Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In urbanising landscapes, planning for sustainable biodiversity occurs in a context of multifunctional land use. Important conditions for species persistence are habitat quality, the amount and configuration of habitat and the permeability of the landscape matrix. For planning purposes, these determinants should be integrated into simple indicators for spatial conditions of persistence probability. We propose a framework of three related indices. The cohesion index is based on the ecology of metapopulations in a habitat network. We discuss how an indicator for species persistence in such a network could be developed. To translate this network index into an area index, we propose the concept of spatial cohesion. Habitat cohesion and spatial cohesion are defined and measured for single species or, at best, for species profiles. Since species differ in their perception of the same landscape, different species will rate different values of these indices for the same landscape. Because landscapes are rarely planned for single species, we further propose the index of landscape cohesion, which integrates the spatial cohesion indices of different species. Indices based on these concepts can be built into GIS tools for landscape assessment. We illustrate different applications of these indices, and emphasise the distinction between ecological and political decisions in developing and applying such tools.

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

  • Adler F.R. and Nuernberger B. 1994. Persistence in patchy irregular landscapes. Theoretical Population Biology 45: 41–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahern J. 1999. Integration of landscape ecology and landscape design: an evolutionary process. In:Wiens J.A. and Moss M.R. (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association of Landscape Ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H. 1996. Population responses to habitat fragmentation: statistical power and the random sample hypothesis. Oikos 76: 235–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymus 1997. Natuurverkenning 97. Samson H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak D.F. 1989. Spotted owls and old growth logging in the pa-cific north-west. Conservation Biology 3: 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning J.B. Jr, Borgella R., Clements C. and Meffe G.K. 1995. Patch isolation, corridor effects, and colonization by a resident sparrow in a managed pine woodland. Conservation Biology 9: 542–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettienne R.S. and Heesterbeek J.A.P. 2001. Rules of thumb for conservation of metapopulations based on a stochastic winking-patch model. American Naturalist 158: 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. and Merriam G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8: 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. 1999. When is a landscape perspective important? In:Wiens J.A. and Moss M.R. (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association of Landscape Ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 145–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100: 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foppen R.P.B., Chardon J. and Liefveld W. 2000. Understanding the role of sink patches in source-sink metapopulations: reed warblers in an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 14: 1881–1892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foppen R. 2001. Bridging gaps in fragmented marshland. Applying landscape ecology for bird conservation. PhD Dissertation, Wageningen University/Alterra Scientific Contributions 4, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

  • Frank K. and Wissel C. 1998. Spatial aspects of metapopualtion survival-from model results to ruels of thumb for landscape management. Landscape ecology 13: 363–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank K. and Wissel C. 2002. A formula for the mean lifetime of metapopualtions in heterogeneous landscapes. American Naturalist 159: 530–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertsema W., Opdam P.F.M. and Kropff M.J. 2002. Plant strategies and agricultural landscapes: survival in spatially and temporally fragmented habitat. Landscape Ecology 17: 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 151–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics, from concepts and observations to predictive models. In:Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 69–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and meta-populations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87: 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harms B., Knaapen J.P. and Rademakers J.G. 1993. Landscape planning for nature restoration: comparing regional scenarios. In:Vos C.C. and Opdam P. (eds), Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment. Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pp. 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. and Simberloff D. 1997. The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In:Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson M.T. and Merriam G. 1985. Patchy environments and species survival: chipmunks in an agricultural mosaic. Biological Conservation 31: 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S., Murphy D.D. and Ehrlich P.R. 1988. Distribution of the bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis: evidence for a metapopulation model. American Naturalist 132: 360–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogeveen Y.R. 2001. Analyse ruimtelijke samenhang natuurge-bieden: scenariostudie ex-ante toets VIJNO. intern report Al-terra. Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. American Naturalist 130: 624–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D.B. and Lacy R.C. 1995. A simulation study of the impacts of population subdivision on the mountain brushtail possum Trichosurus caninus Ogilby (Phalangeridae: marsupi-alia) in south-eastern Australia. I. Demographic stability and population persistence. Biological Conservation 73: 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D.B. and Possingham H.P. 1995. Modelling the viability of metapopulations of the endangered Leadbeaters's pos-sum in South-eastern Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 984–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino M.V. 1994. An evaluation of alternative strategies for building networks of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 69: 243–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C.R., Nicholls A.O. and Pressey R.L. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43: 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C. 1999. Conservation planning at the landscape scale. In:Wiens J.A. and Moss M.R. (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association of Landscape Ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 83–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthysen E. and Currie D. 1996. Habitat fragmentation reduces disperser success in juvenile nuthatches Sitta europaea: evi-dence from patterns of territory establishment. Ecography 19: 72–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G. 1988. Landscape dynamics in farmland. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3: 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mönkkönen M. and Reunanen P. 1999. On critical thresholds in landscape connectivity: a management perspective. Oikos 84: 302–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss M.R. 1999. Fostering Academic and Institutional Activities in Landscape Ecology. In:Wiens J.A. and Moss M.R. (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association for Landscape Ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 138–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer J.I. 1999. Culture as a means for experimentation and action. In:Wiens J.A. and Moss M.R. (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology. International Association of Landscape Ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 129–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P. 1988. Populations in fragmented landscape. In:Schreiber K.F. (ed.), Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten 29, Münster, Germany, pp. 75–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P. 1991. Metapopulation theory and habitat fragmentation: a review of holarctic breeding bird studies. Landscape Ecology 5: 93–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P., Van Apeldoorn R., Schotman A. and Kalkhoven J. 1993. Population responses to landscape fragmentation. In:Vos C.C. and Opdam P. (eds), Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environ-ment. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P., Foppen R., Reijnen R. and Schotman A. 1995. The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation: integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis 137: 139–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P. 2002. Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In:Gutzwiller K.J. (ed.), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 381–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P. and Wiens J.A. 2002. Fragmentation, habitat loss and landscape management. In:Norris K. and Pain D. (eds), Con-serving Bird Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 202–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P., Foppen R. and Vos C.C. 2002. Bridging the gap between empirical knowledge and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 767–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possingham H.P., Lindenmayer D.B., Norton T.W. and Davies I. 1994. Metapopulation viability analysis of the greater glider Petauroides volans in a wood production area. Biological Conservation 70: 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouwels R., Jochem R., Reijnen M.J.S.M., Hensen S.R. and Van der Greft J.G.M. 2002. LARCH voor ruimtelijk ecologische beoordelingen van landschappen. Report Alterra 492. Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R. and Nicholls A.O. 1989. Application of a numerical algorithm to the selection of reserves in semi-arid New South Wales. Biological Conservation 50: 263–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R. and Koolstra B. 1998. Evaluation of corridor effectiveness in the Gelderland Province (in Dutch). Research report 372. Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R., Van der Grift E., Van der Veen M., Pelk M., Lüchten-borg A. and Bal D. 2000. De weg mét de minste weerstand. Opgave ontsnippering. Alterra and Expertisecentrum LNV, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker N. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjögren P. 1991. Extinction and Isolation gradients in metapopulations-the case of the pool frog, Rana lessonae. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 135–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A.T. and Gilpin M. 1997. Spatially correlated dynamics in a Pika population. In:Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Meta-population Biology. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 407–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe O. and Thomas C.D. 1996. Open corridors appear to facilitate dispersal of Ringlet Butterflies (Aphantopus hyperan-thus) between woodland clearings. Conservation Biology 10: 1359–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak C.J.F., Hanski I. and Verboom J. 1998. The incidence function approach in modelling of metapopulation dynamics. In:Bascompte J. and Solé R.V. (eds), Modeling Spatio-Tempo-ral Dynamics in Ecology. Springer Verlag and Landes Bioscience, New York, New York, USA, pp. 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald D.M., Hobbs N.T., Bearly T., Zack J.A., Shenk T. and Riebsame W.E. 2000. Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conser-vation planning. Landscape Ecology 15: 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C.D. and Hanski I. 1997. Butterfly metapopulations. In:Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 359–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C.D. and Kunin W.E. 1999. The spatial structure of populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 647–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D. and Kareiva P. (eds) 1997. Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dorp D. and Opdam P.F.M. 1987. Effects of patch size, isola-tion and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Land-scape Ecology 1: 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J., Schotman A., Opdam P. and Metz J.A.J. 1991. European nuthatch metapopulations in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Oikos 61: 149–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J., Opdam P. and Schotman A. 1991c. Kerngebieden en kleinschalig landschap: een benadering met een metapopulati-emodel. Landschap 8: 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J., Metz J.A.J. and Meelis E. 1993. Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation. In:Vos C.C. and Opdam P. (eds), Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Landscape. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 172–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verboom J., Foppen R., Chardon P., Opdam P. and Luttikhuizen P. 2001. Standards for persistent habitat networks for vertebrate populations: the key patch approach. An example for marsh-land bird populations. Biological Conservation 100: 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villard M., Merriam G. and Maurer B.A. 1995. Dynamics in sub-divided populations of neotropical migratory birds in a frag-mented temperate forest. Ecology 76: 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villard M., Trzcinski M.K. and Merriam G. 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: Relative influence of woodland cover nd configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13: 774–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos C.C. and Chardon J.P. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos C.C., Ter Braak C.J.F. and Nieuwenhuizen W. 2000. Empirical evidence of metapopulation dynamics; the case of the Tree frog (Hyla arborea). Ecological Bulletins 48: 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos C.C., Verboom J., Opdam P.F.M. and Ter Braak C.J.F. 2001. Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157: 24–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vos C.C., Baveco H. and Grashof-Bokdam C.J. 2002. Corridors and species dispersal. In:Gutzwiller K.J. (ed.), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 84–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg N., Moilanen A. and Hanski I. 1996. Predicting the occurrence of endangered species in fragmented landscapes. Science 273: 1536–1538.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In:Hanski I.A. and Gilpin M.E. (eds), Metapopulation Biology. Academic Press, London, UK, pp. 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • With K.A., Gardner R.H. and Turner M.G. 1996. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78: 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • With K.A. and King A.W. 1999. Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conservation Biology 13: 14–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alterra, Department of Landscape Ecology, Wageningen University Research Center, Wageningen, NL-6700 AA, The Netherlands

    Paul Opdam, Jana Verboom & Rogier Pouwels

  2. Nature Conservation and Plant Ecology Group, Wageningen University Research Center, Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL-6700 AA, The Netherlands

    Paul Opdam

Authors
  1. Paul Opdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jana Verboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rogier Pouwels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Opdam, P., Verboom, J. & Pouwels, R. Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18, 113–126 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024429715253

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024429715253

Search

Navigation