Landscape functionality in protected and unprotected areas: Case studies from the Czech Republic

Ecological Informatics

Volumn 14, Issue , 2013, Pages 71-74

  Skokanová, Hana ^a   Eremiášová, Renata ^a  

^a SILVA TAROUCA RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR LANDSCAPE AND ORNAMENTAL GARDENING   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Czech Republic; Functionality group; Landscape element; Landscape functionality; Landscape type; Protection status

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; FUNCTIONAL CHANGE; HUMAN ACTIVITY; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; MATRIX; PROTECTED AREA;

CZECH REPUBLIC;

EID: 84875278492     PISSN: 15749541     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2012.11.007     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Boitani L., Falcucci A., Maiorano L., Rondinini C. Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conservation Biology 2007, 21:1414-1422.
2. Dauber J., Hirsch M., Simmering D., Waldhardt R., Otte A., Wolters V. Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2003, 98:321-329.
3. Forman R.T.T., Godron M. Landscape Ecology 1986, John Willey & Sons, Inc., New York.
4. ESRI Inc. ArcMap 9.3 1999-2008, Redlands, CA.
5. Hokit D.G., Stith B.M., Branch L.C. Effects of landscape structure in Florida scrub: A population perspective. Ecological Applications 1999, 9:124-134.
6. Kuttner M., Hainz-Renetzeder C., Hermann A., Wrbka T. Borders without barriers - structural functionality and green infrastructure in the Austrian-Hungarian transboundary region of Lake Neusiedl. Ecological Indicators 2012, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.04.014.
7. McGarigal K., Cushman S.A., Neel M., Ene E. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer Software Program Produced by the Authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst 2002, (Available at the following web site: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html).
8. Ministry of Environment. Act No. 114/1992 Coll., On Landscape Protection and Nature Conservation.
9. Moser D., Zechmeister H.G., Pluzar C., Sauberer N., Wrbka T., Grabherr G. Landscape shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 2002, 17:657-669.
10. Methodology of the landscape mapping for the needs of the nature conservation management in the sense of the act no. 114/92. Col. ČÚOP Praha - Výzkumné a monitorovací pracoviště v Brně, Praha 1994, (in Czech). J. Pellantová (Ed.).
11. Petrovič F. Landscape Assessment in the Area of the Population in Pohronský Inovec and Tribeč 2005, Ústav krajinnej ekológie SAV, pobočka Nitra, Bratislava, (In Slovak).
12. Pino J., Rodà F., Ribas J., Pons X. Landscape structure and bird species richness: implications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 49:35-48.
13. Secondary Landscape Structure (Methodology for Mapping) 2007, UKF v Nitre, Nitra, (in Czech). Z. Pucherová (Ed.).
14. Risser P.G. Landscape ecology: state of the art. Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance 1987, 3-14. Springer, New York. M.G. Turner (Ed.).
15. Skokanová H., Havlíček M. Transnational ecological networks - history in lost green landscapes. Geografie pro život ve 21. století: Sborník příspěvků z XXII. sjezdu České geografické společnosti pořádaného Ostravskou univerzitou v Ostravě 31. srpna - 3. září 2010 2010, Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě, Ostrava.
16. Vögeli M., Serrano D., Pacios F., Tella J.L. The relative importance of patch habitat quality and landscape attributes on a declining steppe-bird metapopulation. Biological Conservation 2010, 143:1057-1067.
17. Methodology of the Landscape Mapping 1994, SMS, Hradec Králové, Praha, (in Czech). H. Vondrušková (Ed.).