of Amapá. At a broader scale, we further highlight the need to recognise the Amazonian savannas as a distinct and important habitat type, different from others large areas of savannas (i.e. Brazilian Cerrado), which would allow specific conservation initiatives to be implemented as part of a broader conservation policy. For example, Brazil’s soya moratorium, which requires that soybeans not be produced in Amazonian forest areas deforested after July 2006 (Gibbs et al. 2015), could and should now be extended to require the same of soybeans produced in areas of Amazonian savanna (see Carvalho and Mustin 2017).

Productivity could be increased through integrated crop-livestock-forest systems (ICLFS) in areas already planted with eucalyptus. ICLFS contribute to soil conservation, using the soil more intensively but in concert with ecological management tools such as direct planting (Moraes et al. 2014). This type of approach to increase productivity has been promoted as a form land sparing to prevent the loss of stored carbon under the assumption that new areas will not be opened for agriculture (Pacheco et al. 2013). Brazil’s voluntary pledges at the 2005 15th Conference of the Parties of the climate convention (COP-15) include the use of technologies such as ICLFS to help cut carbon emissions (Kichel et al. 2014). Brazil’s Low-Carbon Agriculture (ABC) programme was launched in 2010 (Brazil 2010), and this programme further incentivizes implementation of ICLFS through provision of low-interest loans, although uptake has been slow (Angelo 2012; Strassburg et al. 2014). However, land sparing is a difficult conservation strategy because financial success of more productive commercial agriculture leads to more, rather than less, clearing for agricultural expansion (e.g. Fearnside 1987; 2002; Kaimowitz and Angelsen 2008).

Avoiding the conversion of Amazonian savannas to agriculture would contribute to maintaining climatic stability at local and regional scales (Butt et al. 2011) and benefit biodiversity conservation. The roots of savanna vegetation store a significant quantity of below-ground carbon (Barbosa et al. 2012). Without an effective programme to avoid savanna conversion, the quantity of carbon released by the savannas of Amapá could reach 8.15 t ha-1 [estimate based on data from arboreal vegetation near Macapá collated by JJT and estimates available for Roraima according to Barbosa and Fearnside (2005a) and Barbosa et al. (2012)]. This release would represent a loss of US$ 27 ha-1, since each ton of carbon could be sold for US$ 3.30 in the Voluntary Carbon Market (Hamrick and Goldstein 2016).

Here we draw attention to the Cerrado of Amapá, a biodiverse and highly threatened ecosystem that has to date received very little attention and almost no protection, compared with forested parts of the state. We have shown that there is an urgent need to implement protected areas, with local communities, scientists, conservationists and policy-makers working together to construct a sustainable and equitable plan for their management. By doing so, we can ensure the sustainable development of this isolated state in the far north of Brazil, providing solutions that result in positive social, economic and biodiversity outcomes– the so-called ‘triple bottom line’ for conservation.

Acknowledgements

K.M. is supported by a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship. WDC is supported by a post-doctoral scholarship CAPES - PNPD. P.M.F. thanks CNPq (305880/2007-1; 304020/2010-9; 573810/2008-7; 575853/2008-5), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (FAPEAM: 708565), Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA: PRJ15.125) and the Brazilian Research Network on Climate Change (Rede Clima). J.M.C.S. received support from University of Miami and the Swift Action Fund. UNIFAP provided financial and logistical support for biomass estimation through PAPESQ/UNIFAP (Nº 015/2015).

References

  • Aguiar A, Barbosa RI, Barbosa JBF, Mourão M (2014) Invasion of Acacia mangium in Amazonian savannas following planting for forestry. Plant Ecology & Diversity 7: 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2013.771714
  • Avila-Pires TC (1995) Lizards of brazilian amazonia (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoologische verhandelingen 299: 1–706.
  • Azevedo LG (1967) Tipos eco-fisionômicos de vegetação do Território Federal do Amapá. Revista Brasileira de Geografia 29: 25–51.
