## 4 Discussion
### Carbon Analysis by Land Use and Land Cover  
The non-grouping was sensitive to normality; however, the grouped normality test was more sensitive in presenting the classes or years responsible for the heterogeneous distribution in relation to the center [69]. The grouping proved to be more assertive for the analyzed data [68] and to be the most recommended for this type of evaluation [68; 69; 98]. It was also possible to understand, from the histogram, that there was irregularity in the data as it moved away from the center, suggesting that the data was not parametric [69], as seems to be common in these type of studies [72; 77]. Considering these facts, the median was used, as this is the most recommended in order to compare groups in relation to mean values [70; 71]. The highest GPP values occurred for forest classes EBF, DBF, MF, WSV and SV (>31.32 gC m\({}^{-2}\)), while the lowest occurred for anthropized classes GL, PW, CL, UBL and WB (<25.71 gC m\({}^{-2}\)). Similar to the findings in this work, carbon uptake ranged from 50 to 103 gC m\({}^{-2}\) year\({}^{-1}\), with an average of 75.1 gC m\({}^{-2}\) year \({}^{-1}\), for EBF classes, and less than 40 gC m\({}^{-2}\) year\({}^{-1}\), for more anthropized classes, such as CL, GL and forest fragments [15]. In the transition between semi-deciduous forest (DBF and MF) and Cerrado(WSV and SV), GPP values of 27.7 gC m\({}^{-2}\) year\({}^{-1}\) (2003-2006) and 25.2 gC m\({}^{-2}\) year\({}^{-1}\), for GL were found [8]. The GL, CL and UBL classes were more positive and acted as the main sources of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions with land use and land cover changes [34], decreasing the amount of carbon absorbed by forests by reducing their area through deforestation [33]. The positive CO\({}_{2}\)Flux values (>2.83 umol m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)) of anthropic classes (GL, CL and UBL) indicate carbon loss to the atmosphere and were the main sources of CO\({}_{2}\) emissions in the land use and land cover changes [34]. GL and CL showed vales of 2.27 and 4.49 umol m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\), respectively, indicating carbon emission only higher than UBL and WB. The maximum CO\({}_{2}\)Flux values were observed for the regions classified as WB, representing the lowest carbon absorption, with the highest value for the year 2010, of 17.28 umol m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\). A study carried out in 2017 in the southern Amazonia forests (EBF) presented values close to \(-\)7.18 \(\pm\) -2.92 and bare soils (BN), 6.46 \(\pm\) 2.23 umol m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\), with intermediate values for pasture (GL) [42]. As in GPP, the CO\({}_{2}\)Flux variable, used to measure the efficiency of the carbon absorption process related to vegetation demonstrated differences between the more vegetated classes when compared to the anthropic classes [34; 61]. It can be observed that PW, UBL and WB were the largest sources of carbon, with almost no absorption over the years studied. GL and CL had the lowest carbon absorptions compared to the other vegetative classes and were still one of those that emitted the most carbon, and have been characterized as being the main class for changes in land use and land cover [34]. The DBF, MF, SV and WSV classes had higher carbon absorptions and lower carbon emissions which could be grouped as forest fragments, since these are randomly distributed in the studied area and are almost always associated with CL and GL. The vegetated areas showed lower values (<1 umol m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)), negative for the typical forest classes, EBF and WSV (<\(-\)0.65 umol m\({}^{-2}\) s\({}^{-1}\)), representing the highest carbon absorption and capture [18]. Furthermore, these values were lower the further away from water bodies, mainly for EBF. Studies have highlighted a substantial increase in carbon fixation for EBF areas because they comprise most of the Amazon rainforest (\(-\)65%), and for MF and WSV only slightly lower values in NPP (proportional to GPP) were observed [41].