Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Establishing ecological networks for habitat conservation in the case of Çeşme–Urla Peninsula, Turkey

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study involves the Çeşme–Urla Peninsula, where habitat fragmentation and loss, which threaten biological diversity, have become an urgent matter of concern in recent decades. The study area has been subjected to anthropogenic pressures and alterations due to ongoing and impending land uses. Therefore, ecological networks, as an appropriate way to deal with habitat fragmentation and loss and to improve ecological quality, were identified in the study area as one of the early attempts in the country to maintain its rich biodiversity. In this sense, core areas and ecological linkages as primary components of ecological networks were established on the basis of sustaining natural habitats. A GIS-based model was created to identify core areas and to facilitate the ecological connectivity. The modeling process for core areas and corridors combined 14 and 21 different variables, respectively. The variables were used as environmental inputs in the model, and all analyses were materialized in ArcGIS 9.2 using grid functions of image analysis and spatial analyst modules. As a result, six core areas and 36 corridor alternatives were materialized. Furthermore, some recommendations for the implementation and management of the proposed ecological networks were revealed and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., DeBlust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H., et al. (2003). The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233–247. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beier, P., & Noss, R. F. (1998). Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1241–1252. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. F. (2003). Linkages in the landscape-the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. Cambridge: IUCN.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, G. (2004). Linkages in practice: A review of their conservation practice. Gland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beunen, R., & Hagens, J. (2009). The use of the concept of ecological networks in nature conservation policies and planning practices. Landscape Research, 34(5), 563–580. doi:10.1080/01426390903184280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutani, L., Fallucci, A., Maiorano, L., & Rondinini, C. (2007). Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1414–1422. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00828.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwma, I. M., Jongman, R. H. G., & Butovsky, R. O. (2002). Indicative map of the Pan-European ecological network for central and Eastern Europe. Technical Background Document, ECNC, Technical Report Series, Tilburg/Budapest.

  • Carroll, C., Noss, R. F., Paquet, P. C., & Schumaker, N. H. (2004). Extinction debt of protected areas in developing landscapes. Conservation Biology, 18(4), 1110–1120. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00083.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, E. A. (2002). Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 269–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eken, G., Bennun, L., Brooks, T. M., Darwall, W., Fishpool, L. D. C., Foster, M., et al. (2004). Key Biodiversity Areas as site conservation targets. BioScience, 54, 1110–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eken, G., Bozdoğan, M., İsfendiyaroğlu, S., Kılıç, D. T., & Lise, Y. (Eds.) (2006). Key biodiversity areas in Turkey. Ankara: Doğa Derneği (in Turkish).

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2006). Arc View 9.2 software. Redlands: Environmental System Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2009). ESRI GIS and mapping software. http://www.esri.com. Accessed 20 June 2009.

  • Evrendilek, F., & Doygun, H. (2000). Assessing major ecosystem types and the challenge of sustainability in Turkey. Environmental Management, 26(5), 479–489. doi:10.1007/s002670010106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, T. T. (1998). Land Mosaics. The ecology of landscapes and regions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GEF II (2005). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forestry biodiversity and natural resources management project documents. Ankara (in Turkish).

  • Graves, T. A., Farley, S., Goldstein, M. I., & Servheen, C. (2007). Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landscape Ecology, 22, 765–772. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9082-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruttke, H., & Kornacker, P. M. (1995). The development of epigeic fauna in new hedges. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31, 217–231. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)01048-D.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güçlüsoy, H. (2006). The status of marine mammals and their interaction with fisheries along the central Turkish Aegean coasts. Ph.D. thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey (in Turkish).

  • Haaren, V. H., & Reich, M. (2006). The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76, 7–22. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmund, R. C., & Smith, D. S. (2006). Designing Greenways—Sustainable landscape for nature and people. Washington: Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepcan, Ç. C. (2008). Identification and planning of ecological networks as a sustainable approach in nature conservation; The case of Cesme-Urla Peninsula. Ph.D. thesis, Ege University (in Turkish).

  • Hepcan, Ç. C., & Özkan, M. B. (2007). Assessment of spatial and temporal changes in natural landscape in Cesme (Izmir). In The 3rd congress in landscape architecture (pp. 176-182). Antalya, 22–25 November 2007 (in Turkish).

  • Hepcan, ş., Hepcan, Ç. C., Bouwma, I. M., Jongman, R. H. G., & Özkan, M. B. (2009). Ecological networks as a new approach for nature conservation in Turkey: A case study of Izmir Province. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 143–154. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.10.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, G. (1994). Conservation corridors and contagious disease: A cautionary note. Conservation Biology, 8, 256–262. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010256.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, N. T., Reid, R. S., Galvin, K. A., & Ellis, J. E. (2007). Fragmentation of arid and semi-arid ecosystems: Implications for people and animals. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoctor, T. S. (2003). Regional landscape analysis and reserve design to conserve Florida’s biodiversity. Ph.D., University of Florida.