  • Barbosa JA (2013) O agronegócio da soja e o direito fundamental de acesso à propriedade dos povos tradicionais em Santarém-Pará. Masters’ thesis: Universidade Federal do Pará.
  • Barbosa LMC, Souto RNP (2011) Aspectos ecológicos de Anopheles (Nyssorhyncus) darlingi Root 1926 e Anopheles (Nyssorhyncus) marajoara Galvão e Damasceno 1942 (Diptera: Culicidae) nos bairros Marabaixo I e Zerão, Macapá, Amapá, Brasil. Biota Amazônia 1: 19–25.
  • Barbosa RI, Campos C, Pinto F, Fearnside PM (2007) The “Lavrados” of Roraima: biodiversity and conservation of Brazil’s Amazonian Savannas. Functional Ecosystems and Communities 1: 29–41. http://repositorio.inpa.gov.br/handle/123/5972
  • Barbosa RI, Fearnside PM (2005a) Above-ground biomass and the fate of carbon after burning in the savannas of Roraima, Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management 216: 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.042
  • Barbosa RI, Santos JRS, Cunha MS, Pimentel TP, Fearnside PM (2012) Root biomass, root: shoot ratio and belowground carbon stocks in the open savannahs of Roraima, Brazilian Amazonia. Australian Journal of Botany 60: 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT11312
  • Barni PE, Fearnside PM, Graça PMdLA (2015) Simulating Deforestation and carbon loss in Amazonia: Impacts in Brazil’s Roraima state from reconstructing highway BR-319 (Manaus-Porto Velho). Environmental Management 55: 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0408-6
  • Boss RL (2009) Variações espaciais e temporais em comunidades de aves de uma savana amazônica do estado do Amapá. Masters’ Thesis, Universidade Federal do Amapá, Macapá.
  • Butt N, Oliveira PA, Costa MH (2011) Evidence that deforestation affects the onset of the rainy season in Rondonia, Brazil. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 116: D11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015174
  • Cantuáriua MF (2012) Ecologia de Culicideos (Diptera: Culididae) da Área de Proteção Ambiental do Rio Curiaú, Macapá, Amapá. Masters’ thesis: Universidade Federal do Amapá.
  • Castro IJ (2009) Assembléia de morcegos (Mammalia: Chiroptera) da Área de Proteção Ambiental do Rio Curiaú, Amapá. Masters’ thesis, Macapá-AP: Universidade Federal do Amapá.
  • Costa-Campos CE (2015) Ecologia de comunidades e comportamento reprodutivo de anfíbios anuros em savana amazônica. PhD thesis, Natal-BR: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte.
  • Costa-Campos CE, Freire EMX (2015) Distribution extension and geographic distribution map of Elachistocleis helianneae (Anura: Microhylidae): new record for state of Amapá, Eastern Amazon. Check List 11: 1747. https://doi.org/10.15560/11.5.1747
  • Costa-Neto SV (2014) Fitofisionomia e florística de savanas do Amapá. PhD thesis, Belém: Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia.
  • Costa-Neto SV, Miranda I, Rocha AES (2017) Flora das savanas do estado do Amapá. In: Bastos A, Miranda-Júnior J, Silva R (Eds) Conhecimento e manejo sustentável da biodiversidade amapaense. Blucher, São Paulo, 65–94. https://doi.org/10.5151/9788580392197-04
  • Costa WJ, De Luca AC (2010) Rivulus schuncki, a new species of the killifish subgenus Melanorivulus, from eastern Brazilian Amazon (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 21: 289.
  • De Luca AC, Develey PF, Bencke GA, Goerck JM (2009) Áreas importantes para a conservação das aves no Brasil. Parte II – Amazônia, Cerrado e Pantanal. SAVE Brasil, São Paulo.
