ارزیابی چیدمان مکانی سیمای سرزمین به منظور دستیابی به اقدامات حفاظتی

نوع مقاله: مقاله ترویجی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه ملایر

چکیده

مفهوم ارتباط سیمای سرزمین در یک منطقه به منظور توصیف چگونگی تاثیر چیدمان مکانی و کیفیت بخش‌های مختلف سیمای سرزمین بر مهاجرت و جابه‌جایی موجودات در میان تکه‌های زیستگاهی مورد توجه و استفاده قرار گرفته است. از آن‌جایی که هدف اصلی بررسی ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین، برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت سیمای سرزمین به منظور حفظ و نگهداشت تنوع زیستی موجود در تکه‌های زیستگاهی کمیاب و پراکنده است به طوری که پایداری فرایندهای بوم‌شناختی را در سیمای سرزمین تضمین نماید، در این مطالعه، سعی شده تا با استفاده از شیوه توصیفی- تحلیلی و مرور منابع علمی ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین و اهمیت آن برای حفظ تنوع زیستی همراه با رویکردها و ابزارهای مورد استفاده برای کمی‌سازی ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. بنابراین ابتدا در این مطالعه داده‌های مورد بررسی در دو گروه ؛ اطلاعات کلی در مورد ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین و روش‌ها و ابزارهای مورد استفاده در بررسی ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین سازمان یافت. بررسی‌ها نشان داد که تحلیل کمترین هزینه بیشترین کاربرد را در مطالعه ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین داشته است. از سوی دیگر یافته‌ها نشان داد که بیشتر منابع علمی ارتباطات عملکردی سیمای سرزمین را ارزیابی کرده‌اند. هم‌چنین نتایج بررسی بیانگر این است که ابزار ترجیحی برای بررسی ارتباطات سیمای سرزمین CONEFOR بوده و نرم‌افزار LINKAGE MAPPER به خاطر استفاده از روش کمترین هزینه در تحلیل بیشتر مورد توجه قرار دارد. به طور کلی استفاده از رویکردهای مدل‌سازی ارتباطات و ابزارهای کاربردی در این زمینه با توجه به اهداف مطالعه و میزان اهمیت زیستگاه‌ها و گونه‌ها می‌تواند متفاوت باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of Spatial arrangement of Landscape in order to access to conservation actions

چکیده [English]

Assessment of Spatial Arrangement of Landscape Elements to
Achieve Conservation Goals
 
 
 
 
1*Abdollahi, S.; 2Ildoromi, A.
 
1 PhD Student of Landuse Planning, Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Sciences Malayer University
2. Assoc. Prof. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Malayer University
 
(Received: 2016/05/18 ; Accepted: 2017/08/30)
 
 
Abstract
The concept of landscape connectivity in a region is used to describe how the spatial arrangement and the quality of elements in the landscape affect the movement and migration of organisms among habitat patches. The main purpose of landscape connectivity survey is landscape planning and management in order to maintain biodiversity in the rare and fragmented habitats so that the stability of ecological processes is assured. In this study, we used descriptive-analytic method and literature review in connection with landscape connectivity and its importance for biodiversity conservation and the methods and tools for quantification of landscape connectivity. The data we gathered were organized into two categories of general information about landscape connectivity and methods and applied tools of landscape connectivity. Results showed that the least cost analysis was the most commonly applied method. We also showed the focus is on the functional connectivity of landscape. Our results revealed CONEFOR was the preferred tool in landscape connectivity analysis and LINKAGE MAPPER software is more applied because of using least cost analysis. Use of connectivity modeling approaches and applied tools can be different due to objectives of the studies and and the importance of habitats and species.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key words: Landscape connectivity, Habitat corridors, Structural and functional connectivity, Models, Movement path.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

*Corresponding author                                                                       Email : baharabdollahi94@gmail.com  

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Landscape connectivity
  • habitat corridors
  • Structural and functional connectivity
  • Models
  • movement path

عرفانیان، ب.؛ میرکریمی، س. ح.؛ سلمان ماهینی، ع. و رضایی، ح. ر. 1394. مکان‌‌‌‌‌یابی احداث گذرگاه برای پلنگ (Panther pardus) در پارک ملی گلستان، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی محیط‌‌‌‌‌زیست جانوری، سال هفتم، شماره 4: 10 -1

مشهدی احمدی، ا. ع.؛ شمس اسفندآباد، ب. و گشتاسب میگونی، ح. 1393. مدل‌‌‌‌‌سازی مسیرهای گدار گوسفند وحشی البرز مرکزی با استفاده از آنالیز کمترین هزینه مسیر در تهران، علوم و مهندسی محیط‌‌‌‌‌زیست، سال اول، شماره 3: 58 -41

Adriaensen, F.; Chardon, J. P.; DeBlust, G.; Swinnen, E.; Villalba, S.; Gulinck, H. & Matthysen, E. 2003. The application of least- cost modeling as a functional landscape model, landscape & Urban Planning, Vol. 64: 233-247.

Ament, R.; Callahan, R.; McClure, M.; Reuling, M. & Tabor, G. 2014. Wildlife Connectivity: Fundamentals for conservation action. Center for Large Landscape Conservation: Bozeman. Montana.

Bunn, A. G.; Urban, D. L. & Keitt, T. H. 2000. Landscape connectivity: A conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management. 59: 265–278.

Bennett, A. F. 2003. Linkages in the landscape; The role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN Forest Conservation Program. Coserving Forest Ecosystems Series. No. 1.

Bennett, G. 2004. Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use: Lessons Learned From Ecological Networks. IUCN. Gland. Switzerland. & Cambridge. UK. 55 pp. Available at: http://data.iucn.org/ dbtwwpd/edocs/2004-002.pdf

Beirer, P.; Garding, E. & Majka, D. R. 2008a. Arizona missing linkages Gila Bend- Sierra Estr Linkage Design Report. School of Forestry Arizona Game & Fish Department. Northern Arizona University. p. 109.

Beier, P.; Majka, D. R. & Wayaned, S. 2008b. Forks in the Road: Choices in Procedures for Designing Wildland Linkages. Conservation Biology, Vol. 22. No. 4: 836–851.

Buckingham, F. & Shanee, S. 2009. Conservation Priorities for the Peruvian Yellow- Tailed Woolly Monkey (Oreonax): AGIS risk assessment and gep analysis. primate conservation. Vol. 24: 65- 71.

Beier, P.; Majka, D. R. & Jenness, J. 2010. Conceptual steps for desingning wildlife corridors initiative from Northern Arizona University.

Beier, P.; Spencer, W. & Baldwin, R. F. 2011. Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps Conservation Biology. 25: 879–892.

Brost, B. M. & Beier, P. 2012. Use of land facets to design linkages for climate change. Ecological Applications. 22(1):87-103.

Clevenger, A. P.; Wierzchowski, J.; Chruszcz, B. & Gunson, K. 2002. GIS- generated, expert- based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning for mitigation passages. Conservation Biology. Vol. 16: 503- 514.

Calabrese, J. M. & Fagan W. F. 2004. A comparision shoppers guide to connectivity Trading off between data requirments and information content. Frontiers in Ecology Environment. Vol. 2: 529- 536.

Crooks, K. & Sanjayan, M. 2006. Connectivity Conservation, Cambridge university Press. Cambridge. UK.

Chester, C. & Hility, J. 2009. Connectivity Conservation Concepts- The Natural Setting. a global guide. Earthscan. Londen.

Chetkiewicz, C. L. B. & Boyce, M. S. 2009. Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46: 1036– 1047.

Carroll, C. B.; McRae, B. H. & Brookes, A. 2011. Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in Western North America. Conservation Biology 26:78-87.

Cushman, S. A.; Landguth, E. L. & Flather, C. H. 2011. Climate Change and Connectivity: AssessingLandscape and Species Vulnerability. Final Report to USFWS Great Plains Landscape Conservation Co-operative.

Cushman, S. A.; McRae, B. H.; Adriaensen, F.; Beier, P.; Shirley, M. & Zeller, K. 2013. Conservation Biology, 2nd edition, ohn Wiley and Sons. New York.

Crouzeilles, R.; Lorini, M. L. & Grelle C. E. V. 2013. The importance of using sustainable use protected areas for functional connectivity. Biological Conservation. 159: 450–457.

Edwards, H. J.; Elliott, I. A.; Pressey, R. L. & Mumby, P. J. 2010. Incorporating ontogenetic dispersal. ecological processes and conservation zoning into reserve design. Biological Conservation. 143: 457- 470.

Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscape & Regions . Cambridge University Press.UK.

Ferreras, F. 2001. Landscape connectivity and asymmetrical inter- patch connectivity in Metpopulation of endangered Iberian Linx.  Biology Conservation. Vol. 100: 125- 136.

Gurrutxaga, M.; Rubio, L. & Saura, S. 2011. Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: A transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe). Landscape & Urban Planning. 101: 310–320.

GarciaFeced, C.; Saura, S. & ElenaRossello, R. 2011. Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: A two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural fragments for reforestation. Forest Ecology & Management. 261: 154–161.

Galpern, P. 2012. Modelling landscape connectivity for highly-mobile terrestrial animals a continuous and scalable approach. A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. Natural Resources Institute. University of Manitoba. Winnipeg.

Hanski, I.; A. & Gilpin, M. E. 1997. Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. San Diego. CA. Academic Press.

Hargrove, W. W.; Hoffman, F. M. & Efroymson, R. A. 2005. A Practical Map-Analysis Tool for Detecting Potential Dispersal Corridors. Landscape Ecology. 20: 361- 373.

Levey, D. J. B.; Bolker, M.; Tewksbury, J. J.; Sargent, S. & Haddad, N. M. 2005. Effects of Landscape Corridors on Seed Dispersal by Birds. Science. 309: 146–48.

Lindenmayer, D.; Hobbs, R. J. & Zoological Society of London. 2007. Managing and designing landscapes for conservation. Blackwell.

Laita, A.; Kotiaho, J. S. & Monkkonen, M. 2011. Graph theoretic connectivity measures: What do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecology. 26: 951–967.

Looy, K.; Cavillon, C. & Tormos, T. 2013. A scale sensitive connectivity analysis to identify ecological networks and conservation value in river networks. Landscape Ecology. 29: 1–11.

Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity : a fundamental  ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. in Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecology Research and Planning.  International Association for Landscape Ecology. Roskilde. Denmark.

McCullough, D. R. 1996. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Washington DC. Island Press.

Moilanen, A. & Nieminen, M. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology. 83: 1131-1145.

Manel, S. M.; Schwartz, K.; Luikart, G. & Taberlet, P. 2003. Landscape Genetics: Combining Landscape Ecology and Population Genetics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 18: 189–97.

McRae, B. H. 2006. Isolation by resistance. Evolution. 60: 1551- 1561.

McRae, B. H. & Beirer, P. 2007. Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal Populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United Stated of America. 104: 19885- 19890.

Minor, E. S. & Urban, D. L. 2008. A Graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology. 22(2):297-307.

McRae, B. H.; Dickson, B. G. & Keitt, T. H. 2008. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution and conservation. Ecology. 89: 2712–2724.

McRae, B. H. & Kavanagh, D. M. 2011. Linkage Mapper Connectivity Analysis Software. The Nature Conservancy. SeattleWA. Available at: <www.circuitscape. org/linkagemapper> .

NewMark, W. D. 1987. Mammalian extinctions in West North American Parks; Aland bridge island perspective. Nature. 325: 430- 432.

NewMark, W. D. 1991. Tropical Forest Fragmentation and Local Extinction of understor Birds in Estern Usambara Moutains. Tanzania.Conservation Biology. 15: 67- 78.

Poor, E. E.; Loucks, C. & Jakes, A. 2012. Comparing habitat suitability and connectivity modeling methods for conserving pronghorn migrations. PLOS ONE. 7: e49390

Rudnick, D. A.; Ryan, S. J.; Beier, P.; Cushman, S. A.; Dieffenbach, F.; Epps, C. W.; Gerber, L. R.; Hartter, J.; Jenness, J. S.; Kintssch, J.; Merenlender, A. M.; Perkl, R. M.; Preziosi, D. V. & Trombulak, S. C. 2012. The Role of Landscape Connectivity in Planning and Implementing Conservation and Restoration Priorities. Report Number 16. Ecological Society of America.

Rubio, L. & Saura, S. 2012. Assessing the importance of individual habitat fragments as irreplaceable connecting elements: An analysis of simulated and real landscape data. Ecological Complexity. 11: 28–37.

Rubio, L.; Rodriguez-Freire, M. & Mateo-Sanchez, M. C. 2012. Sustaining forest landscape connectivity under different land cover change scenarios. Forest Systems. 21: 223–235.

Roever, C. L.; Van, A. R. J. & Leggett, K. 2013. Functional connectivity within conservation networks: Delineating corridors for African elephants. Journal of Biological Conservation. 157: 128-135.

Schumaker, N. H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Jornal of Ecology. 77: 1210- 1225.

Singleton, P. H.; Gianes, W. L. & Lehmkukhl, J. F. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Geographic Information System Weighted- Distance and Least Cost Corridor Assessment United States Department of Agriculture. 549pp.

Saura, S. & Pascual-Hortal, L. 2007. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape & Urban Planning. 83: 91–103.

Shah, V. B. & McRae, B. H. 2008. Circuitscape: A tool for landscape ecology. In: Varoquaux, G. Vaught, T. & Millman, J. (eds). Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy 2008). Pasadena. CA. 62–66.

Saura, S. & Torne, J. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat fragments for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software. 24: 135–139.

Storfer, A. M.; Murphy, A.; Spear, S.; Holderegger, F. R. & Waits, L. P. 2010. Landscape Genetics: Where Are We Now? Molecular Ecology. 19: 496–514.

Sawyer, S. C.; Epps, C. W.; Justin, S. & Brashares, J. S. 2011. Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology. 48: 668–678.

Shanthala Devi, B. S.; Murthy, M. S. R. & Debnath, B. 2013. Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory. Ecological Modelling. 251. 279–287.

Taylor, P. D.; Fahring, L.; Henein, K. & Merriam, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of  Landscape structure. Oikos. Vol. 68. No. 3. pp. 571- 573.

Tewksbury, J. J.; Leveey, D. J.; Haddad, N. M.; Sargent, S.; Orrock, J. L.; Weldon, A.; Danielson, B. J.; Brinkerhoff, J.; Damschen, E. I. & Townsend, P. 2002. Corriders affect plants, animals and their interactionsin fragmented landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of  Science of the United States of America. Vol. 99. pp. 12923- 12926.

Taylor, P. D.; Fahrig, M. & With, K. A. 2006. Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. Connectivity Conservation (eds K. R. Crooks & M. Sanjayan). pp. 29–43. Cambridge University Press. New York. NY.

Urban, D. L.; Minor, E. S.; Trem, E. A. & Schick, R. S. 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecology Letters. Vol. 12. pp. 260–273.

Walker, R. S. & Craighead, L. 1997. Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. Proceedings of the 1997 International ESRI Users Conference. Environmental Sciences Research Institute. Redlands. California.

Wipfli, M. S. 2005. Trophic Linkages between Headwater Forests and Downstream Fish Habitats: Implications for Forest and Fish Management. Landscape& Urban Planning72: 205–13.

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group. 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis.

Zeigler, S.; Neel, M. & Oliveira, L. 2011. Conspecific and heterospecific attraction in assessments of functional connectivity. Biodiversity & Conservation 20: 2779–