Submitted:
09 May 2023
Posted:
09 May 2023
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Semi-automated forest disturbance detection from 2000 to 2021.
2.2.1. Generation of a baseline map
2.2.2. Post-classification change detection
2.3. Carbon density and tree species richness models
2.4. Statistical analysis
3. Results
3.1. Forest cover baseline and annual forest clearing dataset
3.2. Comparisons by geographical unit and time period
3.3. Emergent hotspot analysis
3.4. Comparison to carbon density and species diversity models
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
References
- Bebber, D.P.; Butt, N. Tropical protected areas reduced deforestation carbon emissions by one third from 2000–2012. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackman, A.; Pfaff, A.; Robalino, J. Paper park performance: Mexico's natural protected areas in the 1990s. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 31, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bray, D.B. , Ellis, E.A., Armijo-Canto, N., Beck, C.T. 2004. The institutional drivers of sustainable landscapes: a case study of the “Maya Zone” in Quintana Roo, Mexico. 3: Land Use Policy 21. [CrossRef]
- et al. 2001. Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity. Science 291: p. 125-128. [CrossRef]
- Coetzee, B.W.T.; Gaston, K.J.; Chown, S.L. Local Scale Comparisons of Biodiversity as a Test for Global Protected Area Ecological Performance: A Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE 2014, 9, e105824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.B.; Healey, S.P.; Yang, Z.; Stehman, S.V.; Brewer, C.K.; Brooks, E.B.; Gorelick, N.; Huang, C.; Hughes, M.J.; Kennedy, R.E.; et al. How Similar Are Forest Disturbance Maps Derived from Different Landsat Time Series Algorithms? Forests 2017, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Congalton, R.G. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1991, 37, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Gallegos, J.R.; Mas, J.-F.; Velázquez, A. Trends of tropical deforestation in Southeast Mexico. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2010, 31, 180–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, E.A.; Gomez, U.H.; Romero-Montero, J.A. Los procesos y causas del cambio en la cobertura forestal de la Península Yucatán, México. Ecosistemas 2017, 26, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESRI. 2023. Emerging Hot Spot analysis (Space Time Pattern Mining). ArcGIS Online Help. Available at: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/space-time-pattern-mining/emerginghotspots.
- Isbell, F.; Balvanera, P.; Mori, A.S.; He, J.; Bullock, J.M.; Regmi, G.R.; Seabloom, E.W.; Ferrier, S.; E Sala, O.; Guerrero-Ramírez, N.R.; et al. Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2022, 21, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, P.; Jakimow, B.; Hostert, P. Reconstructing long term annual deforestation dynamics in Pará and Mato Grosso using the Landsat archive. Remote. Sens. Environ. 2018, 216, 497–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamunyela, E.; Brandt, P.; Shirima, D.; Do, H.T.T.; Herold, M.; Roman-Cuesta, R.M. Space-time detection of deforestation, forest degradation and regeneration in montane forests of Eastern Tanzania. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation 2020, 88, 102063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernández-Stefanoni, José Luis, Miguel Ángel Castillo-Santiago, Juan Andres-Mauricio, Carlos A. Portillo-Quintero, Fernando Tun-Dzul, and Juan Manuel Dupuy. 2021. “Carbon Stocks, Species Diversity and Their Spatial Relationships in the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico” Remote Sensing 13, no. 16: 3179.
- Krylov, A.; Steininger, M.K.; Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Stehman, S.V.; Gost, A.; Noel, J.; Ramirez, Y.T.; Tyukavina, A.; Di Bella, C.M.; et al. Contrasting tree-cover loss and subsequent land cover in two neotropical forest regions: sample-based assessment of the Mexican Yucatán and Argentine Chaco. J. Land Use Sci. 2018, 13, 549–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurance, W.F.; Useche, D.C.; Rendeiro, J.; Kalka, M.; Bradshaw, C.J.A.; Sloan, S.P.; Laurance, S.G.; Campbell, M.; Abernethy, K.; Alvarez, P.; et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 2012, 489, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawrence, T.J.; Morreale, S.J.; Stedman, R.C.; Louis, L.V. Linking changes in ejido land tenure to changes in landscape patterns over 30 years across Yucatán, México. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novacek, M.J.; Cleland, E.E. The current biodiversity extinction event: Scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2001, 98, 5466–5470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olofsson, P.; Foody, G.M.; Herold, M.; Stehman, S.V.; Woodcock, C.E.; Wulder, M.A. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 148, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portillo-Quintero, C.; Smith, V. Emerging trends of tropical dry forests loss in North & Central America during 2001–2013: The role of contextual and underlying drivers. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 94, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portillo-Quintero, C.; Hernández-Stefanoni, J.L.; Reyes-Palomeque, G.; Subedi, M.R. The Road to Operationalization of Effective Tropical Forest Monitoring Systems. Remote. Sens. 2021, 13, 1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potapov, P.V.; Dempewolf, J.; Talero, Y.; Hansen, M.C.; Stehman, S.V.; Vargas, C.; Rojas, E.J.; Castillo, D.; Mendoza, E.; Calderón, A.; et al. National satellite-based humid tropical forest change assessment in Peru in support of REDD+ implementation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 124012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proust, S. , Anta, S. and Cepeda, MF. 2015. CTC REDD+ de la Península de Yucatán: análisis de los determinantes de la deforestación y acciones REDD+ en la Península de Yucatán. Available online at http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/corredor/cbmm/pdf/18-analisis-determinantes-deforestacion.pdf.
- Rodriguez JP and Rodriguez-Clark. 2001. Even ‘paper parks’ are important. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (1): 17.
- Secretaria de Desarrollo Sustentable. 2022. Decreto 485/2022 por el que se aprueba y ordena la publicación del Programa de manejo del área natural protegida denominada “Reserva Estatal Biocultural del Puuc”. Diario Oficial del Goberno del Estado de Yucatan, Mexico. Available online at: https://sds.yucatan.gob.mx/areas-naturales/biocultural_puuc.
- Stehman, S.V. Estimating standard errors of accuracy assessment statistics under cluster sampling. Remote Sens. Environ. 1997, 60, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stehman, S.V.; Hansen, M.C.; Broich, M.; Potapov, P.V. Adapting a global stratified random sample for regional estimation of forest cover change derived from satellite imagery. Remote. Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 650–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, V.; Portillo-Quintero, C.; Sanchez-Azofeifa, A.; Hernandez-Stefanoni, J.L. Assessing the accuracy of detected breaks in Landsat time series as predictors of small scale deforestation in tropical dry forests of Mexico and Costa Rica. Remote. Sens. Environ. 2018, 221, 707–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2016, Protected Planet Report; How protected areas contribute to achieving global targets for biodiversity [On-line], [Accessed 18], Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net. 20 September.
- Uribe-Valle, G. , & Petit-Aldana, J. 2007. Contribución de los barbechos cortos en la recuperación de la fertilidad del suelo en milpas del estado de Yucatán, México. Revista Chapingo. Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 13(2), 137-142.
- Wang, R.; Gamon, J.A. Remote sensing of terrestrial plant biodiversity. Remote. Sens. Environ. 2019, 231, 111218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z. Change detection using landsat time series: A review of frequencies, preprocessing, algorithms, and applications. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. 2017, 130, 370–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]







![]() |
| Kruskall-Wallis Rank sum tests | Χ2 | df | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forest clearing (ha) | |||
| By geographical unit (inside, 12.5km, 25 km) | 37.97 | 2 | <0.001 |
| By time period(before or after 2011) | 1.06 | 1 | 0.3029 |
| Frequency of forest clearing events | |||
| By geographical unit (inside, 12.5km, 25 km) | 40.213 | 2 | <0.001 |
| By time period(before or after 2011) | 1.3147 | 1 | 0.2515 |
| Carbon density (Mg/ha) | |||
| In Forest clearings vs. Random selection (Inside PBSR) | 60.125 | 1 | <0.001 |
| In Forest clearings vs. Random selection (Outside PBSR) | 1213.7 | 1 | <0.001 |
| Number of species per hectare | |||
| In Forest clearings vs. Random selection (Inside PBSR) | 85.051 | 1 | <0.001 |
| In Forest clearings vs. Random selection (Outside PBSR) | 3422.1 | 1 | <0.001 |
| Mann-Kendall trend tests | Score | tau | p-value |
| Forest clearing (ha) | |||
| Inside (Pre 2011) | 16 | 0.242 | 0.30367 |
| Inside (Post 2011) | 4 | 0.0606 | 0.83701 |
| 12.5 km buffer (Pre 2011) | 16 | 0.242 | 0.30367 |
| 12.5 km buffer (Post 2011) | 11 | 0.244 | 0.37109 |
| 25 km buffer (Pre 2011) | 12 | 0.182 | 0.45067 |
| 25 km buffer (Post 2011) | 15 | 0.333 | 0.2105 |
| All (Pre 2011) | 16 | 0.242 | 0.30367 |
| All (Post 2011) | 15 | 0.333 | 0.2105 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
