Change detection of landscape connectivity arisen by forest transformation in Hazaribagh wildlife sanctuary, Jharkhand (India)
Forest land conversion is the primary driver of biodiversity decline worldwide. Hazaribagh wildlife sanctuary is a region of rich biodiversity in which forests and wildlife are deteriorating fast. The prime reasons for forest degradation and wildlife loss are the landscape connectivity weakening and forest transformation. In the present work, landscape connectivity and forest transformation relationships were analyzed in a spatio-temporal domain. The forest patches as a group of spectral abundance were extracted using the endmember retrieval technique. The connectivity analysis was performed by using a connectivity index in the extracted forest patches. Forest transformation is calculated using a post-classification change detection strategy for five types of forest cover during the four phases of the year (1992–2005, 2005–2010, 2010–2017 and 1992–2017). The forest cover was measured using a forest canopy density model using spectral indices. The landscape connectivity of 80–100% exhibit a rapid increase of 38% in 2005 from 1992 contrary to a 13% decrease in 2010 and 2017. The 23% loss of forest cover from 2005 to 2010 and a 17% loss in 2010–2017 phase of forest transformation weakened the forest connectivity. Forest cover, having a density higher than 40% was more vulnerable to degradation and landscape connectivity loss. The result shows that such declines of forest cover and landscape connectivity will reduce the genetic diversity in the forest, especially the mammalian population.
KeywordsLandscape connectivity Biodiversity Forest transformation Wildlife Forest degradation
The authors would like to thanks forest department of Jharkhand, for their support in field and providing useful data. The authors are thankful to USGS earth explorer for providing Landsat data. Authors like to thanks National fellowship for disabilities for providing funds for the research.
Funding was provided by RGNF (Grant No. F.549-Jharkhand 2015-2017).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5.Gupt, K. S., & Chandra, P. A. (2018). Forest canopy density and fragmentation analysis for evaluating spatio-temporal status of Forest in the Hazaribagh Wild Life Sanctuary, Jharkhand (India). Research Journal of Environmental Sciences,12(4), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjes.2018.198.212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kshirsagar, M. (2004). Landscape characterisation of Jhabua and Ratlam District (Madhya Pradesh) using satellite remote sensing data and geographic information system. Pune: University of Pune, Forestry & Ecology Division, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (NRSA).Google Scholar
- 8.Franklin, J. F. (1994). (1994). Developing information essential to policy, planning and management decision-making: the promise of GIS. In A. V. Sample (Ed.), Remote sensing and GIS in ecosystem management (pp. 18–24). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- 12.MPLO (Montreal Process Liaison Office). (2000). Montréal process year 2000 progress report—Progress and innovation in implementing criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests. The Montréal Process Liaison Office, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
- 13.Message from Malahide. (2004). Halting the decline of biodiversity—priority objectives and targets for 2010. Stakeholders conference, Final Version 27.5.2004, Malahide.Google Scholar
- 14.ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization). (2005). Revised ITTO criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of tropical forests including reporting format. ITTO Policy Devel- opment Series No. 15, ISBN 4 902045 20 6, International Organizations Center, 5th Floor, Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1, Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220-0012, JapanGoogle Scholar
- 15.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2001). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: A compendium. In F. Castañeda, C. Palmberg-Lerche, & P. Vuorinen (Eds.), Forest Management Working Paper FM/5. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
- 20.Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: A synthesis. Ecological Applications,12(2), 346–353.Google Scholar
- 22.Lambin, E. F., Meyfroidt, P., Rueda, X., Blackman, A., Börner, J., Cerutti, P. O., et al. (2014). Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Change,28, 29–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Champion, H. G., & Seth, S. K. (1968). A revised survey of forest types of India (pp. 1–404). New Delhi: Government of India Press.Google Scholar
- 26.McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C., & Ene, E. (2002). FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetta.Google Scholar
- 27.Rikimaru, A. (1996). LANDSAT TM data processing guide for forest canopy density mapping and monitoring model. ITTO workshop on utilization of remote sensing in site assessment and planning for rehabilitation of logged-over forest, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
- 28.Gruninger, J. H., Ratkowski, A. J., & Hoke, M. L. (2004). The sequential maximum angle convex cone (SMACC) endmember model. In Proceedings SPIE, Algorithms for Multispectral and Hyper-spectral and Ultraspectral Imagery X, Orlando, April.Google Scholar
- 29.Martensen, A. C., Ribeiro, M. C., Banks-Leite, C., Prado, P. I., & Metzger, J. P. (2012). Associations of forest cover, fragment area, and connectivity with neotropical understory bird species richness and abundance. Conservation Biology,26, 1100–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01940.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Shiva, V. (1991). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, Ecology, and politics. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
- 38.Gupta, R. K., Naresh, R. K., & Hobbs, P. R. (2003). Sustainability of post-green revolution agriculture: The rice–wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains and China (pp. 1–25). Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc.Google Scholar
- 46.Ostapowicz, K., Estreguil, C., Kozak, J., & Vogt, P. (2006). Assessing forest fragmentation and connectivity: A case study in the Carpathians. In Proceedings of SPIE, 6366, remote sensing for environmental monitoring, GIS Applications, and geology VI, 636608. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.689573.
- 47.Zemanova, M. A., Perotto-baldivieso, H. L., Dickins, E. L., Gill, A. B., Leonard, J. P., & Wester, D. B. (2017). Impact of deforestation on habitat connectivity thresholds for large carnivores in tropical forests. Ecological Processes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-017-0089-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar