Landscape Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 191–201 | Cite as

Landscape ecology as a theoretical basis for nature conservation

  • Lennart Hansson
  • Per Angelstam
Article

Abstract

Conservation of representative biotopes, single species populations or biodiversity usually embraces two or more biotopes, and is often affected by surrounding croplands. The conclusions from landscape ecological studies can, therefore, offer important contributions to conservation, especially at early levels of landscape change or habitat fragmentation. Indicator and keystone species are useful for monitoring and managing fragmented biotopes, respectively. Communities as well as single species are affected by the juxtaposition of successional and climax biotopes, which influence climatic equability, seasonality, productivity and dispersal. Low levels of fragmentation may result in ill-functioning communities, and greater fragmentation may result in species losses and ultimately in the loss of whole communities. Fragmented habitats retain species with high reproductive and dispersal rates and generalized habitat selection. New combinations of interacting species will lead to trivialization of earlier habitat-specific interactions. Validation of these concepts was made with data from a Swedish research program on fragmented biotopes in production landscapes. General reserve selection and methods of management for preserving climax communities, single specialized species and high biodiversity are suggested.

Keywords

Landscape change habitat fragmentation conservation biology landscape ecology management climax succession 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrén, H. and Angelstam, P. 1988. Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 69: 544–547.Google Scholar
  2. Angelstam, P. 1986. Predation on ground-nesting bird's nests in relation to predator densities and habitat edge. Oikos 47: 365–373.Google Scholar
  3. Angelstam, P. 1991. Conservation of communities - the importance of edges and surroundings in man-dominated landscapes. In Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation, in press. Edited by L. Hansson. Elsevier, Barking.Google Scholar
  4. Balser, D., Bielak, A., De Boer, G., Tobias, T., Adindu, G. and Dorney, R.S. 1981. Nature reserve designation in a cultural landscape, incorporating island biogeography theory. Landscape Plann. 8: 329–347.Google Scholar
  5. Baudry, J. and Merriam, G. 1988. Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. pp. 23–28. Edited by K.F. Schreiber. Schoenningh, Muenster.Google Scholar
  6. Boecklen, W.J. and Bell, G.W. 1987. Consequences of faunal collapse and genetic drift to the design of nature reserves. In Nature Conservation - the Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. pp. 141–149. Edited by D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbridge and A.J.M. Hopkins. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Burkey, T.V. 1989. Extinction in nature reserves: the effect of fragmentation and the importance of migration between reserve fragments. Oikos 55: 75–81.Google Scholar
  8. Ericson, L., Hansson, L., Larsson, T. and Rasmusson, G. 1988. The importance of residual biotopes for fauna and flora. In Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. pp. 105–106. Schoenningh, Muenster.Google Scholar
  9. Esseen, P.-A. 1983. Ecology of lichens in boreal coniferous forests with reference to spatial and temporal patterns. PhD Thesis, University of 199–01, Sweden.Google Scholar
  10. Esseen, P.A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L. and Sjöberg, K. 1991. Boreal forests -the focal habitats of Fennoscandia. In Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation, in press. Edited by L. Hansson. Elsevier, Barking.Google Scholar
  11. Forman, R.T.T. & Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, J.F. and Forman, R.T.T. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landsc. Ecol. 1: 5–18.Google Scholar
  13. Gilpin, M.E. 1988. A comment on Quinn and Hastings: Extinction in subdivided habitats. Cons. Biol. 2: 290–292.Google Scholar
  14. Gilpin, M.S. & Hanski, I. (eds.) 1991. Metapopulation dynamics. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 1–336.Google Scholar
  15. Goodman, D. 1987. The demography of chance extinction. In Viable Populations for Conservation, pp. 11–34. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Green, R. 1979. The ecology of wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) on arable farmland. J. Zool. Lond. 188: 357–377.Google Scholar
  17. Gurnell, J. 1985. Woodland rodent communities. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 55: 377–411.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, C.A.S. 1988. An assessment of several of the historically most influential theoretical models used in ecology and of the data provided in their support. Ecol. Modell. 43: 5–31.Google Scholar
  19. Hanski, I. 1982. Dynamics of regional distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 38: 210–221.Google Scholar
  20. Hanski, I. 1991. Single-species metapopulation dynamics. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 17–38.Google Scholar
  21. Hansson, L. 1983. Bird numbers across edges between mature conifer forest and clearcuts in central Sweden. Ornis Scand. 14: 97–103.Google Scholar
  22. Hansson, L. 1991. Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 89–103.Google Scholar
  23. Hansson, L., Söderström, L. and Solbreck, C. 1991. Dispersal in conservation - the importance of emigration and immigration. In Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation, in press. Edited by L. Hansson. Elsevier, Barking.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, L.D. 1984. The fragmented forest. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, L.D. 1988. Edge effects and conservation of biotic diversity. Cons. Biol. 2: 330–332.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, L.D. 1989. The faunal significance of fragmentation of southeastern bottomland forests. In The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States. pp. 126–134. Edited by D.D. Hook and R. Lea. Department of Agriculture, Asheville.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, L.D. and Galagher, P.G. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: The need for movement corridors. In In Defense of Wildlife: Preserving Communities and Corridors. pp. 11–34. Edited by G. Mackintosh. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington.Google Scholar
  28. Hobbs, R.J. 1987. Disturbance regimes in remnants of natural vegetation. In Nature Conservation - the Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. pp. 233–240. Edited by D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge and A.J.M. Hopkins. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton.Google Scholar
  29. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4: 1–23.Google Scholar
  30. Janzen, D. 1983. No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos 41: 402–410.Google Scholar
  31. Jennersten, O. 1988. Pollination in Dianthus deltoides (Caryophyllaceae): Effect of habitat fragmentation on visitation and seed set. Cons. Biol. 2: 359–366.Google Scholar
  32. Kroodsma, R.L. 1982. Edge effect on breeding forest birds along a powerline corridor. J. Appl. Ecol. 19: 361–370.Google Scholar
  33. Landres, P.B. Verner, J. and Thomas, J.W. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Cons. Biol. 2: 316–328.Google Scholar
  34. Levenson, J.B. 1981. Woodlots in biogeographic islands in southeastern Wisconsin. In Forest Island Dynamics in Mandominated Landscapes. pp. 13–40. Edited by R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull. Entom. Soc. Amer. 15: 237–240.Google Scholar
  36. MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  37. Merriam, G. 1988. Landscape dynamics in farmland. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 16–20.Google Scholar
  38. Nilsson, S.G. and Ericson, L. 1991. Conservation of plant and animal populations in theory and practice. In Ecological Principles of Nature conservation, in press. Edited by L. Hansson. Elsevier, Barking.Google Scholar
  39. Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at the Nature Conservancy (USA). Biol. Conserv. 41: 11–37.Google Scholar
  40. Odum, E. 1971. Fundamental of ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  41. Pianka, E. 1978. Evolutionary ecology, 2nd ed. Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Picket, S.T.A. and White, P.S. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
  43. Pimm, S.A. 1982. Food webs. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  44. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am. Nat. 132: 652–663.Google Scholar
  45. Sjöberg, K. and Ericson, L. 1991. Forested and open wetland. In Ecological Principles of Nature Conservation, in press. Edited by L. Hansson. Elsevier, Barking.Google Scholar
  46. Sjögren, P. 1991. Extinction and isolation gradients in metapopulations: the case of the pool frog (Rana lessonae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 42: 135–147.Google Scholar
  47. Söderström, L. 1987. Dispersal as a limiting factor for distribution among epixylic bryophytes. Symp. Biol. Hung. 35: 475–484.Google Scholar
  48. Soulé, M.E. (ed.) 1987a. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. Soulé, M.E. (ed.) 1987b. Conservation biology. Sinauer, Sunderland.Google Scholar
  50. Soulé, M.S. and Simberloff, D. 1986. What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biol. Cons. 35: 19–40.Google Scholar
  51. Temple, S.A. & Cary, J.R. 1988. Modelling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 2: 340–347.Google Scholar
  52. Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., Dale, V.H. and O'Neill, R.V. 1989. Predicting the spread of disturbances across heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 55: 121–129.Google Scholar
  53. Usher, M.B. (ed.) 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  54. Väisänen, R.A., Järvinen, O. and Rauhala, P. 1986. How are extensive, human-caused habitat alterations expressed on the scale of local bird populations in boreal forests. Ornis Scand. 17: 282–292.Google Scholar
  55. Wiens, J.A. 1989. Spatial scaling in ecology. Func. Ecol. 3: 385–397.Google Scholar
  56. Wilcove, D.S. 1989. Protecting biodiversity in multiple-use lands: lessons from the US Forest Service. - Trends Ecol. Ecol. 4: 385–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SPB Academic Publishing bv 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lennart Hansson
    • 1
  • Per Angelstam
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Wildlife EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Grimsö Wildlife Research StationRiddarhyttanSweden
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations