SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 4

A proposed index for estimating ecosystem diversity

Ekosistem çeşitliliğinin hesaplanmasına yönelik önerilen bir eşitlik

Kürşad Özkan(ISPARTA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ORMAN FAKÜLTESİ, ORMAN MÜHENDİSLİĞİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-8526-7243
Pages
355–363
Publication Date
2020-12-29
🏛️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)

Both of the indices may therefore be employed for monitoring and comparing the ecosystems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:An ecosystem diversity index was proposed by the present study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With regard to ecosystem evenness (E_wd ), the proposed equation is H_wd⁄(2 ln⁡K ) since maximum fractal dimension value of a meta community equals to 2 (w_maxj=2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Both of the indices may therefore be employed for monitoring and comparing the ecosystems.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ekoloji · Biyoçeşitlilik · Ekosistem

Abstract

An ecosystem diversity index was proposed by the present study. The proposed index (H_wd ) considers not only the species compositions of the meta communities and their land cover areas but also heterogeneities of their geographical distributions. H_wd is therefore includes fractal dimension (w_j ) as well as Shannon-like expression of average conflict (H_d ). Estimation of ecosystem evenness was also given in the present study. With regard to ecosystem evenness (E_wd ), the proposed equation is H_wd⁄(2 ln⁡K ) since maximum fractal dimension value of a meta community equals to 2 (w_maxj=2). The purpose of the ecosystem diversity and evenness indices give the information as numerical data about the general conditions of the ecosystems. Both of the indices may therefore be employed for monitoring and comparing the ecosystems.

Özet

Bu çalışmada ekosistem çeşitliliğinin hesaplanmasına yönelik bir indis önerilmektedir. Önerilen indisin (H_wd ) içeriğinde meta toplumların tür kompozisyonları ve yayılış alan miktarları ile onların yayıldığı alanlardaki dağılımın heterojenliği yer almaktadır. Bu yüzden H_wd; Shannon benzeri ortalama uyuşmazlık (H_d ) ile fraktal boyutun (w_j ) birleşmesinden oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada ayrıca ekosistem eşitliğinin hesaplanması da verilmiştir. Bir meta toplum için maksimum fraktal boyut=2 (w_maxj=2) olduğundan, H_wd⁄(2 ln⁡K ) ekosistem eşitliği (E_wd ) değerini vermektedir. Ekosistem çeşitlilik ve eşitlik indislerinin amacı, ekosistemlerin genel durumu hakkındaki bilgiyi sayısal olarak vermektedir. Bundan dolayı ekosistemlerin birbirleri ile karşılaştırılması ve izlenmesinde bu iki indisten faydalanılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özkan, K. (2020). A proposed index for estimating ecosystem diversity. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 4, 355–363. https://doi.org/10.18182/tjf.766462

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (26)

  1. Barnes, B.V., Pregitzer, K.S., Spies, T.A., Spooner, V.H., 1982. Ecological forest site classification. Journal of Forestry, 80(8): 493-498.
  2. Bray, J.R., Curtis, J.T., 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs, 27(4): 325-349.
  3. Brzeziecki, B., Kienast, F., Wildi, O., 1993. A simulated map of the potantial naturel forest vegetation of Switzerland. Journal of Vegetation Science, 4(4): 499-508.
  4. Clark, K.R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology, 18(1): 117-143.
  5. Çepel, N., 1995. Orman Ekolojisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Yayınları, İstanbul.
  6. Eric, R.O., Ramsey, R.D., 1993. A modified fractal dimension as a measure of landscape diversity. Photogrammetric Enginnering and Remote Sensing, 59(10): 1517-1520.
  7. Feoli, E., Ganis, P., Ricotta, C., 2013. Measuring diversity of environmental systems. In: Pedodiversity (Ed: Ibáñez, J.J., Bockheim, J.), CRC Press, New York, pp. 29-58.
  8. Guiasu, R.C., Guiasu, S., 2012. The weighted Gini-Simpson Index: revitalizing and old index of biodiversity. International Journal of Ecology, 1-10.
  9. Host, G.E., Polzer, P.L., Mladenoff, D.J., White, M.A., Crow, T.R., 1996. A quantitative approach to developing regional ecosystem classifications. Ecological Applications, 6(2): 608-618.
  10. Karatepe, Y., 2004. Eğirdir Gölü Havzası’nın yetişme ortamı özellikleri ve sınıflandırılması. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  11. Keith R., Shockle, R.K., 2010. Using weighted entropy to rank chemicals in quantitative high throughput screening experiments. Journal of Biomolecular Screening, 19(3): 344-353.
  12. Klijn, F., Udo de Haes, H.A., 1994. A hierarchical approuch to ecosystems and its implications for ecological land classification, Landscape Ecology, 9(2): 89-104.
  13. Kusbach, A., 2010. Terrestrial ecosystem classification in the Rocky Mountains, northern Utah. PhD dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA
  14. Lillesø, J-P.B., Shrestha, T.B., Dhakal, L.P., Nayaju, R.P., Shrestha, R., 2001. The Map of Potential Vegetation of Nepal. A Forestry/Agro-ecological/Biodiversity Classification System. Drapf. Naturel Resource Management Sector Assistance Program, Kathmandu, Nepal.
  15. Mert, A., Aksan, Ş., Özkan, Y.U., Özdemir, İ., 2016. Landsat-8 OLI uydu görüntüsünden çıkartılan arazi çeşitliliği ile kuş türü zenginliği arasındaki ilişkiler. Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi, 17(1): 68-72.
  16. Özdemir, İ., Karnieli, A., 2011. Predicting forest structural parameters using the image texture derived from WorldView-2 multispectral imagery in a dryland forest, Israil. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13(5): 701-710.
  17. Özdemir, İ., Mert, A., Şentürk, Ö., 2012. Predicting landscape structure metrics using aster satallite data. Journal of Environmental Enginnering and Landscape Management, 20(2): 168-176.
  18. Özdemir, İ., Norton, D.A., Özkan, U.Y., Mert, A., Özdemir, Ş., 2008. Estimation of tree size diversity using object oriented texture analysis and Aster Imagery. Sensors, 8(8): 4709-4724.
  19. Özkan, K. 2016. Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Bileşenleri (α, β ve γ) Nasıl Ölçülür (1. Basım). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Orman Fakültesi Yayını, Isparta. Özkan, K., Gülsoy, S., 2010. Ecological land classification and mapping based on vegetation-environmental hierarchical analysis-A case study of Buldan forest district (Turkey). Polish Journal of Ecology, 58(1): 55-67.
  20. Rao, C.R., 1982. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: A unified approach. Theoretical Population Biology, 21(1): 24-43.
  21. Ricotta, C., 2002. Bridging the gap between ecological diversity indices and measures of biodiversity with Shannon’s entropy: comment to Izsák and Papp. Ecological Modelling, 152(1): 1-3.
  22. Ricotta, C., Burrascano, S., 2008. Beta diversity for functional ecology. Preslia, 80(1): 61-71.
  23. Ricotta, C., Marignani, M., 2007. Computing β-diversity with Rao’s quadratic entropy: a change of perspective. Diversity and Distribution, 13(2): 237-241.
  24. Ricotta, C., Szeidl, L., 2006, Towards a unifying approach to diversity measures: Bridging the gap between the Shannon entropy and Rao’s quadratic index. Theoretical Population Biology, 70(3): 237-243.
  25. Shannon, C.E., 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3): 379-423.
  26. Sreevally, A., Varma, S.K., 2004. Generating measure of cross entropy by using measure of weighted entropy. Soochow Journal of Mathematics, 30(2): 237-243.