The Green Belt as a European Ecological Network strengths and gaps

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hayriye Esbah, Edward Allen Cook, Serif Hepcan, Baris Kara, Bulent Deniz ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS: POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES should recognize the need for different management categories related to the network elements. Social and cultural composition should also be taken into consideration. There is a need to create closer relationships with stakeholders. Involvement of all the institutions and society is essential for the development of green corridors REFERENCES [1] Anonymous, 2008. Bafa Lake long term development plan. Draft Plan. Ministry of Environment.:Ankara, (In Turkish). [2] Anonymous a , 2008, Aydın-Muğla-Denizli 1/100.000 Environmental Plan report. [3] Esbah, H., 2009. Detection of landscape changes in and around conservation areas with landscape structure indices: Case of Dilek Peninsula–Menderes Delta National Park and Bafa Lake Conservation Area. Tübitak Project Report (ÇAYDAG 106Y015). [4] Deniz, B., and Esbah, H., 2008. Analyzing the vegetation structure in urban land uses: Case of City of Aydin. Ekoloji 17(66), 55-64. [5] Koc, C.,2008. The Effects of Environment and Ecology Projects on Lake Management and Water Quality. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 146, 394-409. [6] FAO, 1996. Food for all, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. [7] Population Information Program, 1997. Population reports, John Hopkins School of Public Health, Maryland. [8] Jongman, R., 2004. The context and concept of ecological networks. In: Jongman, R., and Pungetti, G., (Eds), Ecological Networks and Concept, Design, Implementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7-32. [9] Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. [10] Hilty, J.A., 2001. Use of riparian corridors by wildlife in the oak woodland vineyard landscape. PhD thesis. Berkeley: University of California. [11] Haas, C. A., 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors by birds in wooded patches on an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 9, 845-854. [12] Bolger, D.T., Scott, A., and Rotenberry, J.T., 2011. Use of corridor-like landscape structures by bird and small mammal species. Biological Conservation 102, 213-224. [13] Semlitsch, R. D., Bodie, J.R., 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17, 1219-1228. 86
Andrew J. Gregory, Paul Beier RESEARCHERS DESPERATELY SEEKING STABLE 50-YEAR-OLD LANDSCAPES WITH PATCHES AND LONG, WIDE CORRIDORS RESEARCHERS DESPERATELY SEEK STABLE 50-YEAR-OLD LANDSCAPES WITH PATCHES AND LONG, WIDE CORRIDORS ABSTRACT Andrew J. Gregory, Paul Beier School of Forestry and Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research Northern Arizona University 200 East Pine Knoll Drive, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011 andrew.gregory@nau.edu, paul.beier@nau.edu Conservation corridors are intended to promote enough demographic and genetic exchange to sustain plants and animals in the linked natural landscapes after the surrounding matrix has been converted for urban or agricultural use. Unfortunately, rather than assessing demography or gene flow, most research on corridor effectiveness has documented species’ presence and movement along relatively short (< 150 m) corridors in landscapes where the matrix is not dominated by human land uses, which provides only limited evidence as to whether conservation corridors work. We describe a research project to determine if conservation corridors work, and to determine what conditions (such as width, constrictions, or land use) are associated with successful corridors. Because true conservation corridors are too young for genetic and demographic effects to be evaluated, we will study “de facto” conservation corridors - i.e., corridors that exist as a quirk of how the landscape was developed, that are > 500 m long, and embedded in a human-dominated matrix. In each landscape, we will collect DNA samples in patches connected by corridors, isolated patches, and sampling locations within an intact natural area. A corridor will be deemed successful if genetic distances between connected patches are smaller than genetic distances between isolated patches and similar to genetic distances between sampling sites in intact habitat. Focal species will vary among landscapes and may include any reptile, amphibian, mammal, flightless arthropod, or sedentary bird associated with the patches and corridors, but not the matrix. In each landscape, the configuration of patches and corridors must have been stable for at least 20-50 years, so that genetic structure likely reflects landscape pattern. We ask readers to suggest appropriate landscapes at: www.docorridorswork.org. INTRODUCTION Human activities such as urbanization and roads have disrupted movement and gene flow for plants, reptiles, mammals, sedentary birds, and arthropods [1, 2]. Indeed, humancaused habitat fragmentation is a leading threat to biodiversity [3]. As plant and animal populations become smaller and more isolated they become more susceptible to stochastic events and reduced genetic diversity via drift and inbreeding [4]. Conservation corridors and increased reserve size are the primary conservation interventions to counteract habitat fragmentation. Conservation corridors are also the most frequently cited recommendation to conserve the ability of species and ecosystems to adapt to climate change [5]. Because corridors are such a promising conservation intervention, conservation corridors are being designed and implemented in many parts of the world. For example, one of us (PB) has helped develop high-resolution plans, each of which is being implemented by government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, to conserve nine corridors in Bhutan [6], 11 corridors in coastal southern California (www.scwildlands.org), 16 corridors in Arizona (www.corridordesign.org/arizona), 22 corridors in the deserts of south-eastern 87
Page 1:
Ilke Marschall (ed.) Marion Müller
Page 5 and 6:
Proceedings of the 1 st GreenNet Co
Page 7 and 8:
Proceedings of the 1 st GreenNet Co
Page 9 and 10:
Rob H.G. Jongman ECOLOGICAL NETWORK
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Liana Geidezis, Melanie Kreutz GREE
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Uwe Riecken, Peter Finck THE GERMAN
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Karl-Friedrich Thöne THE GREEN BEL
Page 37 and 38:
Karl-Friedrich Thöne THE GREEN BEL
Page 39 and 40:
Schlumprecht, H., Laube, J. MONITOR
Page 41 and 42: Schlumprecht, H., Laube, J. MONITOR
Page 51 and 52: Norbert Grosser, Valeska Krebs ENER
Page 57 and 58: Olaf Bastian, Christina Wachler, Ma
Page 67 and 68: Hans-Jörg Raderbauer, Judith Drape
Page 79 and 80: Marco Neubert, Sylvi Bianchin DETEC
Page 87 and 88: Hayriye Esbah, Edward Allen Cook, S
Page 89 and 90: Hayriye Esbah, Edward Allen Cook, S
Page 91: Hayriye Esbah, Edward Allen Cook, S
Page 95 and 96: Andrew J. Gregory, Paul Beier RESEA
Page 103 and 104: Cheryl de Boer, Hans Bressers RIVER
Page 111 and 112: Kun Zhang REVIEW AND GAPS: EUROPEAN
Page 121 and 122: Stefanie Maack, Tuuli Veersalu, Hen
Page 133 and 134: Andrea Früh PERCEPTIBILITY OF THE
show all

The Green Belt as a European Ecological Network strengths and gaps

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?