Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses

Forest Ecology and Management

Volumn 262, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 150-160

  Saura, Santiago ^a   Vogt, Peter ^b   Velázquez, Javier ^a   Hernando, Ana ^a   Tejera, Rosario ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Conservation priorities; Corridors; Forest habitat availability; Forest landscape management; Landscape connectivity; Spatial criteria in forest planning

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES; CORRIDORS; FOREST HABITAT AVAILABILITY; FOREST LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY; SPATIAL CRITERIA IN FOREST PLANNING;

ECOSYSTEMS; ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; FORESTRY; INTEGRATION;

MANAGEMENT;

CONNECTIVITY; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GUIDELINE; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT CORRIDOR; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

COMPUTER PROGRAMS; CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEMS; FOREST FIRES; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTS; INTEGRATION; PLANNING;

EID: 79957563510     PISSN: 03781127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.017     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adriaensen F., Chardon J.P., De Blust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H., Matthysen E. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2003, 64:233-247.
2. Bailey S. Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2007, 238:7-23.
3. Bodin Ö., Saura S. Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221:2393-2405.
4. Connectivity Conservation 2006, Cambridge University Press, New York. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
5. Dubois M., Bon R., Cransac N., Maublanc M. Dispersal patterns of Corsican mouflon ewes: importance of age and proximate influences. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1994, 42:29-40.
6. Ferrari J.R., Lookingbill T.R., Neel M.C. Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:1315-1323.
7. Forman R.T.T. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
8. García-Feced C., Saura S., Elena-Rosselló R. Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: a two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2011, 261:154-161.
9. Harrison S., Bruna E. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure?. Ecography 1999, 22:225-232.
10. Hernando A., Tejera R., Velázquez J., Núñez M.V. Quantitatively defining the conservation status of Natura 2000 forest habitats and improving management options for enhancing biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:2221-2233.
11. Hernando A., Vélazquez J., Tejera R., Saura S. Object based image analysis for mapping Natura 2000 sites to improve forest management. Forestsat 2010: Operational Tools in Forestry Using Remote Sensing Techniques 2010, 120-122. D. Miranda, J. Suarez, R. Crecente (Eds.).
12. Hodgson J., Thomas C.D., Wintle B.A., Moilanen A. Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J. Appl. Ecol. 2009, 46:964-969.
13. King A.W., With K.A. Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter?. Ecol. Model. 2002, 147:23-39.
14. Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes: Multiple Use and Sustainable Management 2008, Springer. R. Lafortezza, J. Chen, G. Sanesi, T.R. Crow (Eds.).
15. Laurance W.F., Nascimento H.E.M., Laurance S.G., Andrade A., Ewers R.M., Harms K.E., Luiza R.G.G., Ribeiro J.E. Habitat fragmentation, variable edge effects, and the landscape-divergence hypothesis. PLoS ONE 2007, 2(10):e1017.
16. Manning A.D., Gibbons P., Lindenmayer D.B. Scattered trees: a complementary strategy for facilitating adaptive responses to climate change in modified landscapes?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2009, 46:915-919.
17. Matthysen E. Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. Ecography 2005, 28:403-416.
18. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 1997-2007. Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional, Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain.
19. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, 2006. Conservación de Especies Amenazadas, Invertebrados, Artrópodos de la Directiva Hábitats: Lucanus cervus, Dirección General para la Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain.
20. Pascual-Hortal L., Saura S. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21:959-967.
21. Ray N. Pathmatrix: a geographical information system tool to compute effective distances among samples. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2005, 5:177-180.
22. Rayfield, B., Fortin, M.J., Fall, A., 2011. Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology, doi:10.1890/09-2190.1.
23. Rey Benayas J.M., Bullock J.M., Newton A.C. Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6:329-336.
24. Rosenvald R., Lõhmus A. For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2008, 255:1-15.
25. Saura S. Measuring connectivity in habitat mosaics: the equivalence of two existing network indices and progress beyond them. Commun. Ecol. 2010, 11:217-222.
26. Saura S., Rubio L. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 2010, 33:523-537.
27. Saura S., Estreguil C., Mouton C., Rodríguez-Freire M. Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990-2000). Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11:407-416.
28. Saura S., Torné J. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24:135-139.
29. Saura S., Pascual-Hortal L. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2007, 83:91-103.
30. Soille P., Vogt P. Morphological segmentation of binary patterns. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2009, 30:456-459.
31. Tischendorf L., Fahrig L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 2000, 90:7-19.
32. Vogt P., Riitters K.H., Iwanowski M., Estreguil C., Kozak J., Soille P. Mapping landscape corridors. Ecol. Indic. 2007, 7:481-488.
33. Vogt P., Riitters K.H., Estreguil C., Kocak J., Wade T.G., Wickham J.D. Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:171-177.
34. Vogt P., Ferrari J.R., Lookingbill T.R., Gardner R.H., Riitters K.H., Ostapowicz K. Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9:64-71.
35. Wang J., Kang M., Gao P., Huang H. Contemporary pollen flow and mating patterns of a subtropical canopy tree Eurycorymbus cavaleriei in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2010, 260:2180-2188.
36. Williams J., Revelle C., Levin S. Spatial attributes and reserve design models: a review. Environ. Model. Assess. 2005, 10:163-181.
37. With K.A., Gardner R.H., Turner M.G. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 1997, 78:151-169.