10.57647/j.gcr.2025.0801.01

Potential Ecosystem Services Contribution of Geodiversity in Carajás National Forest, Amazon Biome, Pará, Brazil

PDF
  • Úrsula de Azevedo Ruchkys*1,
  • Paulo de Tarso Amorim Castro2,
  • Paulo Henrique Maciel Pádua1,
  • Heros Augusto Santos Lobo3,
  1. Institute of Geosciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Av. Pres. Antônio Carlos, 6627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil
  2. School of Mines, Department of Geology, Federal University of Ouro Preto (UFOP), R. Diogo de Vasconcelos, 122, Pilar, Ouro Preto, Minas Gerais, CEP, Brazil
  3. Department of Geography, Tourism and Humanities, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Washington Luís Highway, 235 km - SP-310, São Carlos, São Paulo, CEP, Brazil
otential Ecosystem Services Contribution of Geodiversity in Carajás National Forest, Amazon Biome, Pará, Brazil
Categories

Received: 2024-06-28

Revised: 2024-08-28

Accepted: 2024-10-01

Published 2025-03-10

Copyright (c) -1 Úrsula de Azevedo Ruchkys, Paulo de Tarso Amorim Castro, Paulo Henrique Maciel Pádua, Heros Augusto Santos Lobo (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ruchkys, Úrsula de A. ., Castro, P. de T. A. ., Pádua, P. H. M. ., & Lobo, H. A. S. . (2025). Potential Ecosystem Services Contribution of Geodiversity in Carajás National Forest, Amazon Biome, Pará, Brazil. Geoconservation Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.gcr.2025.0801.01
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 82

Abstract

In the 1970s, growing environmental concerns led researchers to address ecological issues from an economic perspective, highlighting society’s dependence on ecosystems. This resulted in the emergence of the terms natural capital and ecosystem services, which are defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. The traditional approach to ecosystem services overlooks the services provided by geodiversity, which comprises the diversity of non-living nature. This article aims to quantitatively assess and map the ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in the Carajás National Forest, located in Pará, Brazil, referencing its management plan. The study area also includes the Campos Ferruginosos National Park. The methodology was in two main stages: (i) Identification and classification of ecosystem services provided by geodiversity; (ii) Counting occurrences of each type of geodiversity service. Variables were grouped into regulation, support, provisioning, and cultural categories. Considering the relevance of cave occurrences, speleosystemic services were included. Ecosystem services in the Carajás National Forest mining zone are very high in all categories, mainly from the presence of over 900 caves. This area includes iron, manganese, deactivated gold, licensed but not yet installed copper, sand, and granite mines. The mining zone aims to minimize the impact on adjacent areas and prioritize recovering degraded areas with native species, prohibiting invasive exotics. The management plan does not directly address caves crucial for ecosystem regulation, water quality, and soil stability. Besides caves, high-altitude lakes play a fundamental role in regulating the hydrological cycle and promoting water quality. Provisioning services are very high in the mining zone but only medium in the Sustainable Forest Management zone, where timber management is unfeasible due to mining impacts. The Preservation Zone, classified as having low potential for geodiversity ecosystem services, maintains nature in its most primitive state. It is essential for regenerating other zones and preserving ecosystems and genetic resources.

Keywords

  • Amazon caves,
  • Ecosystem services,
  • Geodiversity,
  • Management plan,
  • Environmental management
PDF

References

  1. Alahuhta J, Tukiainen H, Toivanen M, Ala-Hulkko T, Farrahi V, Hjort J, Ikäheimo TM, Lankila T, Maliniemi T, Puhakka S, Salminen H, Seppänen M, Korpelainen R, Ding D (2022). Acknowledging geodiversity in safeguarding biodiversity and human health. Lancet Planet Health. 6: 987–992.
  2. Brazil (2000). Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza – SNUC. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm. Retrieved March 06, 2024.
  3. CICES (2021). Towards a common international classification of ecosystem services. http://cices.eu/. Retrieved January 20, 2024.
  4. Cooke JC (2022). The derivation of geologic ecosystem services from geodiversity in the Black Hills region of South Dakota and Wyoming. Thesis, University of South Dakota.
  5. Costanza R, Folke C (1997). Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness, and sustainability as goals. In Daily, G. (ed.), Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems (pp. 49-70). Island: Washington, DC.
  6. Cusens J, Barraclough AD, Maren IE (2023). Integration matters: Combining socio-cultural and biophysical methods for mapping ecosystem service bundles. Ambio. 52: 1004–1021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01830-7
  7. de Groot R, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 41: 393–408.
  8. Diamond J (2005). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking Press.
  9. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision-making. Ecological Economics 68: 643–653.
  10. Fox N, Graham LJ, Eigenbrod F, Bullock, JM, Parks KE (2020). Incorporating geodiversity in ecosystem service decisions. Ecosystems and People. 16: 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1758214
  11. Garcia MGM (2019). Ecosystem services provided by geodiversity: preliminary assessment and perspectives for the sustainable use of natural resources in the coastal region of the State of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. Geoheritage. 11: 1257–1266 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00383-0
  12. Gomez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics. 69: 1209-1218.
  13. Gordon JE, Barron HF (2013). The role of geodiversity in delivering ecosystem services and benefits in Scotland. Scottish Journal of Geology. 49: 41–58.
  14. Gordon JE, Barron HF, Hansom JD, Thomas MF (2012). Engaging with geodiversity-why it matters. Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association. 123: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2011.08.002
  15. Gray M (2013). Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature. 2nd Edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  16. Gray M (2018). The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosystems Services. 34: 106–112.
  17. Gray M. (2019). Geodiversity, geoheritage and geoconservation for society. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks. 7: 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgeop.2019.11.001
  18. Hjort J, Gordon JE, Gray M, Malcolm L, Hunter JR (2015). Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conservation Biology. 29: 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12510
  19. ICMBIO (2016). Plano de manejo da Floresta Nacional de Carajás. Brasília: Ministerio do Meio Ambiente, 2v.
  20. Ingram JC, Redford KH, Watson JEM (2012). Applying ecosystem services approaches for biodiversity conservation: benefits and challenges. SAPIENS Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society. 5: 1–10.
  21. Lindeman RL (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology. 23: 399–418.
  22. Lobato LM, Rosiere CA, Silva RCF, Zucchetti M, Baars FJ, Seoane JCS, Rios FJ, Pimental M, Mendes GE, Monteiro AM (2005). A mineralização hidrotermal de ferro da Província Mineral de Carajás – Controle estrutural e contexto na evolução metalogenética da província. In: Caracterização de depósitos minerais em distritos mineiros da Amazônia (pp. 25-92). Marini OJ, Queiroz ET de, Ramos BW (eds.). Brasília: DNPM/CT-Mineral/FINEP/ADIMB.
  23. Luck GW, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Kremen C, Berry PM, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Bello FD, Díaz S, Feld CK, Haslett JR, Hering D, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Rounsevell M, Samways MJ, Sandin L, Settele J, Sykes MT, Hove SVD, Vandewalle M, Zobel M (2009). Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience. 59: 223-235.
  24. Marsh GP (1864). Man and nature. Reprint. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  25. MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water-synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
  26. Menin DS, Bacci DLC (2023). Serviços espeleossistêmicos: como caracterizar as cavernas sobre o ponto de vista da economia ecológica e dos serviços geossistêmicos? Revista do Instituto de Geociências – USP. 23(3): 121-139.
  27. Mooney H, Ehrlich P (1997). Ecosystem services: a fragmentary history. In: Nature’s services (pp. 11–19). Daily, G.C. (ed.). Washington DC: Island Press.
  28. Patterson TM, Coelho DL (2009). Ecosystem services: foundations, opportunities, and challenges for the forest products sector. Forest Ecology and Management. 257: 1637–1646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.11.010
  29. Prosser CD (2013). Our rich and varied geoconservation portfolio: the foundation for the future. Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association. 124: 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pgeola.2012.06.001
  30. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analysing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107: 5242–5247.
  31. Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter, SR, Chopra, Zurek MB (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press.
  32. Reverte FC, Garcia MD, Brilha J, Pellejero AU (2020). Assessment of impacts on ecosystem services provided by geodiversity in highly urbanised areas: a case study of the Taubaté Basin, Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy. 112: 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.011
  33. Ruchkys UA (2015). Sítios geológicos e propostas brasileiras de geoparques em geossistemas ferruginosos. In: Geossistemas Ferruginosos do Brasil (pp. 169-193). Carmo FF, Kamino LHY. (Org.). Belo Horizonte: i3 editora.
  34. Santos MD, Ruchkys UA, Pereira EO (2023). Quantification of geodiversity services in the São Francisco river basin, Brazil (Minas Gerais portion), and their importance for the management of water resources. Geoheritage. 15: 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00874-1.
  35. Scammacca O, Bétard F, Montagne D, Rivera L, Biancat C, Aertgeerts G, Heuret A (2024). From geodiversity to geofunctionality: quantifying geodiversity‑based ecosystem services for landscape planning in French Guiana. Geoheritage. 16: 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-023-00910-0.
  36. Schlattmann A, Neuendorf F, Burkhard K, Probst E, Pujades E, Mauser W, Attinger S,von Haaren C (2022). Ecological sustainability assessment of water distribution for the maintenance of ecosystems, their services and biodiversity. Environmental Management. 70: 329–349 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01662-3
  37. Urban J, Radwanek-Bąk B, Margielewski W (2022). Geoheritage concept in a context of abiotic ecosystem services (geosystem services) – How to argue the geoconservation better? Geoheritage 14: 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-022-00688-7
  38. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Halpern BS, Watson R (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1132294