<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JEP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Environmental Protection</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2152-2197</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jep.2022.135022</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JEP-117537</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Eutrophication Process of Soil nearby a Sanitary Landfill and Its Influence on Brazilian Savanna Vegetation
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Otacílio</surname><given-names>Antunes Santana</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>José</surname><given-names>Imaña-Encinas</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Forestry, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>1Department of Biofísic and Radiobiology, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>30</day><month>05</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>344</fpage><lpage>359</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>8,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>28,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>31,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  This work aimed to demonstrate if exists a relation between eutrophic processes of soil (N, P, K, pH, and organic matter) with phytosociology mosaic of native tree species in Brazilian adjacent sanitary landfill areas of the savanna. One of the study area is located in Brasilia, Federal District, and the other one in Goiania, State of Goi&#225;s, 210 km far each other. The methodology consisted in techniques, procedures and specific software applied to this kind of data. There were used plots and subplots for each area and for the vegetation and soil survey. Statistical significance showed that there exists a relationship between eutrophic processes of soil with phytosociology mosaic of native savanna tree species.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Native Tree Species</kwd><kwd> Savanna</kwd><kwd> Network Neural Model</kwd><kwd> Nutrients</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Eutrophication can be defined simply as the production of organic matter in excess of what an ecosystem is normally adapted to processing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref1">1</xref>], however, it is only part of a complex web of stressors that interact to shape and direct ecosystem level processes. Eutrophication is the process of enrichment of waters with excess plant nutrients, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen, which leads to enhanced growth of algae, periphyton, or macrophytes, so the eutrophication process is generated by human activities, and the most ubiquitous item is sewage, which is derived from a variety of sources: as a direct discharge, as a component of urban wastewater, or as sludge to be disposed of after treatment. In other words, it is the process in which a water body becomes overly enriched with nutrients, leading to plentiful growth of simple plant life. The excessive growth (or bloom) of algae and plankton in a water body are indicators of this process. In the last few decades, the eutrophication process shows a massive problem that is faced globally. The excessive presence of nitrogen and phosphorous in water leads to hypoxia and anoxia, reduced water quality, habitat degradation, loss of food web structure and the biodiversity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref2">2</xref>]. In Brazil, around 260,000 tons of urban solid residues are collected daily. From this amount, about 35,000 tons are taken to sanitary landfills producing byproducts as biogas and leachates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref2">2</xref>].</p><p>Savannas cover almost 20% of the earth’s surface in a belt between 15˚ and 20˚ of latitude in both hemispheres. Brazilian savannas (Cerrado) covers more than 20% of the Brazilian territory (2 million&#183;km<sup>2</sup>), being the second in terms of national area covered [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref3">3</xref>] losing only to the Amazonian forest that occupied more than 3.5 million&#183;km<sup>2</sup> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref4">4</xref>]. The savanna flora is one of the richest among the world’s savannas with more than 6000 species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref5">5</xref>].</p><p>In the last decades, eutrophic process in soil and groundwater has developed by sanitary landfill presences in the Central Brazil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref6">6</xref>]. This process results in the nutrients deposition, mainly: N, P and K ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref9">9</xref>]). Modification in pH, organic matter ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref10">10</xref>]) and others chemical elements showed statistical significance (p &lt; 0.05) and influence on the savanna vegetation ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref12">12</xref>]). The nutrient deposition produces effects in vegetation dynamics, particularly in tree; it enhances the biomass of the species and modifies value importance of species ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref13">13</xref>]).</p><p>This study aimed to analyze the eutrophic process of soil in adjacent areas of sanitary landfill and the influences of this process in the Brazilian savanna vegetation. The answers to the question will be the main goal to demonstrate if the eutrophic process and nutrients deposition influence the savanna vegetation, around the sanitary landfill.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials</title><p>Two areas around sanitary landfill were studied: in the National Park of Brasilia, near Jockey Club landfill - 15˚45'56.56&quot;S and 47˚59'55.25&quot;W SAD 69 (in Brasilia city); and around the sanitary landfill of the Goi&#226;nia - 16˚39'09.77&quot;S and 49˚23'37.08&quot;W SAD 69 (in Goi&#226;nia city). These areas are located on savanna biome (Cerrado) in the Central Brazil.</p><p>Regional climate is Cwa (according K&#246;ppen climate classification), which is the typical savanna climate with wet summers (October to March) and dry winters (May to August).</p><p>Soils in the study area are mainly Latossoils and Neossoils (sandy soils), according to the Brazilian Classification System [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref14">14</xref>], or Oxisoils and Entisoils, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref15">15</xref>]. In each sanitary landfill were established three plots of 25 &#215; 500 m (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>), with 10 subplots each [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref6">6</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Methods</title><p>Every individual tree (diameter at the breath height &gt;5 cm) was sampled in each plot (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) and identified them to species level, using an identification key based on vegetative characters and comparative botanic matter in the herbarium UB of the University of Bras&#237;lia and of the Brazilian Institute of Geology and Statistics (IBGE) both located in Brasilia city. Importance Value Index (IVI) was calculated according to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref16">16</xref>].