Connectivity is one of the important issues in the context of natural resources due to its potential in preventing the impact of habitat fragmentation. Landscape forest connectivity facilitates organism movement, genetic exchange, and other ecological material flows. Loss of connectivity may result declining of ecosystem production and cut the material flows within the forest ecosystems. Connectivity degree is needed to determine the management strategy of forest landscape as a wildlife habitat. This paper defines connectivity index of forest landscape in Batang Toru watershed, and describes correlation between connectivity with ecological indicators, biophysical and anthropogenic factors. Landsat satellite imageries acquired in 1989, 2001 and 2013 were used to detect land cover in several different years. Fragstat was used to generate landscape metrics. Landscape metrics were analyzed using a scoring method to determine the connectivity index of forest landscape. A Pearson correlation analysis was performed to obtain a correlation between connectivity index and the distance from roads, the distance from rivers, elevation and slope. The study found that the landscape connectivity tend to decline over the period from 1989 to 2013. The lowest connectivity index was found in the downstream area of Batang Toru watershed. Areas with low connectivity index were identified as having a relatively low diversity index of tree species. The connectivity index of forest landscape has a positive correlation with the distance from roads and the distance from rivers.
| Published in | Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 3, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12 |
| Page(s) | 147-154 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Fragmentation, Species Diversity Index, Fragstat, Ecosystem
| [1] | Anderson B, and C.N. Jenkins, Applying nature’s design: corridors as a strategy for biodiversity conservation. Columbia University Press, New York USA, 2006. |
| [2] | Arima, E.Y., R.T. Walker, S.G. Perz and M. Caldas, “Looger and forest fragmentation behaviour model of road building in the Amazon Basin”. Annal of the Association of American Geography, 95, pp, 525 – 541, 2005. |
| [3] | Batistella, M., S. Eduardo, Brondizio, F. Emilio and Moran, “Comparative analysis of landscape fragmentation in Rondônia, Brazilian Amazon”. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 33, pp, 148-155, 2000. |
| [4] | Broquet, T., N. Ray, E. Petit, H.M. Fryxell and F. Burel, “Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana)”. Landscape Ecology, 21, pp: 877-889, 2006. |
| [5] | Cabral, D. C., S.R. Freitas and J.T. Fiszon, “Combining sensors in landscape ecology: imagery based and farm level analysis in study human driven forest fragmentation”. Sociedade & Natureza, 19, pp, 69-87, 2007. |
| [6] | Collinge, S.K. “Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns”. Ecology, 81, pp, 2211–2226, 2000. |
| [7] | Cortina J. “Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: are they related”. Journal for Nature Conservation, Elsevier, 14, pp, 152 – 160, 2006. |
| [8] | Crooks, K.R. and M. Sanjayan (Eds.), Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York. Clergeau and Burel 1997, 2006. |
| [9] | Davies, Z. and A. Pullin, “Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach”. Landscape Ecology, 22, pp: 333-351, 2007. |
| [10] | Decout, S., S. Manel, C. Miaud, and S. Luque, “Connectivity and landscape patterns in human dominated landscape: a case study with the common frog Rana temporaria”, 2010. www.symposcience.org [2 December 2011] |
| [11] | Fahrig, L. “Effect of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity”. Annual review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34(1), pp, 487-515, 2003 |
| [12] | Fahrig, L. and G. Merriam, “Habitat patch connectivity and population survival” Ecology, 66, pp: 1762-1768, 1985. |
| [13] | Fearnside, P.M. “Brazil’s Cuiaba – Santarem (BR-163) Higway”. The Environmental Management, 39, pp, 601-614, 2007 |
| [14] | Fearnside, P.M. “Will urbanization cause deforested area to be abandoned in Brazilian Amazon?” Environmental Conservation, 35, pp: 197 – 199, 2008. |
| [15] | Feraz,, S.F.B., C.A. Vettorazzi, D.M. Theobald, and M.V.R. Ballester, “Landscape dynamic of Amazonia deforestation between 1984 and 2002 in Central Rendonia Brazil: Assessment and Future Scenario”. Forest Ecology and Management, 204, pp, 67-83, 2005. |
| [16] | Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron, Landscape Ecology. New York, Wiley, 1986 |
| [17] | Forman, R.T.T. Land Mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions (2nd Ed.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995. |
| [18] | Garcia, S. “Estimating landscape fragmentation form satellite images; the high of sensor spatial resolution. Remote Sensing for Agriculture”. Ecosystem Hydrology, Proc. SPIE 5232, pp 668-675, 2004. |
| [19] | García-Feceda, C., S. Saura and R. Elena-Rossellóa, “Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: A two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation”. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, pp. 154–161, 2011. |
| [20] | Goodwin, B.J. and L. Fahrig, “How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity?” OIKOS 99, pp, 552–570, 2002. |
| [21] | Graves, T., S. Farley, M. Goldstein and C. Serheen, “Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska”. Landscape Ecology, 22, pp, 765-772, 2007. |
| [22] | Gustafson, E.J. “Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art”. Ecosystems, 1, pp, 143-156, 1998. |
| [23] | Jaya, I.N.S. Analysis citra dijital: perspektif penginderaan jauh untuk pengelolaan sumberdaya alam. Bogor (ID), Institut Pertanian Bogor, 2009. |
| [24] | Jaya, I.N.S., R. Boer and Samsuri. Developing fire risk index in Central Kalimantan. International Research Institute and Bogor Agricultural University. A Project Report, 2007. |
| [25] | Kreb, C.J. Ecological Methods. Columbia (US), Harper Collins Publisher, 1989. |
| [26] | Kusmana, C. Metode Survey Vegetasi. Bogor (ID), PT. Penerbit Institut Pertanian Bogor, 1997. |
| [27] | Levin, N. and H. Lahav, “Landscape continuity analysis: A new approach to conservation planning in Israel”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, pp, 53-64, 2007. |
| [28] | Lindborg, R. and O.Eriksson, “Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant Species diversity”. Ecology, 85(7), pp, 1840–1845, 2004. |
| [29] | McGarigal K. “Landscape Metrics”, 1995. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/pubs/mcgarigal.marks.1995. [7 September 2011] |
| [30] | McGarigal, K. and B.J. Marks, B. J. “FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure”. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351, 1995 |
| [31] | Nagendra, H., J. Southworth and C. Tucker, “Accessibility as a determinant of landscape transformation in Westeren Honduras”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, pp, 154 – 167, 2003. |
| [32] | Nikolakaki, P. “A GIS Site Selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches”. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 77-94, 2004. |
| [33] | Perbatakusuma, E.A. and F. Kaprawi, “Kajian spasial lahan kritis berbasis sistim informasi geografis untuk rehabilitasi kawasan koridor satwa liar dan harangan desa di kawasan hutan Batang Toru” Report Project, Konsorsium Ikon Koridor to Sigadis, 2011a |
| [34] | Perbatakusuma, E.A. and A. Damanik, “Pengelolaan sumber daya alam di konsesi usaha perusahaan swasta : penekanan pada kawasan bernilai konservasi tinggi di lansekap hutan Batang Toru – Taman Nasional Batang Gadis”. Report Project, Konsorsium Ikon Koridor to Sigadis, 2011b |
| [35] | Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobb and C.R. Marques, “Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation, a review”. Conservation Biology, (5), pp, 18-32, 1991. |
| [36] | Saura, S., P. Vogt, J. Velázquezc, A. Hernandoa and R. Tejeraa, “Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses”. Forest Ecology and Management, 262, pp, 150–160, 2011. |
| [37] | Schumaker, N. “Using landscape indices to predicts habitat connectivity”. Ecology, 77(4), pp, 1210-1225, 1996. |
| [38] | Selman, P. Planning at the landscape scale. New York, NY, Routledge, 2006. |
| [39] | Simone, R.F., T.J. Hawbaker, P.M. Jean. “Effects of roads, topography, and land use on forest cover dynamics in the Brazilian Atlantic”. Forest Ecology and Management, 259 (3),pp, 410–417, 2010 |
| [40] | Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein and N.G. Merriam, “Connectivity is a vital element of landscape”, 1993. |
| [41] | Tena, A.G., L. Brotons and S. Saura, “Effects of forest landscape change and management on the range expansion of forest bird species in the Mediterranean region”. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, pp, 1338–1346, 2010. |
| [42] | Van Lier, H.N. “Sustainable land use planning. An editorial commentary”. Landscape Urban Planning, 41, pp, 79-82, 1998. |
| [43] | Verburg, P.H., W. Soephoer, A. Veldkamp, R. Limpiada and V. Espaldon, “Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional landuse the CLUE’S”. Model Environmental Management, 30, pp, 391-405, 2002. |
| [44] | Xi, W.M. “Landscape modeling for forest restoration planning and assessment: lessons from the Southern Appalachian Mountains”. Journal of Forestry, 106 (4), pp, 191-197, 2008. |
APA Style
