Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Aggregate index of socialenvironmental sustainability to evaluate

the socialenvironmental quality in a watershed in the Southern
Amazon
Delmonte Roboredo a, , Sonia Maria Pessoa P. Bergamasco b , Monica Elisa Bleich a,1
a
Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brazil
b
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study was to build an aggregate index of socialenvironmental sustainability derived
Received 2 June 2015 from incorporation of indicators of the quality of soil, water, and vegetation, and social organization and
Received in revised form 1 October 2015 socioeconomic variables, in order to assess the overall socialenvironmental quality in a micro watershed
Accepted 13 November 2015
in the Southern Amazon. From a population of 105 family production units 56 were randomly selected
for evaluation of indicators of the quality of soil and water as well as for conducting interviews to eval-
Keywords:
uate the farmers perception of soil, water, and vegetation quality and also of socioeconomic aspects of
Sustainability indicators
agroecosystems. The aggregate index built from socialenvironmental sustainability indicators shows
Agroecosystems
Family farming
that the selected indicators were adequate for describing socialenvironmental quality and conrms the
Sustainable rural development hypothesis that the studied micro-watershed in the southern edge of the Amazon is in a state of collapse,
and is socially and environmentally degraded.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction support through subsidized projects, getting a good economic

On the periphery of the Amazon Basin there are high deforesta-
tion rates (Trancoso et al., 2009; Rosa et al., 2013). The Tapajs
Basin, in particular, has the highest percentage of total area loss in
the Amazon (Trancoso et al., 2009). In the North of Mato Grosso, in
the micro watershed of Taxidermista I River, in Alta Floresta-MT,
the landscape was dominated by livestock, the area is dominated by
small forest fragments disconnected from the riparian zone (Bleich
and Silva, 2013).
Alta Floresta is an occupation front in the Southern Amazon,
through the directed colonization project, conducted by Colo-
nizadora Indeco S.A., initiated in 1978 on land acquired from the
State of Mato Grosso (Rosa et al., 2013). The rst farmers arrived
in 1978 in response to the Colonizadora Indeco marketing cam-
paign, which was extremely promising, because it urged the settlers
from the central-west regions to pursue the construction of a
dream (Guimares Neto, 2002), and a new way of life, where
families could achieve better quality of life, with government
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 6635216904; fax: +55 6684032480.
E-mail addresses: roboredo@gmail.com (D. Roboredo), soniaberga@yahoo.com
(S.M.P.P. Bergamasco), mebleich@yahoo.com.br (M.E. Bleich).
1
Deceased author.
return through the cultivation of perennial crops (cocoa, coffee and
guarana) (Roboredo, 2014).
At rst, the farmers obtained a good economic return because
of the high prices paid for agricultural production, as well as
the favorable edaphoclimatic conditions that contributed to the
achievement of good yields. However, over the years agricul-
tural activities have become economically unviable because of the
decline in productivity caused by the gradual loss of natural soil
fertility, soil compaction and the low price paid for agricultural
products (Roboredo, 2014).
In an attempt to understand and monitor the process of degrada-
tion of natural resources, since 1990, the scientic community has
discussed the physical and chemical properties of agroecosystems
in an integrated manner to better understand them. Understand-
ing agroecosystems is necessary for the maintenance of agricultural
productivity and to minimize environmental problems caused by
production processes derived from the green revolution (Casalinho
et al., 2007; Vezzani and Mielniczuk, 2009). An alternative to
facilitate the understanding of agroecosystems is the use of an
index that incorporates the multidimensionality of the researched
space, involving quantitative and/or qualitative variables, which
are standardized and synthesized into a number which indicates
the sustainability level of the territory studied (Seplveda, 2008;
Astier et al., 2008). This index consists of sustainability indicators,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.042
1470-160X/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
338 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345
which are essential tools in identifying problems and nding their
solution, through the participation and perceptions of the people
who live in the area researched (Guimares and Feichas, 2009), and
also by using indicators that are analyzed in laboratories (Karlen
and Stott, 1994; Camargo and Alleoni, 1997; Iori et al., 2012).
The indicators show the state of health of the agroecosystem,
meaning they reect the status quo of the level of sustainability
(or lack thereof) of the system. According to Doran and Parkin
(1994), indicators used for monitoring production units must be
sensitive to management methods and also be compatible with
a timescale that is conducive to verication. In this respect, for
evaluation of indicators of soil physical quality, Brando (2006),
recommend analysis of density, macro- and total porosity, and
Camargo and Alleoni (1997), and Iori et al. (2012) suggest the
addition of soil mechanical resistance to penetration (SMRP) as an
important parameter for the measurement of compaction.
Evaluation of sustainability indicators for social, economic,
and environmental aspects of agroecosystems have been used in
case studies in diverse regions of the world (Astier et al., 2008;
Speelman et al., 2007; Garcia et al., 2012; Humberto et al., 2012;
Moldan et al., 2012; Yao et al., 2013). On the other hand, biological
monitoring based on multimetric evaluation indexes of biological
integrity is a powerful tool used to diagnose, prevent or reduce
human-induced environmental impacts (Karr and Chu, 2000). A
multimetric approach accounts for several aspects of ecosystem
structure and function, making it robust and better suited than
exclusively biological indexes (Barbour et al., 1996).
The indicators used in evaluating a given territory can be con-
verted into an index by aggregating the indicators, summarizing the
environmental framework of the area studied (Barrientos, 2006;
Seplveda, 2008). The aggregate index used to evaluate sustainable
development should be monitored in a given timescale to verify if
the indicators improve, remain unchanged or worsen (Seplveda,
2008; Astier et al., 2008).
Thus, the hypothesis of this study is that micro-watersheds in
the Southern Amazon are socially and environmentally degraded.
Therefore, our objective was to build an aggregate index of
socialenvironmental sustainability derived from incorporation of
indicators of the quality of soil, water, vegetation, and socioeco-
nomic variables, and social organization, in order to assess the
overall socialenvironmental quality in a micro-watershed in Alta
Floresta-MT.
2. Materials and methods
The study was conducted on the southern edge of the South-
ern Amazon basin, in the North of the State of Mato Grosso, in the
Micro Watershed Mariana (MBM), located in the peri-urban area of
Alta Floresta (latitude 9 52 0 and 10 0 0 S and longitude 56 9 0
and 56 6 0 W). The municipality has an area of 8976 km2 and has
49,164 inhabitants, of which 86.9% live in urban areas and 13.1% in
rural areas (IBGE, 2010).
The city is at 283 m above sea level, the climate is Kppen type
Am, with two distinct seasons, rainy summers and dry winters,
annual average temperature around 26 C, and average annual rain-
fall is in the range of 28003100 mm (Alvares et al., 2014). The
vegetation is open ombrophilous forest (IBGE, 2012).
From a population of 105 family production units in the MBM
(Fig. 1), 56 were randomly selected for data collection for evaluation
of indicators.
To establish the number of farmers surveyed we followed the
methodology recommended by Tompkin (1967, p. 55) who states
that [. . .] when only the number of items in the population is
important, the variance is not necessary. Thus, when the sample
universe is less than 5000 individuals, the author recommended a
sample of 50 subjects added 2% of the total population.
In each production unit soil and water samples were collected
and semi-structured interviews with open and closed questions
were conducted to evaluate the farmers perception on soil, water,
vegetation quality and also on socioeconomic aspects of agroe-
cosystems. Data were collected from August 2011 to January 2012.
The 56 families interviewed, owners of rural properties acquired
from Colonizadora Indeco S.A. and/or third parties, come predom-
inantly from the central-west of the country: Bahia (1.8%), Mato
Grosso do Sul (10.8%), So Paulo (12.5%), Paran (60.7%), Minas
Gerais (7.1%), and Mato Grosso (7.1%) (Roboredo, 2014).
2.1. Soil quality indicators
In each production unit soil samples were collected in depths of
020 cm and 2040 cm following the method in Embrapa (1997),
collected in permanent preservation areas (PPA) and surrounding
areas (SRD). PPA sampling points were delimited 50 m from the
highest point of the margins of rivers or streams, while SRD points
were 100 m from the riverbanks. The soil analysis data used in this
study are the product of the average of the two depths, except for
organic matter due to its signicant decrease with depth (Martins
et al., 2006; Camargo et al., 2010).
Physical soil quality was evaluated through density, macrop-
orosity, total porosity and soil mechanical resistance to penetration
(SMRP). To determine density, macroporosity and total porosity
we used 675 undisturbed samples, collected at 3 sample points in
each depth for each production unit. In the macroporosity analysis
we used a voltage table at a voltage of 6 kPa. SMRP was evaluated
in three different points in the two areas (PPA and SRD), and in
each production unit, up to a depth of 40 cm, using an impact pen-
etrometer with a narrow tip with an area of 1.29 cm2 , as in the
methodology of Stolf (1991).
We also evaluated the presence or absence of gravel that pre-
vented the collection of undisturbed samples for physical attributes
and the texture quality in the existing texture classes in the pro-
ductive units (Resende et al., 2002).
Soil chemical analysis was done following the protocol in
Embrapa (1997), pH, organic matter, potassium, base saturation
and CEC at pH 7.0 were evaluated for 222 samples to represent soil
fertility (Ronquim, 2010).
2.2. Water quality indicators
For the streams and rivers in each production unit we evaluated
dissolved oxygen, pH, ammonia, total phosphate, algal biomass and
farmers perception on water quality of streams and rivers. Both
pH and the dissolved oxygen concentration were measured using
portable meters, Hanna Instruments, model HI 8424, HI 9147-04,
respectively. The concentration of ammonia (NH3 ) and phosphate
(PO4 ) was determined according to the techniques described in
APHA (1998) and the nutrient concentration was measured using
a spectrophotometer Quimis model Q798U2M.
The algal biomass (g/L) was determined by chlorophyll a
extraction with 90% ethanol heated at 78 C and concentration
reading in a spectrophotometer according to Nush (1980). The anal-
yses were performed at the limnology laboratory of the University
of the State of Mato Grosso, in Alta Floresta.
The farmers perception on water quality of rivers was eval-
uated through semi-structured interviews with open questions
(Richardson et al., 1999).
2.3. Socioeconomic quality indicators
To evaluate the socialenvironmental quality we adopted the
methodology defended by Seplveda (2008), which considers
 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345
Fig. 1. Location of production units and socialenvironmental quality in a watershed in Alta Floresta in the southern boundary of the Brazilian Amazon.
sustainable rural development as a process. The evaluation was
performed through semi-structured interviews (Richardson et al.,
1999).
The socialenvironmental quality index was evaluated by the
following variables: (1) Family work: it identies how many fam-
ily members live and work on the property. This variable is of
utmost importance because it allows us to evaluate the ruralurban
migration of families in the surveyed area, considering the high
emigration in Alta Floresta (IBGE, 2010), a repetitive phenomenon
in the rural population in the Amazon since 1991. (Homma, 2010,
p. 99), (2) Total net income: it is the total net income of the produc-
tion unit derived from agricultural products, retirements, services
in other rural properties and/or lease of property. This indicator has
been selected and assigned greater weight because it was named
by respondents as the main cause of rural exodus, did receive a fair
price for agricultural production. Many families still live in rural
areas due to a sufcient income of retired couples; (3) Transporta-
tion: it reects the way the family goes to the urban area in Alta
Floresta. With this variable we tried to identify farmers autonomy
through the means of transportation (getting rides, bicycle, motor-
bike, bus or car) they use to go to the urban area in Alta Floresta;
(4) Commercialization: it identies whether the farmer has a direct
sales channel to the consumers of the products produced and/or
beneted in the property, such as an open market. This last vari-
able aimed to verify how the surveyed families sell their products,
identifying degrees of dependence or independence on intermedi-
aries.
2.4. Vegetation quality indicators
The evaluation was performed through semi-structured inter-
views (Richardson et al., 1999). We used categorical variables: (1)
Forest: it is the relationship between the remaining forest and the
total area of the property; (2) Total area utilized: it seeks to identify
the relationship between the total area utilized and the total area
of the production unit; (3) Agricultural diversity: it is the diversity of
agricultural products, whose production is intended for commer-
cialization and/or consumption by families.
339
2.5. Quality indicators of social organization
One of the ways to empower families is directly related to
their social organization through participation in organizations
representing the productive social classes, especially Cooperatives,
Associations and Unions (Rural Workers or Rural Employers). Even
though they are entities with specic purposes they have in com-
mon the defense of farmers common interests. We chose such
entities only because they were sporadically mentioned by farmers,
demonstrating their low organizational level. Thus, we concluded
that the creation of a social organization index (SOI) would allow
better visualization of the organizational level of these families.
2.6. Transforming and coding the variables for composition of the
aggregate index of socialenvironmental sustainability
Quantitative and qualitative variables were transformed and
coded, allowing us to study the relationships between them. For
each indicator there are two or more modalities, to which were
attributed grades ranging from zero (worst condition) and one (best
condition) of each researched agroecosystem. The modalities value
found in each production unit is multiplied by the weight assigned
to each indicator in accordance with the importance level in rela-
tion to others, arbitrated by subjectivity (Pompermayer et al., 2007;
Jakelaitis et al., 2008; Yao et al., 2013), to index calculation.
The index of sustainability calculation for each theme was based
on Formula (1) of Karlen and Stott (1994), which recommend the
sum of the indicators selected for exercising important functions
to which arbitrary weights are attributed according to their degree
of importance (Pompermayer et al., 2007; Coelho et al., 2011; Yao
et al., 2013).

QI = qWi wt (Formula 1)
where: QI is the quality index of the selected theme, qWi is the value
calculated for each main function and wt is a numerical weight
assigned to each function, chosen according to the evaluation pur-
pose and importance level. The indicator weights are in Table 1, and
in Table 2 there is an example of vegetation quality.
340 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345

Table 1 The variables evaluated in the soil were used to compose the
Indicators and weights used in the composition of the Aggregate Index of
physical quality index of soils (PQI); stoniness index (STI); tex-
SocialEnvironmental Sustainability, in Alta Floresta-MT.
ture quality index (TQI) and quality index of soil fertility (QISF)
Themes Quality Indicators Indicator (Table 1). Specically in the case of the organic matter indicator, it
indices weights
was attributed higher weight (0.40), because it is directly related to
Density 0.25 improving the quality of the soils physical, chemical and biological
Macroporosity 0.25 properties. Water quality indicators were used for composition of
PQI Total Porosity 0.25
the water quality index (WQI). The variables for social organiza-
SMRP 0.25
Total 1 tion were employed in the social organization index (SOI), as well
Texture 1 as for the plant diversity index (PDI) and socioeconomic quality
TQI
Total 1 index (SEQI). In relation to the PDI, the highest weight (0.50) was
Soil quality Stoniness 1
STI attributed to the forest (Table 1) due to the fact that the riparian
Total 1
Organic matter 0.40 forest recovery will increase the forest fragments connectivity, con-
pH in water 0.15 sidered an important alternative for biodiversity restoration and
QISF
CEC at pH 7 0.15 maintenance (Bleich and Silva, 2013). Regarding IQSE the variable
Base Saturation 0.15 total net income received the highest weight (0.40) because it
Potassium 0.15
has constituted the main cause of evasion of the eld. Therefore,
Total 1
we used the scale from 0 (lower weight) to 1 (higher weight), when
Total phosphorus 0.15
assigning weights as the degree of importance of the variables used
Chlorophyll a 0.15
Dissolved oxygen 0.15
for each theme.
Water quality WQI Visual aspect 0.25
pH 0.15
Ammonia 0.15
Total 1
2.7. Aggregate index of socialenvironmental sustainability
Forest 0.50
Total area explored 0.25
Vegetation quality PDI The aggregate index of socialenvironmental sustainability
Agricultural diversity 0.25
Total 1 (AIES) is the sum of the eight indices evaluated. Thus, AIES
addresses different dimensions, in which the level of performance
Family work 0.30
Total net income 0.40
of the analysis units can be veried for a specied period through
Socioeconomic representative indicators (Seplveda, 2008). AIES is used to quan-
SEQI Transportation 0.15
quality
Commercialization 0.15 tify the performance of a production unit in a given period of
Total 1 time (Seplveda, 2008; Astier et al., 2008). The best sustainability
Cooperative of farmers 0.33 occurs when the index approaches 1 (100%) and the worst when
Social
organization SOI
Association of farmers 0.33 it approaches 0 (zero) (Jakelaitis et al., 2008; Astier et al., 2008;
Unions 0.33 Seplveda, 2008; Yao et al., 2013). AIES was calculated based on
quality
Total 1
the average of the eight adopted indices (Formula 2).
Note: PQI = physical quality index of soils; TQI = texture quality index; STI = stoniness
index; QISF = quality index of soil fertility; WQI = water quality index; PDI = plant
diversity index; SEQI = socioeconomic quality index; SOI = social organization index.
PQI + TQI + STI + QISF + WQI + PDI + SEQI + SOI
AIES =
8
The data obtained in the eld typically include different mea- (Formula 2)
surement units. Therefore, in order to overcome the heterogeneity
of units we adopted data standardization (weighting), bringing
them to the same scale ranging from 0 (zero) to 1 (one) in accor- where PQI: physical quality index of soils; TQI: texture quality
dance with the importance of each variable within each theme index; STI: stoniness index; QISF: quality index of soil fertility; WQI:
(Seplveda, 2008; Waquil et al., 2010; Ramos et al., 2010, 2011; water quality index; PDI: plant diversity index; SEQI: socioecono-
Yao et al., 2013). mic quality index; and SOI: social organization index.

Table 2
Indicators, weights and variable modalities of the Vegetation Quality theme, MBM in Alta Floresta-MT.

Indicators Weighta Modalities of indicators and/or variables Gradeb

When the relation is 10% 0.00

When the relation is 10% and 25% 0.33
Forest 0.50
When the relation is >25% and 40% 0.66
When the relation is >40% 1.00

When the relation is between 91% and 100% 0.00

When the relation is between 81% and 90% 0.33
Total area explored 0.25
When the relation is between 71% and 80% 0.66
When the relation is between 55% and 70% 1.00

There is no agricultural cultivation 0.00

There is only one cultivated agricultural species 0.33
Agricultural diversity 0.25
There are only two cultivated agricultural species 0.66
There are or more cultivated agricultural species 1.00

Total 1
a
Weight attributed in accordance with the degree of importance of each indicator or variable used to calculate the index.
b
Grade attributed to each modality of indicators or variables in which the closer to number one the better quality.
 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345
2.8. Perception gradient of aggregate indices of
socialenvironmental sustainability
AIES was divided into ve classes based on the works of
Seplveda (2008), Ramos et al. (2010,2011) and Cern et al. (2012),
as AIES gradient description:
Unsustainable or Serious (AIES < 0.20): this is the lowest sus-
tainability level indicating that the system is close to collapse,
requiring immediate actions to minimize the chaotic sustaina-
bility picture.
Non-sustainable or Critical or Low sustainability (0.20AIES > 0.40):
it indicates environmentally critical situation that urgently
requires decision making to correct existing problems so that the
critical situation does not become unsustainable;
Moderately sustainable or Unstable (0.40AIES > 0.60): this con-
dition indicates the need to continue working to improve the
indicator levels in order to reach at least the stability level;
Stable (0.60AIES > 0.80): this level expresses a system close to
sustainability, alerting the social actors and constituted authori-
ties for the need to keep working to get to the ideal result; and
Sustainable or Ideal (0.80 AIES 1): it identies the highest
sustainability level of agroecosystems, considering the desired
conditions (ideal).
2.9. Data analysis
We used descriptive statistics to evaluate data dispersion
obtained from the agroecosystems surveyed through maximum,
minimum, average and coefcient of variation (CV) values of each
quality index and AIES. To better view the sustainability level, the
indices were transformed into percentages and plotted on a radar
chart. With this diagram we compared the ideal indices (100%)
to evaluate the distance or approach to sustainable rural develop-
ment.
3. Results and discussion
In the MBM production units an average value of 0.45 for the
AIES was calculated (Table 3), with 15 production units in a non-
sustainable condition, 39 in an unstable condition, and 2 in a stable
condition (Table 4, Fig. 1). There were no production units in an
unsustainable and or Sustainable/Ideal condition. From this value
we found that the MBM is part of the moderately sustainable or
unstable category. Overall, SOI (0.10), PQI (0.28) and PDI (0.30)
were the indices that contributed most to the AIES (0.45) of the
MBM. We believe that PDI interference is due to the fact that most
properties have (i) little or no remaining forest area; (ii) a high
ratio between the total area utilized and the total area of the prop-
erty, considering that 41 (73%) of the properties utilized more than
80% of the total area; (iii) a strong predominance of dairy farm-
ing and/or beef cattle; and (iv) lack of agricultural production for
commercialization and sale of the surplus.
WQI identied an unstable environment (0.49) due to the
great variation of some indicators, such as dissolved oxygen with
3.0 mg L1 , however the ideal must be equal to or higher than
5.0 mg L1 ; total phosphorus with 117.3 mg m3 , wherein the ideal
must be equal to or less than 13 mg m3 ; and ammonia with
0.09 mg L1 , an increase of 450% beyond the ideal (less than
0.02 mg L1 ). These gures are worrying because the Resolution
20/1986 (Conama, 1986) establishes that values above 0.02 mg L1
are potentially harmful to life. In article 12 of that Resolution, Para-
graph 1 emphasizes that potentially harmful substances should be
investigated whenever there is suspicion of their presence. Another
aspect to be considered related to water quality is that 84% of
341
Fig. 2. Multidimensional diagram of socialenvironmental indices of the micro-
watershed Mariana in Alta Floresta-MT. Note: PQI = physical quality index of soils;
SOI = social organization index; SEQI = socioeconomic quality index; PDI = plant
diversity index; WQI = water quality index; QISF = quality index of soil fertility;
TQI = texture quality index; STI = stoniness index.
interviewees would not consume water from rivers due to high
fecal contamination by cattle and capybaras, carried by rainwater.
Heterogeneity of social, economic and environmental condi-
tions of the agroecosystems was registered. The lowest CV was
detected in TQI (8.8%) while the highest CV occurred in SOI (176.8%).
Except for TQI and WQI, agro-ecosystems are in unsustainable con-
ditions for presenting the other indices with minimum values, less
than 0.20 (Table 3).
On the other hand, spatial heterogeneity between pristine
streams in this region was recorded (Bleich et al., 2015a), but
riparian deforestation affects habitat structure variability between
hydrological periods, making them more homogeneous (Bleich
et al., 2014), and contributes to increased autochthonous primary
production, important bioindicators of change in the environmen-
tal integrity of southern Amazonian streams (Bleich et al., 2015b).
The only index found as ideal was TQI (0.98) (Fig. 2), which is one
of the strongholds of the agroecosystems in that territory. Another
positively diagnosed aspect was the presence of stoniness studied
up to a 0.40 m depth, generating STI (0.65), placing this theme as
stable. However, we noted that the others sub-themes of soil, QISF
(0.38) and PQI (0.28) are presented as non-sustainable or critical.
The social organization theme showed high CV (176.8%), whose
variability is due to the little participation in the entity classes. The
STI had low coefcient of variation (8.8%), due to the homogeneity
of textural classes identied in the evaluated agroecosystems. By
combining the indices of the soil theme (PQI, STI, TQI and QISF)
we obtained an average AIES of 0.57. The SEQI (0.44) is considered
unstable, and originated from the families low income, due to
low support capacity of pastures, low fertility and average to high
MBM soil compaction. By analyzing Fig. 2 we observe how far from
ideal is the SOI (0.10), demonstrating the families lack of social
organization of the studied environment.
Overall, by aggregating the indices, we obtained a 0.45 AIES,
demonstrating that MBM is unstable. AIES represents the per-
centage of each subject situation in relation to the ideal value
(Seplveda, 2008). The result obtained for the case study in the
southern edge of the Amazon is a result of high deforestation rates
of the Amazon rainforest (Trancoso et al., 2009) and methods of
land management, including the riparian zone. In other Brazilian
regions, social deterioration was also recorded (Abreu et al., 2011),
wherein, for example, the Micro-Watershed Riacho da Igreja, in the
state of Paraiba, registered a value of 0.47 for the index.
This analysis requires taking measures on an emergency basis
for socialenvironmental recovery. According to the adopted
342 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of integrated socialenvironmental indices of the Micro Watershed Mariana in Alta Floresta-MT.

Description PQI STI TQI QISF WQI PDI SEQI SOI AIES

Minimum 0.08 0.00 0.50 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13
Maximum 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.68 0.80 0.80 0.66 0.79
Average 0.28 0.65 0.98 0.38 0.49 0.30 0.44 0.10 0.45
Standard deviation 0.12 0.37 0.09 0.14 0.08 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.17
CV (%) 43.9 58.0 8.8 37.2 16.4 73.4 31.9 176.8 0.56

Note: CV = coefcient of variation; PQI = physical quality index of soils; STI = stoniness index; TQI = texture quality index; QISF = quality index of soil fertility; WQI = water
quality index; PDI = plant diversity index; SEQI = socioeconomic quality index; SOI = social organization index.

Table 4
Integrated socialenvironmental indices of the production units in the Micro-Watershed Mariana in Alta Floresta-MT.

Production units PQI STI TQI QISF WQI PDI SEQI SOI AIES

1 0.11 0.60 1.00 0.43 0.47 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.38

2 0.53 0.00 1.00 0.53 0.51 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.36
3 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.44 0.25 0.36 0.00 0.45
4 0.29 1.00 0.75 0.47 0.47 0.75 0.35 0.00 0.51
5 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.60 0.63 0.61 0.00 0.55
6 0.15 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.27
7 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.39 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.50
8 0.18 0.45 1.00 0.33 0.44 0.45 0.32 0.33 0.44
9 0.29 0.50 1.00 0.28 0.44 0.45 0.49 0.33 0.47
10 0.24 0.30 1.00 0.50 0.57 0.55 0.31 0.00 0.43
11 0.27 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.50 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.49
12 0.24 0.30 1.00 0.67 0.39 0.55 0.15 0.00 0.41
13 0.27 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.42 0.15 0.53 0.33 0.49
14 0.21 1.00 0.75 0.27 0.54 0.48 0.47 0.00 0.47
15 0.28 0.50 1.00 0.24 0.44 0.38 0.45 0.00 0.41
16 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.44 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.46
17 0.13 0.60 1.00 0.02 0.60 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.35
18 0.36 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.32 0.80 0.65 0.00 0.58
19 0.11 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.67 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.35
20 0.18 0.00 1.00 0.49 0.30 0.00 0.65 0.33 0.37
21 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.52 0.00 0.49
22 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.39 0.15 0.32 0.00 0.46
23 0.68 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.51 0.23 0.61 0.33 0.63
24 0.44 1.00 0.88 0.19 0.51 0.55 0.44 0.00 0.50
25 0.18 0.50 1.00 0.44 0.53 0.30 0.11 0.33 0.42
26 0.08 0.60 1.00 0.12 0.29 0.75 0.40 0.00 0.40
27 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.52 0.54 0.75 0.19 0.00 0.53
28 0.33 0.50 1.00 0.40 0.38 0.08 0.65 0.00 0.42
29 0.19 0.50 1.00 0.20 0.47 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.34
30 0.23 0.50 1.00 0.35 0.36 0.45 0.31 0.00 0.40
31 0.28 0.50 1.00 0.24 0.44 0.60 0.53 0.00 0.45
32 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.42 0.08 0.73 0.00 0.48
33 0.13 0.00 1.00 0.48 0.42 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.30
34 0.29 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.44 0.55 0.39 0.33 0.44
35 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.44 0.08 0.65 0.00 0.51
36 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.42 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.50
37 0.19 0.00 1.00 0.46 0.42 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.38
38 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.45 0.30 0.45 0.00 0.44
39 0.35 0.80 0.88 0.38 0.44 0.45 0.89 0.00 0.52
40 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.44 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.46
41 0.34 0.50 1.00 0.30 0.47 0.15 0.44 0.33 0.44
42 0.24 0.30 0.50 0.46 0.47 0.15 0.51 0.00 0.33
43 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.44 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.46
44 0.27 0.50 1.00 0.39 0.47 0.08 0.29 0.00 0.37
45 0.28 0.50 1.00 0.24 0.44 0.30 0.65 0.33 0.47
46 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.44 0.30 0.27 0.33 0.52
47 0.33 0.80 1.00 0.30 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.33 0.49
48 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.45 0.38 0.77 0.66 0.60
49 0.24 0.50 1.00 0.21 0.44 0.38 0.33 0.00 0.39
50 0.24 0.50 1.00 0.47 0.39 0.23 0.73 0.00 0.44
51 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.39 0.23 0.30 0.00 0.48
52 0.21 0.15 1.00 0.44 0.33 0.23 0.29 0.00 0.33
53 0.24 0.00 1.00 0.46 0.42 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.39
54 0.11 0.65 1.00 0.46 0.53 0.23 0.66 0.00 0.45
55 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.39 0.30 0.44 0.66 0.58
56 0.28 0.50 1.00 0.24 0.44 0.60 0.53 0.00 0.45

PQI = physical quality index of soils; STI = stoniness index; TQI = texture quality index; QISF = quality index of soil fertility WQI = water quality index PDI = plant diversity index
SEQI = socioeconomic quality index SOI = social organization index AIES = aggregate index of socialenvironmental sustainability.
 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345
Table 5
Evolution of agricultural activities from 1990 to 2011 in Alta Floresta-MT.
Activities Units Years
1990
Cocoa ha 1.934
Coffee ha 26.958
Guarana ha 285
Rice ha 8.400
Bean ha 6.524
Corn ha 5.250
Beef cattle and dairy cows a thousand 146.9
Source: IBGE (2013).
methodology (Seplveda, 2008), this territory is unstable, given
that the index is below the considered desirable when it reaches
a value equal to or above 0.6 to meet the stable or ideal class
(Seplveda, 2008; Ramos et al., 2011). Obviously, each agroecosys-
tem has a special feature, with its strengths and weaknesses, and
decision making should not be generalized for all properties. There-
fore, decisions aiming at environmental recovery must be built with
the main process protagonists, that is, rural families (Astier et al.,
2008).
During the eldwork, especially in interviews, we observed the
productive classes discredit the public policies implemented over
time in that rural area, mainly because of their discontinuity, leav-
ing producers to fend for themselves soon after an initial period
of policy implementation. Due to this lack of support, the produc-
tive class gradually abandoned agricultural activities and replaced
them with cattle rising, which requires less manpower (Table 5).
The dissatisfaction level is gradually building up, and we could
even say it has reached the tolerance limit for these families, consid-
ering that most producers have no wish to attend events and
meetings organized by external actors (governmental and non-
governmental entities), since these, so far, have not contributed
to improving the living conditions of rural families. Farmers feel
that they are objects, because people consult them only when
external actors need information or when there is a proposal
for a new public policy, that sometimes might even be impor-
tant, but without discussing it with families, as the subject of the
actions.
Farmers skepticism, regarding the actions in the community,
especially the actions of the government, is reected in the follow-
ing phrases:
[. . .] People come here just to get information and dont bring
anything to us, they dont even tell us what was done [. . .] they
only use us, dont respect us. (farmer C38).
[. . .] If something is to be done you can count on me, but if its
to do nothing its not worth starting. (farmer C36).
[. . .] I am just like Saint Thomas, Ill believe it only when I see
it. (farmers C38 and C1).
Im not going to any more meetings, Im tired (farmer JRA).
This behavior reects the thinking of the vast majority of the
population as reported by Pereira and Barbosa (2009, p. 139,
emphasis added).
[. . .] lack of institutional policies, with pending matters, both in
conducting awareness programs and population assistance, cre-
ates an institutional vacuum which translates into distrust
by the great majority of people.
Agricultural policy is a lever for sustainable rural development,
as it provides conditions for better working conditions, such as rural
credit. The situation concerning the release of rural credit, as an
agricultural policy promoting the production, is chaotic in the MBM,
given that from 2000 to 2011 only 11 producers received funding,
343
1995 2000 2005 2010 2011
900 2.600 200 380 380
4.503 9.500 3.500 1.000 1.000
90 300 180 180 180
14.500 8.800 9431 3.500 3.000
4.000 1.500 240 50 50
6.000 1.500 800 800 600
422.2 519.8 753.4 838.7 838.9
whereas 44 did not obtain any rural loan, despite several attempts,
according to the interviewees.
This agricultural policy instrument is a lever for sustainable
rural development. As an example we can mention the nancing
of, approximately, fteen thousand Reais released to the farmer
C55s family, to implement a mechanical milking process on his
property. It took him a year to receive the nancing, the family
had already forgotten because they no longer believed it would be
accepted. This tiny loan has helped the family to continue active
and successful, as C55 wife expressed
I couldnt take it anymore, my arms and back were hurting [. . .]
I was wondering how long we were going to take it [. . .] I was
planning on going to the city [. . .] we had to wake up every day
at four in the morning, now we can sleep a little more [. . .] we
saved about two hours of work.
The pursuit of social justice in the countryside is in a process
of recovery from social degradation which was caused over time
by neoliberal policies based on the pursuit of constant economic
return, wherein the weakest, in this case family farming, is invisi-
ble at the public policy level. These neoliberal policies make access
to the benets offered by public policy virtually inaccessible to fam-
ily farming due to excessive bureaucracy, such as in obtaining rural
credit. The federal government promotes its support in the media,
for family farming through access to rural credit. However, with
respect to farmers in the MBM, it is clear that there is a great gap
between the government propaganda and the farmers accessibil-
ity, constituting a narrowing window of opportunity for improving
productivity and quality of life. Seplveda (2008) highlights that
the well-being of people one of the prerequisites for achieving
sustainable development is measured by the real access that they
have to opportunities, since it is not enough to create programs
(public policy) if there is no opportunity for people to access them.
We believe that social disorganization occurs because of distrust
of authorities due to lack of support. The sustainability level of the
social organization of the MBM families is considered as unsustain-
able or serious, that is, it has reached its limit. Any step to promote
the organization of those families needs to start from scratch, with
a rigorous campaign of promotion of awareness and interaction
with the families. However, because awareness alone is not enough,
it is necessary to create new experiences and build new paths of
interaction with the farmers.
The SOI recorded in the MBM (10%) is far from ideal. Abreu et al.
(2011) obtained similar results in the Micro-Watershed Riacho da
Igreja, in the Borborema region in the state of Paraiba, identifying a
100% level of social deterioration with respect to the social organi-
zation variable, demonstrating the absence of collective action. The
authors concluded that the community lacks an organization that
intermediates coordination improvements with the government,
without stimulation and training in pursuit of this connection. . .
(Abreu et al., 2011, p. 28). The best results were achieved by Pereira
and Barbosa (2009), diagnosing a micro-watershed in So Joo do
344 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345
Rio do Peixe in the state of Paraiba, where they identied 53% partic-
ipation of respondents in class organizations, a percentage that the
authors considered low; they believed it was due to lack of credibil-
ity of institutions, as well as lack of awareness of the importance of
participation in organized groups. The researchers showed strong
individualism due to lack of organization in cooperatives or other
representation for the interests of the class. (Pereira and Barbosa,
2009, p. 149).
SEQI is considered unstable in the MBM. Similarly Waquil et al.
(2010) studied the composition of sustainable development indices
of four Brazilian territories and recorded similar aggregate indices,
such as that in Estrada de Ferro (0.48), while Alto do Jequitinhonha
had the worst social condition index (0.35).
Regarding the soil, we can observe through the STI texture
classes homogeneity in the evaluated agroecosystems and that the
sum of the indices related to soil results had an average value of
0.57. Ramos et al. (2011) studied the same physical attributes, along
with soil microbiological indicators in a soybean plantation in a
Red-Yellow Dystrophic Oxisol in the city of Cceres, Pantanal region
of Mato Grosso, and found a much lower index (0.26) compared to
the MBM.
Alfonsos et al. (2011)study, in the Livestock Company Valle del
Per in San Jos, Cuba, found during a ve-year monitoring that
there were changes in indices in the study of socioeconomic con-
ditions, and in 2007 there was a lower index (0.20), improving in
2009 (0.60) and decreasing in 2010 (0.32). This analysis reinforces
the need for monitoring to identify the variables that need to be
improved in order to reach at least the stability level with indices
above 0.60, as Seplveda (2008) and Astier et al. (2008) advocated.
The landscape degradation in the studied micro-watershed can
also be derived from Bleich and Silva (2013) who registered 63
forest fragments with size ranging between 0.44 and 67.51 ha,
totaling an area of 63,745 ha in a total area of 6501 ha of the
micro-watershed. There is predominance of small elongated for-
est fragments with less than 5 ha, but with ideal perimeter/edge
in relation to the size, making them susceptible to edge effects
enhanced by the landscape matrix which has cattle ranching as a
predominant activity. The remaining forest fragments in the micro-
watershed under study are disconnected in the landscape, a fact
that endangers its conservation as well as its performance in rela-
tion to ecological functions for socialenvironmental sustainability.
4. Conclusions
The aggregate index built from socialenvironmental sustaina-
bility indicators shows that the selected indicators were adequate
for describing socialenvironmental quality and conrms the
hypothesis that the studied micro-watershed in the southern edge
of the Amazon is in a state of collapse, and is socially and environ-
mentally degraded.
In this scenario the implementation of public policies is indis-
pensable, for example, the micro-watershed program for recovery
and maintenance of the soil, especially when considering physi-
cal attributes through subsoiling, terracing and water catchment
basins which should reect directly the improvement of environ-
mental conditions in the territory. With regard to social aspects,
it is necessary to change the attitude of our public representa-
tives, especially the Municipal Government, in order to prioritize
the Technical Assistance and Rural Extension services to the rural
households, continuously supporting and encouraging the families
organizational process, and strengthening the class to foster better
living conditions.
We concluded that farmers should be involved in the con-
struction of alternatives for socialenvironmental improvement,
considering that their effective participation is one of the
prerequisites for achieving development in a sustainable manner
in that territory.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the farmers of the Micro-
Watershed Mariana who participated in the study and to the
Foundation for Research of the State of So Paulo for the Doctoral
scholarship granted to the rst author and the research support to
the second author.
References
Abreu, B.S., Fernandes Neto, S., Melo, A.A., Melo, G.K.R.M.M., Lima, P.C.S., Morais,
P.S., Oliveira, Z.M., 2011. Diagnstico socioeconmico da microbacia hidrogrca
Riacho da Igreja, Cabaceiras/PB. Rev. Educ. Agrc. Super. 26, 2529.
Alfonso, Y.V., Bustillo, C.W.G., Len, O.E.S., 2011. Modelacin estadstico-Matemtica
para el estudio de la sostenibilidad socioeconmica en el sector agrcola-
pecuario del municipio San Jos de las Lajas, provincia Mayabeque. Rev. Cienc.
Tcn. Agropecu. 20, 6974.
Alvares, C.A., Stape, J.L., Sentelhas, P.C., Goncalves, J.L.M., Sparovek, G., 2014. Kp-
pens climate classication map for Brazil. Meteorologische Z. 22, 711728.
APHA (American Public Health Association), 1998. In: Clescere, L.S., Creenberg, A.E.,
Eaton, A.D. (Eds.), Standard methods for the examination of water and waste-
water. , 20 ed. United Book Press, Inc. APHA, AWWA, WEF., Baltimore, Maryland.
Astier, M., Masera, O.R., Galvn-Miyoshi, Y., 2008. Evalucin de sustentabilidad:
un enfoque dinmico y multidimensional. Fundacin Instituto de Agricultura
Ecolgica y sustenable, Espana.
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Grifth, G.E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J.S.,
Bastian, M.L., 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using
benthic macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 15, 185211.
Barrientos, F.R., 2006. El diseno de indicadores e ndices para evaluar el aporte de
las ncas agropecuarias a la sostenibilidad ambiental: anlisis de caso en la
Microregin Platanar-La Vieja, cuenca del ro San Carlos, Costa Rica. Rev Pen-
samiento Actual 6, 2339.
Bleich, M.E., Silva, C.J., 2013. Caracterizaco dos fragmentos orestais amaznicos
remanescentes na microbacia hidrogrca do rio Taxidermista I em Alta Floresta,
MT. Biotemas 24, 4151.
Bleich, M.E., Mortati, A.F., Andr, T., Piedade, M.T.F., 2014. Riparian deforestation
affects the structural dynamics of headwater streams in Southern Brazilian
Amazonia. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 7 (4), 657676.
Bleich, M.E., Mortati, A.F., Andr, T., Piedade, M.T.F., 2015a. Structural dynamics of
pristine headwater streams from southern brazilian Amazon. River Res. Appl.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.2875.
Bleich, M.E., Piedade, M.T.F., Mortati, A.F., Andr, T., 2015b. Autochthonous pri-
mary production in southern Amazon headwaterstreams: novel indicators of
altered environmental integrity. Ecol. Ind. 53, 154161, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.040.
Brando, V.S., 2006. Inltraco da gua no solo. Editora da UFV, Vicosa, 120p.
de Camargo, O.A., Alleoni, L.R.F., 1997. Compactaco do solo e o desenvolvimento
das plantas. Piracicaba, 132.
Camargo, M.F., Roque, C.G., Umetsu, R.K., Pierangeli, M.A.P., Silva, T.R.C., 2010. Fer-
tilidade do solo da rea ciliar da sub-bacia hidrogrca Mariana, para ns de
conservaco ambiental. Rev. Ambiente gua 5, 5767.
Casalinho, H.D., Martins, S.R., Silva, J.B., Lopes, A.S., 2007. Qualidade do solo como
indicador de sustentabilidade de agroecossistemas. Rev Brasileira Agrocin 13,
195203.
Cern, W.L., Trujillo, A.R., Escobar, Y.C., 2012. Aplicacin del ndice de sostenibilidad
del recurso hdrico en la agricultura (ISRHA) para denir estrategias tecnolgicas
sostenibles en la microcuenca Centella. Ing. Desarro. 30, 160181.
Coelho, R.C.T.P., Buffon, I., Guerra, T., 2011. Inuncia do uso e ocupaco do solo na
qualidade da gua: um mtodo para avaliar a importncia da zona ripria. Rev
Ambient. gua 6, 104117.
Conama (Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente). Resoluco N 20, de 18 de
junho de 1986. Available from: http://www.mma.gov.br/port/conama/res/
res86/res2086.html (accessed 03.10.12).
Doran, J.W., Parkin, T.B., 1994. Dening and assessing soil quality. In: Doran, J.W.,
Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Dening Soil Quality for a
Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society of American, Madison, pp. 322.
Embrapa (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuria), 1997. Manual de mtodos
de anlise de solo. EMBRAPA Solos, Rio de Janeiro.
Garcia, Y., Ramrez, W., Snchez, S., 2012. Indicadores de la calidad de los suelos:
una nueva manera de evaluar este recurso. Pastos y Forrajes 35, 125138.
Guimares Neto, R.B., 2002. A lenda do ouro verde: poltica de colonizaco no Brasil
contemporneo. UNICEM, Cuiab, 168p.
Guimares, R.P., Feichas, S.A.Q., 2009. Desaos na Construco de Indicadores de
Sustentabilidade. Ambient. Soc. 2, 307323.
Homma, A., 2010. Poltica agrcola ou poltica ambiental para resolver os problemas
da Amaznia? Rev. Polt. Agrc. 1 (jan/fev/mar).
Humberto, T., Rodrigo, M.F., Jorge, M., Ramn, G., 2012. Indicadores de sustentabil-
idad para la produccin lechera familiar en Uruguay: anlisis de tres casos.
Agrocienc. Uruguay 16, 166176.
 D. Roboredo et al. / Ecological Indicators 63 (2016) 337345
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa e Estatstica), 2010. Populaco
2010. Available from: http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/xtras/perl.
php?codmun=510025&search=mato-grosso|alta-oresta (accessed 15.07.13).
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa e Estatstica), 2013. Bando de dados Sidra.
Available from: http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/ (accessed 14.08.13).
IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geograa e Estatstica), 2012. Manual tcnico da
vegetaco brasileira. IBGE, Rio de Janeiro, 274p.
Iori, P., Dias Jnior, M.S., Silva, R.B., 2012. Resistncia do solo penetraco e ao Roboredo, D., (Doctoral Thesis) 2014. Percepco e lgicas dos agricultores na
cisalhamento em diversos usos do solo em reas de preservaco permanente.
Biosci. J. 28, 185195.
Jakelaitis, A., Silva, A.A., Santos, J.B., Vivian, R., 2008. Qualidade da camada supercial
de solo sob mata, pastagens e reas cultivadas. Pesquisa Agropecu. Trop. 38,
118127.
Karlen, D.L., Stott, D.E., 1994. A framework for evaluating physics and chemical indi-
cators of soil quality. In: Doran, J.W., Coleman, D.C., Bezdicek, D.F., Stewart, B.A.
(Eds.), Dening Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. Soil Science Society
of American, Madison, pp. 5371.
Karr, J.R., Chu, E.W., 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423, 114.
Martins, G.C., Ferreira, M.M., Curi, N., Vitorino, A.C.T., Silva, M.L.N., 2006. Campos
nativos e matas adjacentes da regio de Humait (AM): atributos diferenciais
dos solos. Cincia Agrotec. 30, 221227.
Moldan, B., Janouskov, S., Hk, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environ-
mental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Ind. 17, 413.
Nush, E.A., 1980. Comparison of different methods for chlorophyll and phaeopig-
ment determination. Arch. Hydrobiol. 14, 1436.
Pereira, R.A., Barbosa, M.F.N., 2009. Diagnstico socioeconmico e ambiental de
uma microbacia hidrogrca no semi-rido paraibano. Rev. Eng. Ambiental 6,
137153.
Pompermayer, R.S., Paula Jnior, D.R., Cordeiro Netto, O.M., 2007. Anlise multi-
critrio como instrumento de gesto de recursos hdricos: o caso das Bacias
dos Rios Piracicaba, Capivari e Jundia. Rev. Bras. Recursos Hdricos 12,
117127.
Ramos, F.T., Monari, Y.C., Nunes, M.C.M., Campos, D.T.S., Ramos, D.T., 2010. Indi-
cadores de qualidade em um Latossolo vermelho-amarelo sob pastagem
extensiva no pantanal Matogrossense. Revista Caatinga, Mossor 23,
112120.
345
Ramos, F.T., Nunes, M.C.M., Campos, D.T.S., Ramos, D.T., Maia, J.C.S., 2011. Atributos
fsicos e microbiolgicos de um Latossolo vermelho-amarelo distrco tpico
sob cerrado nativo e monocultivo de soja. Rev. Bras. Agroecol. 6, 7991.
Resende, M., Curi, N., Rezende, S.B., Corra, G.F., 2002. Pedologia: base para distinco
de Ambientes. NEPUT, Vicosa, pp. 338.
Richardson, R.J., Peres, J.A.S., Wanderley, J.C.V., 1999. Pesquisa Social: mtodos e
tcnicas. So Paulo, Atlas, pp. 332.
recuperaco da microbacia hidrogrca mariana, no municpio de Alta Flo-
resta/MT. University of Campinas, School of Agricultural Engineering, Campinas,
Brazil, 400p.
Ronquim, C.C., 2010. Conceitos de fertilidade do solo e manejo adequado para as
regies tropicais, Embrapa Monitoramento por Satlite, Campinas, 26p. (Boletim
de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento, 8).
Rosa, I.M.D., Purves, D., Souza-Jr, C., Ewers, R.M., 2013. Predictive modelling of con-
tagious deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. PLOS ONE 8, 114.
Seplveda, S., 2008. Biograma: metodologa para estimar el nivel de desarrollo
sostenible de territrios. IICA, San Jos.
Speelman, E.N., Lpez-Ridaura, S., Colomer, N.A., Astier, M., Masera, O.R., 2007. Ten
years of sustainability evaluation using the MESMIS framework: lessons learned
from its application in 28 Latin American case studies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World
Ecol. 14, 345361.
Stolf, R., 1991. Teoria e teste experimental de formulas de transformaco dos dados
de penetrmetro de impacto em resistncia do solo. Rev. Bras. Cincia do Solo
15, 229235.
Trancoso, R., Carneiro Filho, A., Tomasella, J., Schietti, J., Forsberg, B.R., Miller, R.P.,
2009. Deforestation and conservation in major watersheds of the Brazilian Ama-
zon. Environ. Conserv. 36, 277288.
Vezzani, F.M., Mielniczuk, J., 2009. Uma viso sobre qualidade do solo. Rev. Bras.
Cincia do Solo 33, 743755.
Waquil, P., Schneider, S., Filippi, E., Rckert, A., Rambo, A., Radomsky, G., Conter-
ato, M., Specht, S., 2010. Avaliaco de desenvolvimento territorial em quatro
Territrios Rurais no Brasil. REDES 5, 104127.
Yao, R.J., Yang, J.S., Zhang, T.J., Gao, P., Yu, S.P., Wang, X.P., 2013. Short-term effect
of cultivation and crop rotation systems on soil quality indicators in a coastal
newly reclaimed farming area. J. Soils Sediments 13, 13351350.