</p><p>Surface soil samples (0 - 15 cm) were collected from the adjacent area of landfill in savanna vegetation for chemical analysis, consisting in five subsamples which were combined. All soil samples were dried at 40˚C and sieved to &lt;2 mm prior to analyses. The pH (H<sub>2</sub>O), organic matter (OM: oxidable carbon) and total nitrogenous (Nt) were analyzed according to Kieldahl method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref17">17</xref>]. Soil samples were digested with a mixture of concentrated HNO<sub>3</sub> and HClO<sub>4</sub>. Al, Ca, K and Mg, were determined with flame atomic absorption spectrometry, P with inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. All digestions were performed in duplicate.</p><p>The Stuttgart Neural Network Simulator (SNNS) software package was used to create the network and conduct training and testing. The back propagation algorithm was used for the training procedure, where the neural network got in to a form of a set of input layers, one for each independent variable, a set of hidden layers, and one output layer representing the estimate of the dependent variable ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref18">18</xref>]). The form of the neural network used in this project is similar to the architecture used in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref19">19</xref>]. These projects utilized the same neural network software package (SNNS) and software interface as did this study: a network of a hidden node for each input node, and the logistic sigmoid function.</p><p>The results (eigenvalues) were then altered using the logistic sigmoid function to reduce the range (+infinity, −infinity) usually to values between 0 and 1 ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref20">20</xref>]). The contamination level in this model was reached within relation of the data with the control data according to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref15">15</xref>].</p><p>Soil features and the Importance Value Index of plant species were ordinated by direct analysis of gradient. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) were used to investigate relationships between environmental variables (pH, OM, N<sub>t</sub>, P, K, Ca, Mg and Al) and IVI in sample plots (GYN + BSB). Significance of the overall CCA ordination was tested using a Monte Carlo permutation procedure [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref20">20</xref>].</p><p>Den-trended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref17">17</xref>] was also carried out for the 40 highest IVI. All multivariate analyses used the CANOCO package ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref20">20</xref>]). Linear adjusts (y = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>&#183;x); p-value and R<sup>2</sup> were calculated using an electronically analyses software.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Results</title><p>The 87 native tree species were identified (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) and distributed in the 67 genders and 42 families. The families with the highest number of species were: Leguminosae with 11 species; Caesalpinaceae and Myrtaceae with five species each; and Rubiaceae, Melastomataceae, Apocynaceae and Annonaceae with four species each; this all representing 42% of sampling species.</p><p>The highest number of species distributed in many families corroborated with others phytosociological studies carried out in the savanna region (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><p>In Brasilia and Goi&#226;nia (210 km of distance between both cities) were registered 58% of the species in common: Miconia albicans, Stryphnodendron adstringens, Alibertia macrophylla, Piptocarpha rotundifolia, Rudgea viburnoides. Others species were registered in only one area: Cayaponia tayuya and Anadenanthera colubrina, only in Brasilia; and Couepia grandiflora and Macrosiphonia longiflora only in Goi&#226;nia.</p><p>The species with the highest IVI were: Miconia albicans with 25.80; Stryphnodendron adstringens with 16.28; Alibertia macrophylla with 16.27; Piptocarpha rotundifolia with 15.82; Rudgea viburnoides with 14.21; Qualea grandiflora with 13.93; Enterolobium contortisiliquum with 13.45; Dalbergia miscolobium with 11.13; and Byrsonima crassa with 11.12. The species that had the ten highest IVI value were registered in all subplots, with the exception of Byrsonima crassa, Byrsonima intermedia and Piptocarpha rotundifolia that were sampled in 80% of the subplots. Rudgea viburnoides was sampled in 55% of the subplots. The species that had IVI value &lt;0.5 were sampled in 3% of subplots.</p><p>With the environmental variables (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>) were observed high average in relation of mesotrophic savanna data, this will be demonstrate if exist the eutrophic process in savanna soil around the sanitary landfills [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref21">21</xref>].</p><p>The average value of pH was high (&#177;5.86) in relation of mesotrophic savanna data (Cerrad&#227;o) which is &#177;4.7 ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref12">12</xref>]). The same results occurred with others soil variables that showed in average an enhance of values in relation to the mesotrophic savanna data: OM of 7.60% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref22">22</xref>] to 15.15% in this study; Nt of 0.45% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref23">23</xref>] to 0.76%; K (mg/100g) of 1.69 ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref12">12</xref>]) to 14.25; P (mg/100g) of 7.00 ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref1">1</xref>]) to 8.65; Ca (mmolc/kg) of 3.00 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref24">24</xref>] to 8.00; and Mg (mmolc/kg) of 2.00 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref25">25</xref>] to 10.75; respectively. Only Al (mmolc/kg) had low value in relation to the savanna studies, of 12 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref12">12</xref>] to 8.5.</p><p>The contamination levels were observed with the results of network neural model analysis (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>) in relation with reference data [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref15">15</xref>], corroborating with results of <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> show the central position of the studied plots.