Remote Sensing Applications in Miombo and the Coastal Mosaic Forests of Tanzania: Ecological Conditions and Anthropogenic Disturbances in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, Tanzania
Le résumé fourni par la source
This chapter explores the application of remote sensing technology to assess ecological conditions and anthropogenic disturbances in the Miombo and Coastal Mosaic Forest of Tanzania, with a specific focus on the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor. This critical corridor facilitates wildlife movement between the Selous Game Reserve, Nyerere National Park (Tanzania), and the Niassa Special Reserve (Mozambique). Remote sensing proves indispensable for monitoring and comprehensively evaluating the coastal forest’s health and changes, providing nonintrusive and accurate data collection over vast and inaccessible areas. The findings highlight significant land use changes, stable vegetation conditions from 2001 to 2012, and subsequent improvements from 2013 to 2020, while 266 rainfall patterns and fire incidences fluctuate. To safeguard the corridor’s ecological integrity, conservation and management strategies that prioritize maintaining connectivity and mitigating human–wildlife conflicts and regulating land use practices are essential. This chapter offers a comprehensive analysis of the corridor’s ecological conditions, emphasizing the significance of well-informed conservation and management strategies that balance conservation goals with the well-being of the communities within the Ruvuma landscape.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Remote Sensing Applications in Miombo and the Coastal Mosaic Forests of Tanzania: Ecological Conditions and Anthropogenic Disturbances in the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor, Tanzania
- Date Crossref
- 17/02/2026
- Éditeur
- Apple Academic Press
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.