Using an index of habitat patch proximity for landscape design

Gustafson, Eric J.; Parker, George R.

doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)90022-1

Cited by 153 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multi-specific shoals probably need high feeding resource quantities available either in one large patch or in several patches accessible within their daily range of movement. This supports the significance of supplementation of resources, a crucial spatial habitat relationship, and the usefulness of the proximity index as defined by Gustafson and Parker (1994) to quantify it. This index is a biologically realistic metric because it considers areas that are potential sources of dispersers (Bender et al 2003).…”

Section: Relevance Of Metrics Of Supplementation and Complementationmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…At feeding patch scale, the area (AreaF) and proximity index to neighboring feeding/resting habitats were calculated (PxFF, PxFR, Figure 2(b)). The proximity index increases when sample/patch becomes less isolated (Gustafson & Parker 1994) and can reflect potential sources of dispersers located close to the sample/patch (Bender et al 2003). Proximity index is calculated for a defined search distance, which should reflect the dispersal capacity of the organism (Brennan et al 2002).…”

Section: Spatial Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This could prove especially useful in evaluating the level of access to complementary habitats necessary to ensure the long-term survival of endangered species (White & Rahel 2008). In one previous study, complementation and supplementation were quantified using metrics such as longitudinal distance to the nearest patch and habitat patch proximity index, modified for rivers from Gustafson and Parker (1994) by Le Pichon et al (2009). More recently, Flitcroft et al (2012) performed an analysis of the proximity and connectivity of fish habitats using GIS to calculate network distances representing the spatial structure of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using a continuous riverscape survey to examine the effects of the spatial structure of functional habitats on fish distribution

Pichon¹,

Talès²,

Gorges³

et al. 2015

Journal of Freshwater Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To fill the gap between microhabitat and landscape scale habitat models for freshwater fish, it is becoming increasingly common practice to adopt a continuous view of riverscapes, thus allowing a better understanding of the processes in place at the river management level (segments of 1À100 km). The aim of this study was to test the effects of the spatial structure of habitat on fish distribution at this scale. Inferred habitat relationships were generated using spatial metrics adapted from landscape ecology. These were calculated for two species of multi-habitat cyprinid fish in a 25-km long segment of the Seine River. A spatially continuous survey was then designed to acquire fish sampling data relating to the riverscape. Explanatory models were devised to quantify the extent to which environmental and spatial variables could describe fish distribution patterns. Spatially continuous sampling of feeding habitats at dawn and dusk provided greater understanding of the spatial distribution of common barbel (Barbus barbus, L.) and nase (Chondrostoma nasus, L.). Fish observations were aggregated longitudinally in neighboring feeding habitat patches, with the highest abundance found in patches with the best local conditions. The species were present for large feeding patches, as well as for a higher proximity index for those patches. This result emphasized the importance of the supplementation of feeding habitats. By quantifying spatial habitat relationships using spatial metrics, it was possible to identify the best suited configuration of functional habitats to the needs of shoals. At present, most conservation work focuses on restoring local habitats. There is also growing interest in large-scale fish management, which has been encouraged by the advent of metapopulation theory. This study highlights the need for greater work at a third, intermediate scale that is no less significant: restoring daily and seasonal movements between functional habitats.

show abstract

Section: Relevance Of Metrics Of Supplementation and Complementationmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Spatial Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using a continuous riverscape survey to examine the effects of the spatial structure of functional habitats on fish distribution

Pichon¹,

Talès²,

Gorges³

et al. 2015

Journal of Freshwater Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PROX distinguishes sparse distributions of small habitat patches from clusters of large patches and is most suited to evaluate 'high contrast' landscapes, where the habitat of interest differs from the surrounding matrix. It is large when the patch is surrounded by larger and/or closer patches, and decreases as patches become smaller and/or sparser (Gustafson and Parker, 1994). CONNECT is defined as the number of functional connections between patches of the same class, where each pair of patches is either connected or not based on a user-specified distance criterion.…”

Section: Landscape Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Connectivity on the Forest Bird Communities of Adjacent Fragmented Landscapes

Lopes

Mendonça

Santos

et al. 2016

Ardeola

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY.-We assessed bird sensitivity to forest fragmentation in two adjacent landscapes in the Atlantic Forest of southern Brazil. One landscape is naturally fragmented and has high connectivity, whereas the other is human-fragmented and has low connectivity. We tested whether the sensitivity of bird species to fragmentation depends more on the intrinsic characteristics of the birds than on landscape connectivity. Point counts were used to sample small and large forest remnants in each landscape. The abundance of each species in these remnants was used as a proxy for sensitivity. To test whether the two landscapes differ in connectivity, we compared the following landscape metrics: landscape shape index (LSI), proximity index (PROX) and connectance index (CONNECT). We analysed the sensitivity of 85 species, 51 of which occurred exclusively in one of the two landscapes. In the landscape with low connectivity we recorded a large number of sensitive species. Among the 34 species that occurred in both landscapes, 24 species (18 non-sensitive and six sensitive) had the same sensitivity. Landscape connectivity seems to be more significant when we focus on the bird communities as a whole. However, when we focus on the same bird species in different landscapes, intrinsic characteristics of species seem to affect their sensitivity to fragmentation more than does landscape connectivity, especially for bird species with lower sensitivity. Therefore, our results show that increasing landscape connectivity

show abstract

“…Proximity quantifies the habitat accessibility. Closer proximity reflects a more conductive configuration for the movement of the organisms and allows for more population exchanges [63,64]. Mean proximity index (PROX_MN) is inversely related to the nearest neighbor distance and it shows the non-isolation degree of patches.…”

Section: Analysis Of Land Cover Composition and Structure Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Land Cover Changes (1963–2010) and Their Environmental Factors in the Upper Danube Floodplain

Otte

Ludewig

et al. 2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To analyze the changes in the Upper Danube Floodplain, we used aerial photos to quantify the change of landscape pattern from 1963 to 2010. We focused on typical floodplain habitats, i.e., riparian forest and floodplain grassland. We used landscape metrics and transformation matrix to explore changes in land cover structure and composition. The active floodplain experienced increasing fragmentation from 1963 to 2010. Despite an increase of aggregation, riparian forest suffered a 2.3% area loss from 1995 to 2010. Arable land in the active floodplain declined by 28.5%, while its patch size significantly increased. Elevation, distance to river and soil quality were the most relevant environmental factors for the land cover change in the floodplain. Higher soil quality or longer distance to river led to an increase of conversion from grassland into arable land; grassland patches with poorer soil quality were likely to change into riparian forest; riparian forest closer to the river and with a lower height above mean water level tended to remain stable. This comprehensive understanding of historical land cover change and environmental factors is needed for the enhancement of landscape functions and sustainable development in the floodplain.

show abstract

Using an index of habitat patch proximity for landscape design

Cited by 153 publications

References 28 publications

Using a continuous riverscape survey to examine the effects of the spatial structure of functional habitats on fish distribution

Using a continuous riverscape survey to examine the effects of the spatial structure of functional habitats on fish distribution

Effects of Connectivity on the Forest Bird Communities of Adjacent Fragmented Landscapes

Land Cover Changes (1963–2010) and Their Environmental Factors in the Upper Danube Floodplain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About