</p><p>Near areas of the landfills had contamination levels of 0.80 in Brasilia and 0.49 in Goi&#226;nia. These values corroborate with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref3">3</xref>] data, which changed from 0.45 to</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Native tree species of savanna (Cerrado), average importance value index (IVI) registered in studied area of adjacent sanitary landfills: Jockey Club de Bras&#237;lia landfill - BSB, and Goi&#226;nia landfill - GYN (SD = standard deviation, “x” represents the presence of specie in area)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Families</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia BSB</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia GYN</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >IVI</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SD</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acosmium dasycarpum (Vogel) Yakovlev</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caesalpiniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acosmium subelegans (Mohlenbr.) Yakovlev</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caesalpiniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aegiphila lhotzkyana Cham.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Verbenaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Alibertia macrophylla Schum.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anacardium occidentale L.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anacardiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anadenanthera colubrina (Vell.) Brenan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annona coriacea Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annona dioica A.St. - Hil.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aspidosperma macrocarpon Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apocynaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aspidosperma verbascifolium M. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apocynaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Austroplenckia populnea (Reiss) Lund.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Celastraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bauhinia holophylla Steud.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caesalpiniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bauhinia mollis (Bong.) Walp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bowdichia virgilioides H.B.K.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brosimum gaudichaudii Tr&#233;cul</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Moraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Byrsonima crassa Nied.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malpichiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.56</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Byrsonima intermedia A. Juss.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malpichiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Byrsonima verbascifolia (L.) DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Malpichiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cabralea canjerana (Vell.) Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Meliaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Campomanesia xanthocarpa Berg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrtaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caryocar brasiliense Camb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caryocaraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Casearia decandra Jacq.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Flacourtiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Couepia grandiflora (Mart. Zucc.) Benth. ex Hook. f.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chrysobalanaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cayaponia tayuya (Vell.) Cogn.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cucurbitaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cissampelos ovalifolia DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Menispermaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dalbergia miscolobium Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Papilionoideae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.56</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Didymopanax macrocarpum Seem.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Araliaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diospyros hispida A.DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ebenaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dimorphandra gardneriana Tul.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dipteryx alata Vog.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Duguetia furfuracea (A. St. - Hil.) Saff.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eriotheca gracilipes (K. Schum.) A. Robyns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bombacaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eriotheca pubescens (Mart. Zucc.) Schott and Endl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bombacaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Erythroxylum suberosum St. Hil.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Erythroxylaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Enterolobium contortisiliquum (Vell.) Morong</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.67</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eugenia dysenterica DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrtaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Guapira noxia (Netto) Lundell</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nyctaginaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hymenaea stigonocarpa Mart. ex Hayne</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hyptidendron canum (Pohl. ex. Benth) RM. Harley</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Labiatae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Inga cf. affinis DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kielmeyera coriacea (Spreng.) Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clusiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kielmeyera neriifolia Camb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Guttiferae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lafoensia pacari St. Hil.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lythraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Licania humilis Cham and Schlect</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chrysobalanaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Machaerium acutifolium Vog.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Machaerium opacum Vogel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Papilionoideae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macrosiphonia longiflora (Desf.) M. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apocynaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Miconia albicans (Sw.) Triana</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Melastomataceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Miconia ferruginata DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Melastomataceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Miconia langsdorffii Cogn.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Melastomataceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Miconia sellowiana Naudin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Melastomataceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mimosa laticifera Rizz. and Mattos Filho</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrcia cf. lingua (O. Berg) Mattos and Legrand</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrtaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrcia rostrata DC.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrtaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neea theifera Oerst.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nyctaginaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ocotea pulchella Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lauraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ouratea hexasperma (St. Hil.) Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ochinaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ouratea spectabilis (Mart. ex Engl.) Engl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ochinaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Palicourea rigida Kunth Bate-caixa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Piptocarpha rotundifolia (Less.) Baker</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Asteraceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pisonia ambigua Heimerl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nyctaginaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Psidium pohlianus Camb.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrtaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pouteria ramiflora (Mart.) Radlk</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sapotaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pouteria torta (Mart.) Radlk.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sapotaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Qualea grandiflora Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vochysiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Qualea multiflora Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vochysiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rapanea coriacea R. Br. ex Roem. and Scult.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrsinaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rapanea ferruginea (Ru&#237;z and Pav.) Mez</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myrsinaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rhodocalyx rotundifolius M. Arg.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apocynaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rudgea viburnoides (Cham.) Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.71</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sclerolobium paniculatum Vogel</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caesalpiniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Senna rugosa (G. Don) Irwin and Barneby</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caesalpiniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Siparuna guianensis Aubl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Monimiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Solanum lycocarpum St. Hil.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Solanaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sthrychnos pseudo-quina St. Hil.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Loganiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Styrax ferrugineus Nees and Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Styracaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Strychnos pseudoquina St. Hil.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Loganiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stryphnodendron adstringens (Mart.) Coville</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leguminosae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Symplocos cf. pubescens Klotzsch ex Benth.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Symplocaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tabebuia aurea (Mart.)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bignoniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tabebuia roseo-alba (Ridley) Sandwith</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bignoniaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tocoyena formosa (C. and S.) K. Sch.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rubiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vernonia ferruginea Less.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Compositae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Virola sebifera Aubl.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Myristicaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vochysia thyrsoidea Pohl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vochysiaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Xylopia aromatica (Lam.) Mart.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Annonaceae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >x</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.29</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Floristic richness in phytosociological registers realized in the savanna areas</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Phytosociological registers</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Species</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Families</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Bouxin (2006)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Baldu&#237;no et al. (2005)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Fiedler et al. (2004)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Saporetti Jr. et al. (2003)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Felfili et al. (2002)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Batalha et al. (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Balatova-Tulackova and Surli (1982)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >In this study</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >BSB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GYN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>0.99. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref21">21</xref>] described that the distinct values between Brasilia and Goi&#226;nia were caused by differences age of landfill implementation (today more than 40 years).</p><p>In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> were observed the eigenvalues and representative order of the soil variables. OM, Nt, P and Ca were the variables with the highest representation of the model. These variables represent 74.96% and 81.83% of all variance %, to Brasilia and Goi&#226;nia, respectively.</p><p><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref> shows the linear adjusts between numbers of species with the environmental variables. All linear adjusts were significant (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>) showing directly proportional enhance of the soil features concentration with enhance of the numbers of species.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Average and standard deviation (&#177;) of physical and chemical soil propriety registered in studied plots: adjacent area of Jockey Club landfill in Brasilia/DF, plus current references data</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Biome</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Studies site</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="8"  >Soil variables</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >MO (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nt (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (mg/100g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K (mg/100g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca (mmolc/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mg (mmolc/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Al (mmolc/kg)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >In this study</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia - BSB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.82 &#177; 0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.85 &#177; 0.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.60 &#177; 0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.80 &#177; 3.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.22 &#177; 4.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.53 &#177; 1.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.65 &#177; 4.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.24 &#177; 4.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia - GYN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.99 &#177; 0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.64 &#177; 3.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.84 &#177; 0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.73 &#177; 1.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.86 &#177; 2.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.55 &#177; 2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.45 &#177; 2.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.63 &#177; 1.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >savanna strictu sensu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ruggiero et al. (2002)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00 &#177; 0.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.30 &#177; 8.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.90 &#177; 1.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.60 &#177; 4.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.20 &#177; 0.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.70 &#177; 0.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.30 &#177; 2.71</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Lilienfein et al. (2001)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Haridasan et al. (2000)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Carvalho et al. (2005)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.60 &#177; 0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.00 &#177; 11.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.40 &#177; 11.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.90 &#177; 4.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.00 &#177; 0.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00 &#177; 0.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >cerrad&#227;o (savanna forest)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Haridasan et al. (2000)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Eigenvalues of soil data in Brasilia and Goi&#226;nia</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Component*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Variance (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cumulative (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Variance (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cumulative (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >OM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.321</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.221</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nt (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.524</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.816</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca (mmolc/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.931</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (mg/100g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.598</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.658</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K (mg/100g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.595</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.495</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.444</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.288</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.72</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mg (mmolc/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.004</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.054</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.87</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Al (mmolc/kg)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.522</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.522</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>*p-value to all variables &lt;0.001.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Statistical parameters of linear adjust between number of species in subplots (n˚ sp) (y) and soil variables (Nt = total nitrogenous, OM = organic matter, pH, P, K, Ca, Al and Mg) (x)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Relation</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Site</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Equations</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EP</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spxNt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.001x + 0.872</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.070</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.023x + 1.306</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.263</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.019</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx OM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.093x + 19.945</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.026</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.704x + 26.048</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.015</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.016x + 5.870</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.026</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.021</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.042x + 6.436</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx P</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.031x + 8.554</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.023</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.033</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.226x + 14.595</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.490</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx K</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.266x + 23.241</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.048</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.032</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.595x + 2.863</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.101</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx Ca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.375x + 13.140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.057</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.451x + 5.891</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.090</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx Al</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.324x + 6.221</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.781x + 9.801</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n˚ spx Mg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brasilia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.324x + 1.121</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Goi&#226;nia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >y = −0.961x + 6.427</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.075</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>R<sup>2</sup> = determination coefficient; EP = standard error; p = significance level.</p><p>Soil properties values against IVI species in Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) revealed significant correlation in all soil variables (F &gt; 3.18 and p &lt; 0.001) in the axes, represented in the ordination diagram (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>).</p><p>The canonical coefficients, the intra set correlation coefficients, and the correlation between environmental variables and ordination axes are presented in</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>, where the most significant variables of the first two axes according to t values for soil variables can also be distinguished. Considering the canonical coefficients and intra set correlation coefficient, the most significant soil variable were OM, Nt, Ca and Al. Al was the different one in relation to network neural model, this chemical element showed significance in correlation with vegetation data.</p><p>Species with highest IVI: Miconiaalbicans, Stryphnodrendonadstringens,</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Canonical correlation coefficients of the environmental variables: pH, OM = organic matter, Nt = total nitrogenous, P, K, Ca, Mg and Al. Coefficients &gt;0.4 in bold</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Environmental</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Correlation</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >pH</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >OM</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Nt</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >P</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >K</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Ca</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Mg</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Al</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >variables</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ax 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ax 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ax 1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ax 2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >OM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nt</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >P</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ca</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Al</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Alibertiamacrophylla and Qualeagrandiflora joined in CCA near pH and Al axes. These axes received a set of 19 species. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref12">12</xref>] also observed this same pattern when some species developed best in Al soil presence. Other important ax was P with 10 relationated species.</p><p>Others species joined with others axes, for example: Enterolobiumcontortisiliquum, Rudgeavirbunoides and Piptocarpharotundifolia; with K, OM and Ca, respectively, which are species that had high value of biomass. Miconiaferruginata, Brosimumgaudichaudii and Byrsonimacrassa had low correlation with the axes of the soil variables.</p><p>In soil study in physiognomies, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref25">25</xref>] observed these patterns; species as Hymenaeaaurea were associated to Mg ax and Sweetiafruticosa to Ca ax.</p><p>In the de-trended correspondence analysis (DCA) for the highest IVI species, the first and second axes contributed with 34% and 57% of the variation, respectively. The ordination diagram of this analysis showed two different groups. The first was mainly formed by the highest IVI species (as Miconiaalbicans and Stryphnodrendonadstringens) and second by the lowest IVI species (as Ourateaspectabilis and Miconialangsdorffii).</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Discussion</title><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref27">27</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref28">28</xref>] showed in their studies the IVI heterogeneity of tree species. These authors described that the dynamic alteration of the tree species in distinct areas were caused by different abiotical and environmental factors in the communities.</p><p>High value of standard deviation (SD) showed the preference of species by any place. This pattern resulted in large amplitude of IVI value. The SD varied from 0 to 50% of IVI value. The frequency, abundance and dominance parameters were transcribed in the IVI value [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref29">29</xref>].</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref30">30</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref31">31</xref>] examined the relationship between soil and distance around landfills, and observed the high significant statistical of landfill presence in the soil features, the same was observed in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref21">21</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref32">32</xref>]) studies.</p><p>Eutrophic process was also confirmed with the highest significant variation mainly N, P, K, Ca and organic matter deposition in the soil around the sanitary landfills. This pattern was observed in others studies around landfills ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref33">33</xref>]).</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref6">6</xref>] with diversity vegetation data around landfill (in the same area) observed enhance of diversity with enhance value of the soil features concentration, but did not observe statistical significance of floristic diversity between the subplots gradient (near or far of the landfills limit).</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref14">14</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref25">25</xref>] described that soil gradient had a great impact in structure, dynamic and diversity of tree. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref7">7</xref>] confirmed the effects of soil nutrients in the savanna vegetation mainly N, P, Ca, Al, Mg and K. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref12">12</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref22">22</xref>] observed that OM and pH were also determinant factors in soil mesotrophic of vegetation feature and distribution.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref34">34</xref>] showed strong correlation between vegetation patterns and surface soils properties, in savanna region. He also observed that there is an intimate relationship between the properties of the surface soil horizons and the nature and also abundance of plant species which affects nutrient, as well as water absorption and retention in the biomass and upper rhizosphere.</p><p>Such a considerable correspondence between plant variation and soil features could be explained by the fact that vegetation itself influences soil characteristics at the upper layers, for instance by transferring organic matter through nutrient cycling [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref17">17</xref>].</p><p>Several authors examined the influence of fertility, such as the availability of nutrients in plant density and other vegetation characteristics ( [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref35">35</xref>]).</p><p>The multivariate relation between plant-soil in the nature was evidenced in this study, corroborating with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref36">36</xref>]. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref20">20</xref>] described that environment and species developed associated sets such as observed in DCA analysis. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.117537-ref37">37</xref>] showed that dynamic vegetation reflects the adaptation within the local soil nutrition.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>6. Conclusion</title><p>The studied sanitary landfills were in the eutrophic process of soil with enhanced values of pH, OM, Nt, P, K, Ca and Mg in relation to the control and reference data of mesotrophic soils; and there is a relation between eutrophic process with the savanna vegetation and the species distribution around sanitary landfills.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We appreciate the Brazilian CNPq for the financial support while without it this research would not have been possible.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Santana, O.A. and Ima&#241;a-Encinas, J. (2022) Eutrophication Process of Soil nearby a Sanitary Landfill and Its Influence on Brazilian Savanna Vegetation. Journal of Environmental Protection, 13, 344-359. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2022.135022</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.117537-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lilienfein, J., Wilcke, W., Zimmermann, R., Gerstberger, P., Araújo, G. and Zech, W. (2001) Nutrient Storage in Soil and Biomass of Native Brazilian Cerrado. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 164, 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2624(200110)164:5%3C487::AID-JPLN487%3E3.0.CO;2-I</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shellito, B.A. and Pijanowski, B.C. (2003) Using Neural Nets to Model the Spatial Distributions of Geographic Information Society. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 30, 281-290. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304003100011207</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pijanowski, B., Brown, D., Shellito, B. and Manik, G. (2002) Using Neural Networks and GIS to Forecast Land Use Changes: A Land Transformation Model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26, 553-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00015-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1992) Permutation versus Bootstrap Significance Tests in Multiple Regression and Anova. In: J&amp;ouml;ckel, K.H., Rothe, G. and Sendler, W., Eds., Bootstrapping and Related Techniques, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 79-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48850-4_10</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Santana, O.A. and Ima&amp;ntilde;a-Encinas, J. (2004) Modelo espacial de contamina&amp;atilde;o do solo e do lenol freático do aterro do Jockey Club para o Parque Nacional de Brasília. In: Pejon, O.J. and Zuquette, L.V., Eds., Cartografia Geotécnica e Geoambiental: Conhecimento do Meio Físico - Base para a Sutentabilidade. Suprema Gráfica Editora, S&amp;atilde;o Carlos, 453-460.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Janssens, F., Peeters, A., Tallowin, J.R.B., Bakker, J.P., Bekker, R.M., Fillat, F. and Oomes, M.J.M. (1998) Relationship between Soil Chemical Factors and Grassland Diversity. Plant and Soil, 202, 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004389614865</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lima, A.L.daS., Zanella, F., Schiavinato, M.A. and Haddad, C.R.B. (2006) Nitrogenous Compounds, Phenolic Compounds and Morphological Aspects of Leaves: Comparison of decIduous and semideciduous Arboreal Legumes. Scientia Agricola, 63, 40-45. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162006000100007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mesquita, E.E., Pinto, J.C., Furtini Neto, A.E., dos Santos, í.P.A. and Tavares, V.B. (2004) Teores críticos de fósforo em três solos para o estabelecimento de capim-Mombaa, capim-Marandu e capim-Andropogon em vasos. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 33, 290-301. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982004000200004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Carvalho, D.A., Oliveira Filho, A.T., Vilela, E.A., Curi, N., Van Den Berg, E., Fontes, M.A.L. and Botezelli, L. (2005) Distribui&amp;atilde;o de espécies arbóreo-arbustivas ao longo de um gradiente de solos e topografia em um trecho de floresta ripária do rio S&amp;atilde;o Francisco em Três Marias, MG, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Botanica, 28, 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84042005000200013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marimon Junior, B.H. and Haridasan, M. (2005) Compara&amp;atilde;o da vegeta&amp;atilde;o arbórea e características edáficas de um cerrad&amp;atilde;o e um cerrado sensu stricto em áreas adjacentes sobre solo distrófico no leste de Mato Grosso, Brasil. Acta Botaica Brasilica, 19, 913-926. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062005000400026</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Andrade, L.A.Z., Felfili, J.M. and Violatti, L. (2002) Fitossociologia de uma área de cerrado denso na RECOR-IBGE, Brasília-DF. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 2, 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-33062002000200009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Batalha, M.A., Mantovani, W. and de Mesquita Júnior, H.N. (2001) Vegetation Structure in Cerrado Physiognomies in South-Eastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 61, 475-483. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842001000300018</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pereira-Silva, E.F.L., dos Santos, J.E., Kageyama, P.Y. and Hardt, E. (2004) Florística e fitossociologia dos estratos arbustivo e arbóreo de um remanescente de cerrad&amp;atilde;o em uma Unidade de Conserva&amp;atilde;o do Estado de S&amp;atilde;o Paulo. Revista Brasileira de Botanica, 27, 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84042004000300013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shang, J.Q., Asce, M., Rowe, R.K. and Asce, F. (2003) Detecting Landfill Leachate Contamination Using Soil Electrical Properties. Practice Periodical of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste Management, 7, 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2003)7:1(3)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Elliott, P., Briggs, D., Morris, S., de Hoogh, C., Hurt, C. and Jensen, T.K. (2001) Risk of Adverse Birth Outcomes in Populations Living near Landfill Sites. British Medical Journal, 323, 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7309.363</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Santana, O.A., Ima&amp;ntilde;a-Encinas, J., Studart-Corrêa, R. and Couto Júnior, A.F. (2008) Influencia del basural de la ciudad de Goiania sobre la diversidad florística arbórea de la sabana brasilera. Cerne (Labras, Brasil), 14, 212-219.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ziaja, M., Wójik, T. and Wrzesien, M. (2021) Phytosociological data in Assessment of Antropogenic Changes in Vegetation of Rzészów Reservoir. Sustainability, 13, Article No. 9071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169071</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Furley, P.A. (1976) Soil-Slope-Plant Relationships in the Northern Maya Mountains, Belize. 3. Variations in the Nature and Distribution of Soil Properties. Journal of Biogeography, 3, 303-319. https://doi.org/10.2307/3038020</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhidkova, A.Y. and Bednaya, T.A. (2021) Method of the Assessment of the Eutrophication of the Waters of the Gulf of Taganrog of the Sea of Azov Subject to the External Load on the Water Area. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 666, Article ID: 022063. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/666/2/022063</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Botrel, R.T., Oliveira Filho, A.T., Rodrigues, L.A. and Curi, N. (2002) Influência do solo e topografia sobre as varia&amp;otilde;es da composi&amp;atilde; o florística e estrutura da comunidade arbóreo-arbustiva de uma floresta estacional semidecidual em Ingaí, MG. Revista Brasileira de Botanica, 25, 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-84042002000200008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Debski, I., Burslem, D.F.R.P. and Lamb, D. (2000) Ecological Processes Maintaining Differential Tree Species Distributions in an Australian Subtropical Rain Forest: Implications for Models of Species Coexistence. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 16, 387-415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400001474</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mueller-Dumbois, D. and Ellemberg, H. (2002) Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 150 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soil Survey Staff (1990) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. SMSS Technical Monograh No. 6. United States Department of Agriculture, Blacksburg, 886 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pequisa Agropecuária) (1999) Sistema brasileiro de classifica&amp;atilde;o de solos. Brazilian Soil Classification System, Portal Embrapa, 412 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nardoto, G.B., Bustamante, M.M.C., Pinto, A.S. and Klink, C.A. (2006) Nutrient Use Efficiency at Ecosystem and Species Level in Savanna Areas of Central Brazil and Impacts of Fire. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22, 191-201.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Haridasan</surname><given-names> M. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2000</year>)<article-title>Nutri&amp;atilde;o mineral de plantas nativas do cerrado</article-title><source> Revista Brasileira Fisiologia Vegetal</source><volume> 12</volume>,<fpage> 54</fpage>-<lpage>64</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">da Silva, M.C. and Sarmento, T.R. (2009) Comunidades lenhosas no cerrado sentido restrito em duas posi&amp;otilde;es topográficas na Esta&amp;atilde;o Ecológica do Jardim Botanico de Brasília, DF, Brasil. Rodriguésia, 60, 277-294. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-7860200960204</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sardi-Saavedra, A., Pe&amp;ntilde;a-Salamanca, E.J., Madera-Parra, C.A. and Cerón-Hernández, V.A. (2016) Diversidad de las comunidades de algas a un sistema algal de alta tasa fotosintética para la biorremediación de lixiviados de rellenos sanitarios. Latin American Journal of Acuatic Research, 44, 113-120.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Erhunmwunse, N., Dirisu, A. and Ogbeibu, A. (2013) Managing Eutrophication in Nigeria Inland Waters. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 5, 743-746. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2013.57075</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Lemley, D.A. and Adams, J.B. (2019) Eutrophication. In: Fath, B., Ed., Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Vol. 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 86-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10957-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bustamante, M.M.C., Medina, E., Asner, G.P., Nardoto, G.B. and Garcia-Montiel, D.C. (2006) Nitrogen Cycling in Tropical and Temperate Savannas. Biogeochemistry, 79, 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-006-9006-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Santana, O.A. and Ima&amp;ntilde;a-Encinas, J. (2009) Composi&amp;atilde;o química do solo e da água subterranea em áreas adjacentes a aterros sanitários. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrarias (Recife, Brasil), 4, 318-328.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Mendona, R.C., Felfili, J.M., Walter, B.M.T., Silva Júnior, M.C., Rezende, A.V., Filgueiras, T.S. and Nogueira, P.E. (1998) Flora vascular do Cerrado. In: Sano, S.M., Almeida, S.P. and Ribeiro, J.F. Eds., Cerrado: Ecologia e flora, Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, 289-556.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mittermeyer, R.A., Myers, N. and Mittermeier, C.G. (1999) Hotspots Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endagered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Conservation International, New York, 430 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kumar, D. and Alappat, B.J. (2005) Evaluating Leachate Contamination Potential of Landfill Sites Using Leachate Pollution Index. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 7, 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-004-0269-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Leite, V.D., Pearson, H.W., Sousa, J.T., Lopes, W.S. and Luna, M.L. (2011) Ammonia Nitrogen Desoption from Sanitary Landfill Leachate in Filling Towers. Engenharia Agrícola, 34, 542-553. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162014000300017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.117537-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nixon, S.W. (1995) Coastal Marine Eutrophication: A Definition, Social Causes, and Future Concerns. Ophelia, 41, 1999-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00785236.1995.10422044</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>