  • Deus EG, Pinheiro LS, Lima CR, Sousa MSM, Guimarães JA, Strikis PC, Adaime R (2013) Wild hosts of frugivorous dipterans (Tephritidae and Lonchaeidae) and associated parasitoids in the Brazilian Amazon. Florida Entomologist 96: 1621–1625. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.096.0453
  • Dias TCAC, Cunha AC, Silva JMC (2016) Return on investment of the ecological infrastructure in a new forest frontier in Brazilian Amazonia. Biological Conservation 194: 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.016
  • ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
  • Euler A (2016) Floresta Estadual do Amapá: Uma unidade de conservação sob ameaça. In: Lomba R, Rangel K, Silva M, Silva G (Eds) Conflito, territorialidade e desenvolvimento: algumas reflexões sobre o campo amapaense. UNIFAP, Macapá, Brazil, 173–192.
  • Fearnside PM (2002) Can pasture intensification discourage deforestation in the Amazon and Pantanal regions of Brazil? In: Wood C, Porro R (Eds) Deforestation and land use in the Amazon. University Press of Florida,, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 299–314.
  • Fearnside PM (2006) O cultivo da soja como ameaça para o meio ambiente na Amazônia Brasileira. In: Forline L, Murrieta R, Vieira I (Eds) Amazônia além dos 500 anos. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Brazil, 281–324.
  • Fearnside PM (2015) Pesquisa sobre conservação na Amazônia brasileira e a sua contribuição para a manutenção da biodiversidade e uso sustentável das florestas tropicais. In: Vieira I, Jardim M, Rocha E (Eds) Amazônia em Tempo: Estudos Climáticos e Socioambientais. Universidade Federal do Pará, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi and Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Belém, Brazil, 21–49.
  • França FGR, Mesquita DO, Colli GR (2006) A checklist of snakes from Amazonian savannas in Brazil, housed in the Coleção Herpetológica da Universidade de Brasília, with new distribution records. Occasional Papers of the Oklahoma Museum of Natural History 17: 1–13.
  • Galardo AKR, Galardo CD, Santana AA, Mendes JCC, Souza FRA, Duarte JP, Saraiva JF, Pinna LCL, Carvalho RW, Correa APSA, Lima ACSF (2013) Primeira ocorrência de Lutzomyia (Lutzomyia) longipalpis Lutz & Neiva, 1912 (Diptera: Psychodidae: Phlebotominae) no Estado do Amapá, Brasil. Biota Amazônia (Biote Amazonie, Biota Amazonia, Amazonian Biota) 3: 179–183.
  • Gallazzi S (2016) Ilegalidades nas terras do Amapá. In: Lomba R, Rangel K, Silva M, Silva G (Eds) Conflito, territorialidade e desenvolvimento: Algumas reflexões sobre o campo amapaense. UNIFAP, Macapá, Brazil, 194–213.
  • Gallois DT (1998) Brazil: the case of the Waiãpi. In: Gray A, Paradella A, Newing H (Eds) From principle to practice: indigenous peoples and biodiversity conservation in Latin America. IWGIA, Forest People Programme & AIDESEP, Copenhagen, 167–185.
  • GEA, SETEC, IEPA, NOT, EMBRAPA (2016) Zoneamento Socioambiental do Cerrado do Estado do Amapá: Relatório técnico sintetizado. IEPA, Macapá.
  • Gibbs HK, Rausch L, Munger J, Schelly I, Morton DC, Noojipady P, Soares-Filho B, Barreto P, Micol L, Walker NF (2015) Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347: 377–378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0181
  • Grovermann C, Schreinemachers P, Riwthong S, Berger T (2017) ‘Smart’ policies to reduce pesticide use and avoid income trade-offs: An agent-based model applied to Thai agriculture. Ecological Economics 132: 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.031
  • Hamada N, Ale-Rocha R, Luz SLB (2003) Description of Simulium damascenoi (Diptera: Simuliidae) male and the black-fly species from the State of Amapá, Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 98: 353–360.
  • Hamrick K, Goldstein A (2016) Raising ambition: State of the voluntary carbon markets 2016. Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace Washington, DC.
  • Hudson N (1995) Soil conservation. Iowa State University Press, Ames, 391 pp.
  • Jesus-Barros CR, Adaime R, Oliveira MN, Silva WR, Costa-Neto SV, Souza-Filho MF (2012) Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) species, their hosts and parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in five municipalities of the state of Amapá, Brazil. Florida Entomologist 95: 694–705. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.095.0320
  • Kichel A, Bungenstab DJ, Zimmer AH, Soares CO, Almeida RG (2014) Crop-Livestock-Forestry integration and the progress of the Brazilian agriculture. In: Bungenstab DJ, Almeida RG (Eds) Integrated Crop-Livestock-Forestry systems: a Brazilian experience for sustainable farming. Embrapa, Brasília, DF, 19–26
  • Kohler F, Brondizio ES (2017) Considering the needs of indigenous and local populations in conservation programs. Conservation Biology 31: 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12843
  • Melo GAR (2006) Apidae (Subtribos Meliponina e Euglossina) da região dos lagos do Amapá. In: Costa-Neto SV (Ed.) Inventário Biológico das Áreas do Sucuriju e Região dos Lagos, no Amapá: Relatório Final PROBIO. IEPA, Macapá-BR, 123–130
  • Mendes-Júnior RNG (2013) Composição e estrutura das assembleias de peixes de pequenos riachos afluentes do lago Ajuruxi, Mazagão-AP. Masters’ Thesis, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Manaus.
  • Mesquita D (2005) Estrutura de taxocenoses de lagartos em áreas de Cerrado e de Savanas Amazônicas do Brasil. PhD Thesis, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.
  • Mochiutti S, Meirelles PRL (1994) Utilização das pastagens nativas do Amapá. In: Puignav JP (Ed.) Utilización y manejo de pastizales. IICA, Montevideo, 127–133.
  • Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, Schlesinger P, Lefebvre P, Alencar A, Prinz E, Fiske G, Rolla A (2006) Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands. Conservation Biology 20: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x
  • Nogueira C, Buckup PA, Menezes NA, Oyakawa OT, Kasecker TP, Ramos Neto MB, da Silva JMC (2010) Restricted-Range Fishes and the Conservation of Brazilian Freshwaters. PLOS ONE 5: e11390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011390
  • Nolte C, Agrawal A, Silvius KM, Soares-Filho BS (2013) Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 4956–4961. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214786110
  • Nunes A (2001) Gradientes estruturais dos habitats em savanas amazônicas: implicações sobre a distribuição e ocorrência das espécies de pequenos mamíferos (Rodentia, Didelphimorphia). PhD thesis, Rio de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.
  • Oliveira CP (2009) O método de avaliação por múltiplos critérios como apoio ao planejamento ambiental: aplicação experimental no cerrado central do Amapá, Brasil. Masters’ Thesis, Universidade Federal do Amapá, Macapá.
  • Pacheco AR, Chaves R, Nicoli CML (2013) Integration of crops, livestock, and forestry: a system of production for the Brazilian Cerrados. In: Hershey C, Neate P (Eds) Eco-efficiency: from vision to reality. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia, 1–11.
  • Pfaff A, Robalino J, Lima E, Sandoval C, Herrera LD (2014) Governance, location and avoided deforestation from protected areas: greater restrictions can have lower impact, due to differences in location. World Development 55: 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.011
  • Rocha AES, Miranda IS, Costa-Neto SV (2014) Composição florística e chave de identificação das Poaceae ocorrentes nas savanas costeiras amazônicas, Brasil. Acta Amazonica 44: 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4392201305173
  • Sankaran M, Hanan NP, Scholes RJ, Ratnam J, Augustine DJ, Cade BS, Gignoux J, Higgins SI, Le Roux X, Ludwig F (2005) Determinants of woody cover in African savannas. Nature 438: 846–849. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04070
  • Sano EE, Corrêa AA, Amutares IS, Freitas DM, Lisboa JA, Cho DF (2017) Desmatamento em áreas de cobertura não-florestais do bioma Amazônia: resultados preliminares baseados em imagens do satélite Landsat-8 OLI de 2013. In: INPE (Ed.) XVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, Santos, SP, 3369–3376. Available at: http://www.dsr.inpe.br/sbsr2017
  • Schunck F, De Luca AC, Piacentini VQ, Rego MA, Renno B, Correa AH (2011) Avifauna of two localities in the south of Amapá, Brazil, with comments on the distribution and taxonomy of some species. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia-Brazilian Journal of Ornithology 19: 16
  • SEMA-AP (2014) Boletim do desmatamento no estado do Amapá – Biênio 2011/2012. Governo do Estado do Amapá, Macapá.
  • Silva CR, Martins ACM, Castro IJ, Bernard E, Cardoso EM, Santos DL, Gregorin R, Rossi RV, Percequillo AR, Cruz KC (2013) Mammals of Amapá State, Eastern Brazilian Amazonia: a revised taxonomic list with comments on species distributions. Mammalia 77: 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2012-0121
  • Silva E (2016) A última fronteira da soja. Revista Globo Rural, 28–33.
  • Silva J (2014) Conflitos pela terra no Amapá entre 2002 a 2011: o mito da paz no campo e a violência institucionalizada. In: Lomba R, Rangel K, Silva G, Silva M (Eds) Conflito, territorialidade e desenvolvimento: algumas reflexões sobre o campo amapaense. Editora UFGD, Dourados, Brazil, 113–140.
  • Silva JMC, Oren DC, Roma JC, Henriques LMP (1997) Composition and distribution patterns of the avifauna of an Amazonian upland savanna, Amapá, Brazil. Ornithological Monographs 48: 743–762. https://doi.org/10.2307/40157565
  • Silva R, Jesus C, Silva W, Costa N (2006) Ocorrência de gafanhotos em áreas de cerrados de Mazagão, Amapá. Comunicado Técnico n°120 de EMBRAPA Amapá. Macapá.
  • Silveira OT (2003) Fauna de insetos das ressacas das bacias do Igarapé da Fortaleza e do Rio Curiaú. In: Takiyama LR, Silva AQ (Eds) Diagnóstico das ressacas do Estado do Amapá: bacias do Igarapé da Fortaleza e Rio Curiaú. CPAQ/IEPA, DGEO/SEMA, Macapá-BR, 73–80.
  • Silveira OT (2006) Vespidae da região dos Lagos do Amapá. In: Costa-Neto SV (Ed.) Inventário Biológico das Áreas do Sucuriju e Região dos Lagos, no Amapá: Relatório Final PROBIO. IEPA, Macapá, 114–122.
  • Strassburg BBN, Latawiec AE, Barioni LG, Nobre CA, Silva VP, Valentim JF, Vianna M, Assad ED (2014) When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 28: 84–97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.001
  • Tavares JPN (2014) Características da climatologia de Macapá-AP. Caminhos de Geografia 15: 138–151
  • Temponi L, Coelho M, Mayo S (2009) Araceae. Plantas raras do Brasil Conservação Internacional, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Belo Horizonte, Feira de Santana. 67–70.
  • Turcios MM, Jaramillo M, Vale JF, Fearnside PM, Barbosa RI (2016) Soil charcoal as long‐term pyrogenic carbon storage in Amazonian seasonal forests. Global change biology 22: 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13049
  • Veiga LM, Kierulff C, Oliveira MM (2008) Alouatta belzebul. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008. 2016
  • Voss RS (2015) Tribe Sigmdontini Wagner, 1843. In: Patton J, Pardiñas U, D’Elía G (Eds) Mammals of South America: Rodents. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2932–3054.
  • Zarske A, Géry J (1998) Hyphessobrycon amapaensis spec. nov., eine neue und mutmaßliche Stellvertreterart von Hyphessobrycon heterorhabdus (Ulrey, 1894) aus dem Bundesstaat Amapa in Brasilien. Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde 50: 19–26.