Samsuri, I. Nengah Surati Jaya, Cecep Kusmana, Kukuh Murtilaksono. (2014). Connectivity and Ecological Indicators Analysis of Tropical Forest Landscape in Batang Toru Watershed - Indonesia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 3(3), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12
ACS Style
Samsuri; I. Nengah Surati Jaya; Cecep Kusmana; Kukuh Murtilaksono. Connectivity and Ecological Indicators Analysis of Tropical Forest Landscape in Batang Toru Watershed - Indonesia. Agric. For. Fish. 2014, 3(3), 147-154. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12,
author = {Samsuri and I. Nengah Surati Jaya and Cecep Kusmana and Kukuh Murtilaksono},
title = {Connectivity and Ecological Indicators Analysis of Tropical Forest Landscape in Batang Toru Watershed - Indonesia},
journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
volume = {3},
number = {3},
pages = {147-154},
doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20140303.12},
abstract = {Connectivity is one of the important issues in the context of natural resources due to its potential in preventing the impact of habitat fragmentation. Landscape forest connectivity facilitates organism movement, genetic exchange, and other ecological material flows. Loss of connectivity may result declining of ecosystem production and cut the material flows within the forest ecosystems. Connectivity degree is needed to determine the management strategy of forest landscape as a wildlife habitat. This paper defines connectivity index of forest landscape in Batang Toru watershed, and describes correlation between connectivity with ecological indicators, biophysical and anthropogenic factors. Landsat satellite imageries acquired in 1989, 2001 and 2013 were used to detect land cover in several different years. Fragstat was used to generate landscape metrics. Landscape metrics were analyzed using a scoring method to determine the connectivity index of forest landscape. A Pearson correlation analysis was performed to obtain a correlation between connectivity index and the distance from roads, the distance from rivers, elevation and slope. The study found that the landscape connectivity tend to decline over the period from 1989 to 2013. The lowest connectivity index was found in the downstream area of Batang Toru watershed. Areas with low connectivity index were identified as having a relatively low diversity index of tree species. The connectivity index of forest landscape has a positive correlation with the distance from roads and the distance from rivers.},
year = {2014}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Connectivity and Ecological Indicators Analysis of Tropical Forest Landscape in Batang Toru Watershed - Indonesia AU - Samsuri AU - I. Nengah Surati Jaya AU - Cecep Kusmana AU - Kukuh Murtilaksono Y1 - 2014/05/20 PY - 2014 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12 DO - 10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12 T2 - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries JF - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries JO - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries SP - 147 EP - 154 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-5648 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140303.12 AB - Connectivity is one of the important issues in the context of natural resources due to its potential in preventing the impact of habitat fragmentation. Landscape forest connectivity facilitates organism movement, genetic exchange, and other ecological material flows. Loss of connectivity may result declining of ecosystem production and cut the material flows within the forest ecosystems. Connectivity degree is needed to determine the management strategy of forest landscape as a wildlife habitat. This paper defines connectivity index of forest landscape in Batang Toru watershed, and describes correlation between connectivity with ecological indicators, biophysical and anthropogenic factors. Landsat satellite imageries acquired in 1989, 2001 and 2013 were used to detect land cover in several different years. Fragstat was used to generate landscape metrics. Landscape metrics were analyzed using a scoring method to determine the connectivity index of forest landscape. A Pearson correlation analysis was performed to obtain a correlation between connectivity index and the distance from roads, the distance from rivers, elevation and slope. The study found that the landscape connectivity tend to decline over the period from 1989 to 2013. The lowest connectivity index was found in the downstream area of Batang Toru watershed. Areas with low connectivity index were identified as having a relatively low diversity index of tree species. The connectivity index of forest landscape has a positive correlation with the distance from roads and the distance from rivers. VL - 3 IS - 3 ER -
Email: