| Literature DB >> 31553749 |
Raúl Abel Vaca1, Duncan John Golicher2, Rocío Rodiles-Hernández1, Miguel Ángel Castillo-Santiago3, Marylin Bejarano4, Darío Alejandro Navarrete-Gutiérrez3.
Abstract
Quantifying patterns of deforestation and linking these patterns to potentially influencing variables is a key component of modelling and projecting land use change. Statistical methods based on null hypothesis testing are only partially successful for interpreting deforestation in the context of the processes that have led to their formation. Simplifications of cause-consequence relationships that are difficult to support empirically may influence environment and development policies because they suggest simple solutions to complex problems. Deforestation is a complex process driven by multiple proximate and underlying factors and a range of scales. In this study we use a multivariate statistical analysis to provide contextual explanation for deforestation in the Usumacinta River Basin based on partial pattern matching. Our approach avoided testing trivial null hypotheses of lack of association and investigated the strength and form of the response to drivers. As not all factors involved in deforestation are easily mapped as GIS layers, analytical challenges arise due to lack of a one to one correspondence between mappable attributes and drivers. We avoided testing simple statistical hypotheses such as the detectability of a significant linear relationship between deforestation and proximity to roads or water. We developed a series of informative generalised additive models based on combinations of layers that corresponded to hypotheses regarding processes. The importance of the variables representing accessibility was emphasised by the analysis. We provide evidence that land tenure is a critical factor in shaping the decision to deforest and that direct beam insolation has an effect associated with fire frequency and intensity. The effect of winter insolation was found to have many applied implications for land management. The methodology was useful for interpreting the relative importance of sets of variables representing drivers of deforestation. It was an informative approach, thus allowing the construction of a comprehensive understanding of its causes.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31553749 PMCID: PMC6760785 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area.
Basin of the Usumacinta River in Mexico. The study area consists of the complete area of the Usumacinta River Basin located in Mexican territory. While significant portions of the basin are located in Guatemala, the Mexican portion (study area) includes a marked physiographic and environmental gradient that divides the region into upper, middle, and lower basins.
Layers used in the analysis.
Raster coverages representing drivers, and the layers and GRASS functions used in their calculation.
| Input layers | GRASS function | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Digital elevation model (INEGI 30m resolution) | r.slope.aspect | |
| Annual rainfall (derived from climatic stations, DEM, and universal kriging) | ||
| Road network (INEGI 1:5000) | r.buffer input = roads output = roadsbuffer | |
| Census data for the year 2010 (INEGI) | v.extract input = census2010 type = point output = cities where = "TotalPopulation>10000" | |
| Census data for the year 2010 (INEGI) | v.extract input = census2010 type = point output = towns where = "TotalPopulation>100" | |
| Census data for the year 2010 (INEGI) | v.surf.icw input = census2010 column = TotalPopulation output = PopDens cost_map = LandTenure | |
| Digital elevation model (INEGI 30m resolution) | r.topidx | |
| Digital elevation model (INEGI) | r.sun elevin = DEM aspin = Aspect aspect = 270 slopein = Slope slope = 0.0 lin = 3.0 alb = 0.2 lat = 16 beam_rad = Beam day = 1 step = 0.5 dist = 1.0 numpartitions = 1 | |
| Piezometric data | v.surf.idw input = PiezometricData column = PiezometricLevel output = Hydroperiod |
Results from generalised additive models.
Percentage of the deviance explained by models built using single variables separately and partial deviances in the presence of all competing variables. The last column shows the deviance explained by each univariate model expressed as a percentage of the total deviance explained by the most complex multivariate model.
| Region | Variable | Deviance | Partial deviance | Deviance proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper basin | Access100 | 10.3 | 10.2 | 41.0 |
| Access10000 | 4.8 | 1.2 | 19.1 | |
| Beam | 4.6 | 0.2 | 18.3 | |
| Slope | 10.3 | 3.8 | 41.0 | |
| PopDens | 3.9 | 2.4 | 15.5 | |
| TopIdx | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.8 | |
| Hydroperid | 2.0 | 0.2 | 8.0 | |
| Middle basin | Access100 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 53.9 |
| Access10000 | 3.7 | 0.2 | 41.6 | |
| Beam | 1.0 | 0.5 | 11.2 | |
| Slope | 0.8 | 0.1 | 8.9 | |
| PopDens | 0.6 | 1.1 | 6.7 | |
| TopIdx | 0.5 | 0.4 | 5.6 | |
| Hydroperid | 0.9 | 1.9 | 10.1 | |
| Lower basin | Access100 | 7.1 | 1.4 | 35.7 |
| Access10000 | 8.5 | 1.8 | 42.7 | |
| Beam | 11.8 | 3.9 | 59.3 | |
| Slope | 1.3 | 0.5 | 6.5 | |
| PopDens | 1.7 | 1.2 | 8.5 | |
| TopIdx | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.5 | |
| Hydroperid | 2.0 | 1.7 | 10.1 |
Results from generalised additive models.
GAM models including the most relevant variables as defined by partial deviance.
| Region | Smooth terms | edf | Ref.df | Chi.sq | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper basin | Access100 | 2.903 | 2.993 | 165.24 | < 2 x 10−16*** |
| Access10000 | 2.904 | 2.993 | 39.64 | 2.53 x 10−8*** | |
| Slope | 1.358 | 1.615 | 183.09 | < 2 x 10−16*** | |
| PopDens | 2.659 | 2.923 | 62.34 | 1.12 x 10−12*** | |
| Middle basin | Access100 | 2.752 | 2.958 | 93.97 | < 2 x 10−16*** |
| PopDens | 1.000 | 1.001 | 19.82 | 8.53 x 10−6*** | |
| Hydroperiod | 2.944 | 2.997 | 33.89 | 1.82 x 10−7*** | |
| Lower basin | Access100 | 1.811 | 2.222 | 32.73 | 3.57 x 10−7*** |
| Access10000 | 2.860 | 2.984 | 35.89 | 1.07 x 10−7*** | |
| Beam | 2.861 | 2.985 | 73.66 | 7.59 x 10−16*** | |
| PopDens | 1.840 | 2.250 | 27.81 | 1.81 x 10−6*** | |
| Hydroperiod | 2.076 | 2.434 | 36.95 | 5.15 x 10−8*** |
Fig 2Response of vegetation cover in the upper basin.
Response of vegetation cover in the upper basin to each term in a GAM model including local relative accessibility (Access100), accessibility to regional markets (Access10000), slope, and population density (PopDens). The response is on the scale of the link function. Bands show two standard errors around the response.
Fig 4Response of vegetation cover in the lower basin.
Response of vegetation cover in the lower basin to each term in a GAM model including local relative accessibility (Access100), accessibility to regional markets (Access10000), direct beam radiation (Beam), population density (PopDens), and hydroperiod. The response is on the scale of the link function. Bands show two standard errors around the response.
Fig 5Results from recursive partitioning models.
Recursive partitioning decision tree based on all predictor variables: a) upper basin; b) middle basin; and c) lower basin. The probability that a given pixel is forested can be found as a series of binary decisions. The values used are relative indices. Direct beam radiation remains an important factor in addition to slope per se as is accessibility.