Journals / lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education / 2020 / Sayı: 42

QUANTIFICATION OF THE CHANGE IN ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY USING A GIS-BASED MODEL AND CURRENT COMPLEXITY METRICS

Pages
689–701
Publication Date
2020-07-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results demonstrate that a combination of ecological connectivity and landscape metrics would be highly effective for extensive planning and interpretation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Landscape patterns have been undergoing various changes on account of environmental and human factors.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study was conducted in Manisa, Turkey, where the impact of industrialization and urbanization on landscape is very significant.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results demonstrate that a combination of ecological connectivity and landscape metrics would be highly effective for extensive planning and interpretation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Landscape Pattern · Landscape Composition · Landscape Connectivity

Abstract

Landscape patterns have been undergoing various changes on account of environmental and human factors. These changes affect ecological connectivity of landscapes; therefore existing connections are necessary to maintain sustainable habitats. Connectivity is associated with the diversity and composition of landscape structure. For this reason, when studying ecological connectivity, it is relevant to analyze the changes in diversity, composition, and fragmentation of landscape patterns. This study was conducted in Manisa, Turkey, where the impact of industrialization and urbanization on landscape is very significant. The aim of this study is to assess the changes in ecological connectivity based on an ecological connectivity model and landscape metrics that characterize landscape heterogeneity between 2000 and 2018. Largest Patch Index (LPI), Marginal Entropy (ENT), and Relative Mutual Information (RELMUTINF) were utilized to evaluate the fragmentation, diversity, and composition of the landscape, respectively. As a result of this study, forest loss was found to be 12,970 ha based on 18 years of land change. This has an adverse impact on the ecological connectivity, resulting in a decrease in the high and very high connectivity areas from 71.5% to 53.5%. At the landscape level, the decrease in the LPI from 3.55 to 2.30 shows that fragmentation has increased in Manisa. Since larger patches have higher species diversity in general, a drop in the LPI value indicates that species diversity has decreased over time. The most substantial observed changes include the homogenization of agricultural land and the fragmentation of forests. The results demonstrate that a combination of ecological connectivity and landscape metrics would be highly effective for extensive planning and interpretation.

Özet

Landscape patterns have been undergoing various changes on account of environmental and human factors. These changes affect ecological connectivity of landscapes; therefore existing connections are necessary to maintain sustainable habitats. Connectivity is associated with the diversity and composition of landscape structure. For this reason, when studying ecological connectivity, it is relevant to analyze the changes in diversity, composition, and fragmentation of landscape patterns. This study was conducted in Manisa, Turkey, where the impact of industrialization and urbanization on landscape is very significant. The aim of this study is to assess the changes in ecological connectivity based on an ecological connectivity model and landscape metrics that characterize landscape heterogeneity between 2000 and 2018. Largest Patch Index (LPI), Marginal Entropy (ENT), and Relative Mutual Information (RELMUTINF) were utilized to evaluate the fragmentation, diversity, and composition of the landscape, respectively. As a result of this study, forest loss was found to be 12,970 ha based on 18 years of land change. This has an adverse impact on the ecological connectivity, resulting in a decrease in the high and very high connectivity areas from 71.5% to 53.5%. At the landscape level, the decrease in the LPI from 3.55 to 2.30 shows that fragmentation has increased in Manisa. Since larger patches have higher species diversity in general, a drop in the LPI value indicates that species diversity has decreased over time. The most substantial observed changes include the homogenization of agricultural land and the fragmentation of forests. The results demonstrate that a combination of ecological connectivity and landscape metrics would be highly effective for extensive planning and interpretation.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜLÇİN, D., YILMAZ, T. (2020). QUANTIFICATION OF THE CHANGE IN ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY USING A GIS-BASED MODEL AND CURRENT COMPLEXITY METRICS. lnternational Journal of Geography and Geography Education, Sayı: 42, 689–701. https://ajindex.com/articles/47403

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Almenar, J. B., Bolowich, A., Elliot, T., Geneletti, D., Sonnemann, G. & Rugani, B. (2019). Assessing habitat loss, fragmentation and ecological connectivity in Luxembourg to support spatial planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 335-351.
  2. Altan, Y., Aktaş, K. & Suveren, Y. M. (2017). Flora of Beydere village (Manisa). Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research, 1(2), 143-154.
  3. Arı, Y. & Derinöz, B. (2011). How Not to Manage a Wetland? the Case of Lake Marmara (Manisa) with a cultural ecological perspective). Turkish Journal of Geographical Sciences, 9(1), 41-60.
  4. Beier, P. & Noss, R. F. (1998). Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation biology, 12(6), 1241-1252.
  5. Carlier, J. & Moran, J. (2019). Landscape typology and ecological connectivity assessment to inform Greenway design. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 3241-3252.
  6. Chang, Q., Li, X., Huang, X. & Wu, J. (2012). A GIS-based green infrastructure planning for sustainable urban land use and spatial development. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 12, 491-498.
  7. Christensen, A. A., Brandt, J., & Svenningsen, S. R. (2017).
  8. Landscape ecology. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, & R. A. Marston (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of geography: people, the earth, environment, and technology (pp. 1-10). New Jersey: Wiley. Collinge, S. K. (1998). Spatial arrangement of habitat patches and corridors: clues from ecological field experiments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2-4), 157-168.
  9. Correa Ayram, C. A., Mendoza, M. E., Etter, A. & Salicrup, D. R. P. (2016). Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: A review of recent studies and applications. Progress in Physical Geography, 40(1), 7-37.
  10. Crist, M. R., Wilmer, B. O. & Aplet, G. H. (2005). Assessing the value of roadless areas in a conservation reserve strategy: biodiversity and landscape connectivity in the northern Rockies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(1), 181-191. CSB, (2014). Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı mekânsal planlama genel müdürlüğü mekânsal planlar yapım yönetmeliği. 15 Mart 2020 tarihinde https://mpgm.csb.gov.tr/plan- gosterimleri-i-4926, adresinden edinilmiştir. De Montis, A., Caschili, S., Mulas, M., Modica, G., Ganciu, A., Bardi, A., Ledda, A., Dessena, L., Laudari, L. & Fichera, C. R. (2016). Urban–rural ecological networks for landscape planning. Land Use Policy, 50, 312-327.
  11. DiLeo, M. F., Rico, Y., Boehmer, H. J. & Wagner, H. H. (2017). An ecological connectiv