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

Saura, Santiago; Vogt, Peter; Velázquez, Juan J. L.; Hernando, Ana; Tejera, Rosario

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.03.017

Cited by 175 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Once identified, those plantation patches which are more important for wildlife fauna dispersal (Saura et al, 2011b), can be preserved and/or restored into natural forest or at least managed considering wildlife needs and cycles (kept uncut or avoiding cleancut practices, respecting reproduction or dispersal periods, etc.). In this sense, it would also be interesting to identify which faunal species have been more affected (both positively and negatively) by the plantations, and which use them as habitat or only as steppingstone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Function of Plantation Forestry in Landscape Connectivity

Cabarga-Varona¹

2016

Appl Ecol Env Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Plantation forestry has been widely used for industrial purposes, creating vast extensions of culture forests. Although these plantations have a primary economic goal, they may indirectly serve other functions, such as landscape connectivity. Eucalypts are among the main plantation species used worldwide. In those areas in which they are not native, eucalyptus have been regarded as pernicious species for autochthonous forest and forest dwelling fauna. However, they may enhance connectivity between natural forest patches, thus favouring faunal dispersal. In Cantabria (Spain), Eucalyptus globulus were extensively planted in deforested areas mainly occupied by bushes and meadows. Here, we examine whether their massive introduction has modified landscape connectivity in the region. We used two indices based on graph theory and on the habitat availability concept (Integral Index of Connectivity and Probability of Connectivity), and applied them to the current forest network. Our results show how eucalyptus afforestation, principally based on temporary woodlands, has not improved forest connectivity in Cantabria significantly, though in the coast some of the new plantation areas may be locally important. Specific management actions targeted at these particularly relevant patches may enhance faunal dispersal and thus maintain biodiversity by reducing the fragmentation of these highly humanized areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Function of Plantation Forestry in Landscape Connectivity

Cabarga-Varona¹

2016

Appl Ecol Env Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although connectivity measures in conservation planning are mainly used to identify key connector patches (Bodin and Saura 2010; Saura et al 2011b;Vergara et al 2010), these measures have also been used to evaluate temporal changes in connectivity (Saura et al 2011a) and to assess the effects of land use and land use change on connectivity (Theobald et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape connectivity of the grassland biome in Mpumalanga, South Africa

Fourie

Lötter

2014

Austral Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The South African Grassland biome is one of the most threatened biomes in SouthAfrica. Approximately 45% of the Grassland biome area is transformed, degraded or severely invaded by alien plants and the remaining natural areas are highly fragmented. In this fragmented landscape, the connectivity between habitat patches is very important to maintain viable populations. In this study we aimed to quantify connectivity of the grassland biome in Mpumalanga using graph theory in order to identify conservation priorities and to direct conservation efforts. Graph theory-based connectivity indices have the ability to combine spatially explicit habitat data with species specific dispersal data and can quantify structural and functional connectivity over large landscapes. We used these indices to quantify the overall connectivity of the study area, to determine the influence of abandoned croplands on overall 2 connectivity, and to identify the habitat patches and vegetation types most in need of maintaining overall connectivity. Natural areas were identified using 2008 land cover data for Mpumalanga. Connectivity within the Grassland Biome of Mpumalanga was analysed for grassland species with dispersal distances ranging from 50 to 1000 m. The grassland habitat patches were mostly well connected, with 99.6% of the total habitat area connected in a single component at a threshold distance of 1000 m. The inclusion of abandoned croplands resulted in a 33% increase in connectivity at a threshold distance of 500 m. The habitat patches most important for maintaining overall connectivity were the large patches of continuous habitat in the upper and lower centres of the study area and the most important vegetation types were the Wakkerstroom Montane Grassland and the Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands.These results can be used to inform management decisions and reserve design to improve and maintain connectivity in this biome.

show abstract

“…Connectivity research has been an important component of landscape ecology, and has produced a set of theoretical, methodological, and application tools for evaluating this attribute and testing hypotheses concerning its role in ecological processes (e.g., Saura 2008, Saura et al 2011. Fragmentation and connectivity and their effects on biodiversity are analyzed in detail in Chapter 7 of this book.…”

Section: Fragmentation and Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Liu et al 2012, Perera and is a major source of patterns, processes, and dynamics in forest landscapes. Disturbance regimes or management plans determine the composition and configuration of forest landscapes (Mladenoff et al 1993, Wallin et al 1994) and affect the processes that shape the distribution of populations and communities, genetic flows, water yield, soil erosion, and productivity, among other factors, at stand and landscape levels (Burton 1997, Saura et al 2011). On the other hand, the frequency, intensity and extent of disturbances are affected by the structure of the landscape (Cumming 2001).…”

Section: Disturbancementioning

confidence: 99%