  • Jongman, R. H. G. (1995). Nature conservation planning in Europe: Developing ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 170–183. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(95)00197-O.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongman, R. H. G. (2004). The context and concept of ecological networks. In R. H. G. Jongman & G. Pungetti (Eds.), Ecological networks and greenways concept, design and implementation (pp. 7–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koçman, A. (1993). In terms of anthropogenic activities and impact on environment, climate of Aegean plains. Faculty of Letters: 73, Izmir (in Turkish).

  • Leica Geosystems (2006). ERDAS Imagine Professional 9.1. Software, Leica Geosystems: Sweden.

  • Luke, C., Penrod, K., Cabanero, C. R., Beier, P., Spencer, W., & Shapiro, S. (2004). A linkage design for the Santa Ana Mountains connection. South Cost Wildlands and National Park Service, CA.

  • Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., & Boitani, L. (2008). Size-dependent resistance of protected areas to land-use change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 275, 1297–1304. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., Gaton, E. O., & Boitani, L. (2007). Contribution of the Natura 2000 network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1433–1444. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00831.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinoli, A., Preatoni, D., Galanti, V., Codipietro, P., Kilewo, M., Fernandes, C. A. R., et al. (2006). Species richness and habitat use of small carnivores in the Arusha National Park (Tanzania). Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 1729–1744. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-5020-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M., Foreman, D., Fink, M., Shinneman, D., Smith, J., DeMarco, M., et al. (2003). Southern Rockies wildlands network vision (261 p.). Southern Rockies ecosystem project.

  • Ministry of Culture and Tourism (2009). The Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. http://www.kultur.gov.tr/. Acsessed 25 June 2009.

  • Opdam, P. (2002). Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In K. Z. Gutzewiller (Ed.), Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation (pp. 381–404). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam, P., & Wascher, D. (2004). Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: Linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation, 117, 285–297. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özhatay, N., Byfield, A., & Atay, S. (2003). The important plant areas in Turkey. Istanbul: WWF (in Turkish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, K., Cabanero, C. R., Beier, P., Luke, C., Spencer, W., Rubin, E., et al. (2006). South coast missing linkage project: A linkage design for the Santa Monica-Sierra Madre connection. South Coast Wildlands and National Park Service, CA.

  • Quinby, P., Trombulak, S., Lee, T., Henry, M., Long, R., & MacKay, P. (1999). Opportunities for wildlife connectivity between Algonquin Park, Ontario and the Adirondack Park, New York. The greater Laurentian wildlands project, Burlington, Vermont.

  • Semenderoğlu, A. (1999). The relations of socio-economic and natural factors in Urla-Çeşme Peninsula. Ph.D. thesis, Dokuz Eylul University (in Turkish).

  • Sepp, K., Jagomagi, J., Kaasik, A., Gulbinas, Z., & Nikodemus, O. (2001). Methodology of designation of national ecological networks in the Baltic Countries. In K. Sepp & A. Kaasik (Eds.), Development of national ecological networks in the Baltic Countries in the framework of the Pan European Ecological Network. Poland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D., & Cox, J. (1987). Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology, 1, 63–71. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1987.tb00010.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., & Mehlman, D. W. (1992). Movement corridors: Conservation bargains or poor investments. Conservation Biology, 6, 493–504. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06040493.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Windt, H. J., & Swart, J. A. A. (2008). Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: The case of the Green River in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 124–132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01404.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooij, S. A. M., Van Der Sluis, T., & Steingrover, E. G. (2003). Networks for life. Alterra-Report No: 729, Development of an ecological network for Persiceto (Italy).

  • Verboom, J., & Pouwels, R. (2004). Ecological functioning of networks: A species perspective. In R. Jongman & G. Pungetti (Eds.), Ecological networks and greenways concept, design and implementation (pp. 56–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, C. C., Baveco, H., & Grashof-Bokdam, C. J. (2002). Corridors and species dispersal. In K. J. Gutzwiller (Ed.), Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation (pp. 85–104). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, T., Sloan, A., & Wolf, J. (2006). Maryland’s green infrastructure assessment: Development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 94–110. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woess, M., Grillmayer, R., & Voelk, E. H. (2002). Green bridges and wildlife corridors in Austria. Zeitschrift für Jagdwiss, Supplement, 48, 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanes, M., Velasco, J., & Suarez, F. (1995). Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: The importance of culverts. Biological Conservation, 71, 217–222. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(94)00028-O.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Landscape Architecture Faculty of Agriculture, Ege University, 35100, Bornova Izmir, Turkey

    Çiğdem Coşkun Hepcan & Mehmet Bülent Özkan

Authors
  1. Çiğdem Coşkun Hepcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Bülent Özkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Çiğdem Coşkun Hepcan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hepcan, Ç.C., Özkan, M.B. Establishing ecological networks for habitat conservation in the case of Çeşme–Urla Peninsula, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 174, 157–170 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1447-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1447-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation