Anthropogenic biomes (anthromes)

In the case of tools used to support territorial planning, discussed above, anthropogenic biomes, also called anthromes in the literature, stand out for associating environmental characteristics with the level of anthropization of the analyzed areas. They are framed within the investigations carried out by Human Ecology, presenting themselves as a socioecological model for environmental studies and models for the aforementioned support. (DANDOIS, OLANO & ELLIS, 2015; ELLIS, 2015; MAGLIOCCA et al., 2015; BUSCHBACHER, 2014; ELLIS, 2014; LÓPEZ-SANTIAGO, 2014; ELLIS, ANTILL & KREFT, 2012).

Figure 1: Framing of Antromas in Territorial Ordering.

Source: the author (2020).

Anthromes are already applied to ecosystem studies in North American, European and Asian countries. The definition and characterization of these environmental sectors help to understand the environmental dynamics, especially with regard to the effluxes and inflows produced in an anthrome and directed to others. This knowledge enables a more complex understanding of the areas, making territorial planning and ordering measures more assertive when compared to others that isolate related information (DANDOIS et al., 2017; MAGLIOCCA et al., 2015; MAGLIOCCA, BROWN & ELLIS, 2014; DANDOIS & ELLIS, 2013; ELLIS, 2013; PROSSER et al., 2011; JIAO et al., 2010; JIAO et al., 2010; RUDDIMAN & ELLIS, 2009; WU et al., 2009).

According to Ellis and Ramankutty (2008), anthromes are subdivisions of terrestrial biomes based on the interpolation between man and environment. This delimitation of areas creates its own environmental gradient, providing indications for ecosystemic and socioecological studies. The sectors characterized by anthrome studies are: native areas, forests, livestock areas, arable areas, periphery and urban center (ELLIS, 2015; ELLIS, 2014; ELLIS, 2013).

Figure 2: Process for definition and characterization of antromas.

Source: image extracted from Ellis and Ramankutty (2008), free translation.

Entering the characteristics of anthropogenic biomes, by urban center we mean the area with the highest concentration of people (above 100 people per km2) and the greatest evidence of built-up areas. In this sense, it is observed that, in terms of effluxes, there is a higher rate of emission of carbon dioxide and radioactive nitrogen, both of which are associated with human presence and industrial production. In addition, it focuses on net primary production (NPP), which has a significant value; PPL describes the biomass available for consumption, resulting from gross primary production minus the respiratory rate of autotrophic organisms. In this way, the levels of PPL reflect the availability of inputs for carrying out photosynthesis, such as, for example, high levels of carbon dioxide. On the other hand, it is in this antrome where the lowest native biodiversity is found, as the impact of human intervention in the natural environment is significant there. (RICKLEFS & RELYEA, 2016; ELLIS, 2014; ELLIS et al., 2013; ELLIS, 2013; ELLIS & RAMANKUTTY, 2008).

At the opposite end of the gradient is the native forest, identified by the absence of human presence. It is observed that in these areas there is no land use described, as the only use is the maintenance of flora and fauna. In addition, a representative level of radioactive nitrogen is not perceived, since its presence is directly associated with agricultural, livestock and industrial production. On the other hand, these areas have the greatest biodiversity, varying the soil cover between arboreal, herbaceous and low or bare, paying attention to the biogeographical domains described in the literature. In addition, it is seen that carbon emissions are negative, since everything that is produced is consumed by autotrophic organisms through the metabolic pathways of photosynthesis (RICKLEFS & RELYEA, 2016; ELLIS, 2015; ELLIS, 2013; ELLIS & RAMANKUTTY, 2008).

In the conceptual model of anthropogenic biomes it is still possible to verify the characteristics of peripheral areas. The population density is in the range of 10-100 people per km2, reflecting significant levels of carbon dioxide and radioactive nitrogen emissions. The estimated NPP is described with a value similar to that of urban centers, while biodiversity is shown to be significantly introduced (planted) and mostly herbaceous. (RICKLEFS & RELYEA, 2016; ELLIS, 2014; ELLIS et al., 2013; ELLIS & RAMANKUTTY, 2008).

Additionally, arable areas and livestock areas are demarcated by lower rates of radioactive nitrogen and carbon emissions, when compared to the urban center and periphery. In these antromes, there is little human presence, less than 1 individual per km2. Biodiversity tends to increase, however there is little native forest, characterized by species introduced for cultivation and food (RICKLEFS & RELYEA, 2016; ELLIS, 2014; ELLIS, 2013; ELLIS & RAMANKUTTY, 2008).

Finally, forests are areas where native biodiversity mixes with introduced one. It is also evident that the rates of radioactive nitrogen are significantly low, while carbon emissions become negative values, resuming what was presented earlier about the photosynthetic process. In this anthrome there is little anthropic interference, with a population density of less than 1 individual per km2, and the use of the soil is intended for the maintenance of the forest (RICKLEFS & RELYEA, 2016; ELLIS, 2015; ELLIS et al., 2013; ELLIS & RAMANKUTTY, 2008).

Despite all the characteristics listed by the authors for each anthrome, only 2 aspects are extremely relevant to carry out this delimitation. According to Ellis and Ramankutty (2008), population density and land use and cover are the characteristics applicable to the definition of anthromes. These data can be produced through field studies or by capturing geographic and spatial information in databases (CHUAI & FENG, 2019; ELLIS, 2015; ELLIS, 2014; ELLIS, 2011).

This information is transformed into numerical data, which is applied to the correlation analysis (cluster analysis). This analytical tool looks for similarities and dissimilarities between the data, creating groupings through algorithms, which are used in mapping software and consume in the definition of anthropogenic biomes. The following figure summarizes the process for defining the anthromes (SANTOS & PINTO, 2018; COSTA, 2017; ELLIS, 2015; FREIRE & CASTRO, 2014; FILHO & JÚNIOR, 2009).

After defining the anthromes, additional information can be applied to characterize these spaces, for example: carbon and radioactive nitrogen emissions, net primary productivity and biodiversity. As well as the input data, this information is captured in databases or produced in the field. These increments provide a more complex perception of each anthropogenic biome and can serve as indicators within areas, contributing to territorial ordering, as explained above. (WANG et al., 2019; WANG, HAN & VRIES, 2019; GAO et al., 2018; BRIANT et al., 2017; MAGLIOCCA et al., 2015; IPCC, 2014; JIAO et al., 2010).

Figure 3: Process for definition and characterization of antromas.

Source: the author (2020).

Bibliographic references

• Briant, R. et al. Aerosol–radiation interaction modelling using online coupling between the WRF 3.7.1 meteorological model and the CHIMERE 2016 chemistry-transport model, through the OASIS3-MCT coupler. Geosci. Model Dev., n. 10, v. 2, p. 927-944, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-927-2017.

• Buschbacher, R. A teoria da resiliência e os sistemas socioecológicos: como se preparar para um futuro imprevisível? IPEA - boletim regional, urbano e ambiental, n. 9, v. 14, 2014. DOI: http://repositorio.ipea.gov.br/handle/11058/4678.

• Chuai, X., & Feng, J. High resolution carbon emissions simulation and spatial heterogeneity analysis based on big data in Nanjing City, China. Science of The Total Environment, v. 686, p. 828-837, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.138.

• Costa, G. G. O. Análise de Correlação Canônica das Variáveis Ambientais Internas e Externas que Influenciam na Elaboração do Orçamento das Empresas. Caderno de Administração - Revista da Faculdade de Administração da FEA, n. 11, v. 1, 2017.

• Dandois, J. P. et al. What is the point? Evaluating the structure, color, and semantic traits of computer vision point clouds of vegetation. Remote Sensing, n. 9, v. 4, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9040355.

• Dandois, J. P., Olano, M., & Ellis, E. C. Optimal altitude, overlap, and weather conditions for computer vision UAV estimates of forest structure. Remote Sensing, v. 7, n. 10, p. 13895-13920, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71013895.

• Ellis, E. C. Sustaining biodiversity and people in the world's anthropogenic biomes. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, v. 5, n. 3-4, p. 368-372, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.002.

• Ellis, E. C. Anthropogenic Taxonomies – A Taxonomy of the Human Biosphere. In: C. Reed & N.-M. Lister (Eds.), Projective Ecologies. Actar, p. 168-182, 2014. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4524.6240.

• Ellis, E. C. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecological Monographs, v. 85, n. 3, p. 287-331, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2274.1.

• Ellis, E. C., Antill, E. C., & Kreft, H. All is not loss: plant biodiversity in the Anthropocene. PloS one, v. 7, n. 1, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030535.

• Ellis, E. C., & Ramankutty, N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 6, n. 8, p. 439-447, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/070062.

• Figueiredo Filho, D. B., & Silva Junior, J. A. Desvendando os Mistérios do Coeficiente de Correlação de Pearson (r). Revista Política Hoje, v. 18, n. 1, p. 115-146, 2009.

• Freire, A. P., & Castro, E. Análise da Correlação do uso e Ocupação do Solo e da Qualidade da Água. Revista Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos, v. 19, n. 1, p. 41-49, 2014.

• Gao, M. et al. Air quality and climate change, Topic 3 of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for Asia Phase III (MICS-Asia III) – Part 2: aerosol radiative effects and aerosol feedbacks. V. 18, n. 2, p. 4859–4884, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-4859-2018.

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for policymakers. In: O. EDENHOFER et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change – contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, p. 4-30, 2014.

• Jia-Guo et al. Land use and soil organic carbon in China's village landscapes. Pedosphere, v. 20, n. 1, p. 1-14, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60277-0.

• Jiao, J. et al. Distributions of soil phosphorus in China’s densely populated village landscapes. Journal of Soils and Sediments, v. 10, n. 3, p. 461-472, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-009-0135-4.

• López-Santiago, C. et al. Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society, v. 19, n. 2, 16p., 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/www.jstor.org/stable/26269539.

• Magliocca, N. R., Brown, D. G., & Ellis, E. C. Cross-site comparison of land-use decision-making and its consequences across land systems with a generalized agent-based model. PLoS One, v. 9, n. 1, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086179.

• Magliocca, N. R. et al. Synthesis in land change science: methodological patterns, challenges, and guidelines. Regional environmental change, v. 15, n. 2, p. 211-226, 2015. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0626-8.

• Prosser, D. J. et al. Modelling the distribution of chickens, ducks, and geese in China. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, v. 141, n. 3-4, p. 381-389, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.04.002.

• Ricklefs, R. E., & Relyea, R. Economia da Natureza. Guanabara Koogan, 7ª ed., 2016.

• Ruddiman, W. F., & Ellis, E. C. Effect of per-capita land use changes on Holocene Forest clearance and CO2 emissions. Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 28, n. 27-28, p. 3011-3015, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.05.022.

• Santos, A. C. S. & Pinto, R. L. M. Aplicação da análise de correlação e regressão linear simples no setor sucroenergético brasileiro. Exacta, v. 16, n. 2, p. 155-167, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5585/exactaep.v16n2.7369.

• Wang, G., & Han, Q. Assessment of the relation between land use and carbon emission in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Journal of environmental management, v. 247, p. 413-424, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.064.

• Wu, J.-X. et al. Agricultural landscape change in China's Yangtze Delta, 1942–2002: A case study. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, v. 129, n. 4, p. 523-533, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.11.008.