Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 310–328 | Cite as

Ownership property size, landscape structure, and spatial relationships in the Edwards Plateau of Texas (USA): landscape scale habitat management implications

  • Edith González AfanadorEmail author
  • Michael E. Kjelland
  • X. Ben Wu
  • Neal Wilkins
  • William E. Grant


The present research focused on using spatial analysis to determine relationships among land ownership property sizes and landscape structure, with a focus on conservation management implications. Indices and metrics of ownership property sizes and landscape structure were calculated for 20 km buffer areas around 31 North American Breeding Bird Survey transects, 12 located within the Edwards Plateau ecoregion and 18 in contiguous ecoregions. The number of bird species observed at each transect provided a measure of avian species richness associated with land cover classes for each respective transect (González in Urban influence on diversity of avifauna in the Edwards Plateau of Texas: effect of property sizes on rural landscape structure, Texas A&M University, 2005). Spatial correlations were calculated between each pair of the landscape indices. Spatial analysis identified a “threshold of habitat fragmentation” for the 500 acre (ac) ownership property size. Significant spatial correlations among variables showed that property sizes lower than 500 ac produced habitat fragmentation represented by a decrease in mean patch size (MN) and proximity among habitat patches (Index PROX). Spatial analysis also made possible the prioritization of ecological sub-regions of the Edwards Plateau for conservation or restoration. The Live Oak-Mesquite Savannah showed the highest average ownership property size (7305 ac) and the highest values of patch richness. Based on the results, management in the Live Oak-Mesquite Savannah sub-region should focus on the conservation of land mosaic diversity to assure native avian species turnover (Whittaker 1972). In Balcones Canyon Lands, 64 % of land was covered by farms smaller than 500 ac and the overall average ownership property size was above the threshold of fragmentation (1440 ac), implying that management policies there should focus both on habitat conservation and on restoration. In contrast, 71 % of land in the Lampasas Cut Plains was covered by farms smaller than 500 ac, and average ownership property size was very close to the fragmentation threshold (625 ac). Consequently, the results indicate that management in the Lampasas Cut Plains sub-region should focus on habitat restoration (e.g., corridors that connect isolated habitat patches). In general, the threshold of ownership property size, 500 ac, is important for conservation planning because below that threshold of property size, habitat patch size begins to decrease and the distance between equivalent patches of habitat increases. Isolated patches act as islands within a sea of less suitable habitat which produce negative effects on biodiversity. Identifying the spatial characteristics indicative of habitat fragmentation, or the likelihood thereof, is an important issue for conservation planning in places with urban sprawl influence.


Landscape ecology Landscape structure Land fragmentation Habitat fragmentation 



We thank the Texas Cooperative Extension, the Texas A&M University System, Dr. Terri Morgan from Partnership for Environment (PFE) for partial economic support, and Dr. Maria Chakerian for her unconditional assistance with FRAGSTATS analysis.


  1. Adger N, Luttrel C (2000) The values of wetlands: landscape and institutional perspectives. Property rights and the utilization of wetlands. Ecol Econ 35:75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antrop M (2000) Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landsc Ecol 15:713–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin RF, Reed SE, McRae BH, Theobald DM, Sutherland RW (2012) Connectivity restoration in large landscapes: modeling landscape condition and ecological flows. Ecol Restor 30(4):274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudry J (1993) Landscape dynamics and farming systems: problems of relating patterns and predicting ecological changes. In: Bunce RGH, Ryszkowski L, Paoletti MG (eds) Landscape ecology and agro-ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Ratón, pp 21–40Google Scholar
  5. Blair R (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9(5):2Google Scholar
  6. Brooks J, Stanfield J, Spies T (2002) Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) Coast Range watersheds. Landsc Ecol 17:685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P et al (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clifford P, Richardson S, Hemmon D (1989) Assessing the significance of the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 45(1):123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins OB, Smeins FE, Riskind DH (1975) Plant communities of the Blackland Prairie of Texas. In: Wali MK (ed) Prairie: a multiple view. University of North Dakota Press, Grand Forks, pp 75–87Google Scholar
  10. Costanza R, Àrge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P, Marjan B (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystems services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dale MRT, Fortin MJ (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and statistical test in ecology. Ecoscience 9:162–167Google Scholar
  12. Dodds-Weir C, Dykstra R (2003) Approaches to farmland preservation: an American case study. Farmland Preservation Research Project, Center for Land and Water Stewardship, University of Guelph, Guelph, p 58Google Scholar
  13. Donovan T, Flather C (2002) Relationship among North American songbirds trends, habitat fragmentation, and landscape occupancy. Ecol Appl 12:364–374Google Scholar
  14. Dutilleul P, Clifford P, Richardson S, Hemmon D (1993) Modifying the t-test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics 49(1):305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engle JA (2002) The relationship between ownership fragmentation and landscape structure in Bastrop County, Texas. Master’s Thesis, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) (2000) Google Scholar
  17. Feinberg DS, Hostetler ME, Reed SE, Pienaar EF, Pejchar L (2015) Evaluating management strategies to enhance biodiversity in conservation developments: perspectives from developers in Colorado, USA. Landsc Urban Plan 136:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felizola JA, Bini L, Hawkins B (2003) Spatial autocorrelation and red herrings in geographical Ecology. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734):570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fontana S, Sattler T, Bontadinac F, Moretti M (2011) How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure Simone. Landsc Urban Plan 101:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forman R (1984) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Fortin MJ, Gurevitch J (1993) Mantel tests: spatial structure in field experiments. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and ecological experiments. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 343–359Google Scholar
  24. Fortin MJ, Payette S (2002) How to test the significance of the relation between spatially autocorrelated data at the landscape scale: a case study using fire and forest maps. Ecoscience 9(2):213–218Google Scholar
  25. Gavier-Pizarro GI, Radeloff VC, Stewart SI, Huebner CD, Keuler NS (2010) Rural housing is related to plant invasions in forests of southern Wisconsin, USA. Landsc Ecol 25:1505–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gergel S, Turner M (2002) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glennon MJ, Kretser HE (2013) Size of the ecological effect zone associated with exurban development in the Adirondack Park, NY. Landsc Urban Plan 112:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. González E (2005) Urban influence on diversity of avifauna in the Edwards Plateau of Texas: effect of property sizes on rural landscape structure. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Gould FW (1975) The grasses of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  30. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X et al (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gutzwiller KJ, Flather CH (2011) Wetland features and landscape context predict the risk of wetland habitat loss. Ecol Appl 21(3):968–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton CM, Martinuzzi S, Plantinga AJ, Radeloff VC, Lewis DJ, Thogmartin WE et al (2013) Current and future land use around a nationwide protected area network. PLoS One 8(1):e55737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Isaaks E, Srivastava M (1989) Applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Kjelland M, Kreuter U, Clendenin G, Wilkins N, Wu B, Gonzalez E, Grant W (2007) Factors related to spatial patterns of rural land fragmentation in Texas. Environ Manag 40:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159(8–9):1974–1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Legendre P, Fortin MJ (1989) Spatial pattern and ecological analysis. Vegetatio 80:107–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. López R (2014) In the Texas land trends. Publication of the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources 1(1):1–6Google Scholar
  38. Lovett-Doust J, Biernacki M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R, Timis G (2003) Effects of land ownership and landscape-level factors on rare-species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol 18:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luck M, Wu J (2002) A gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern: a case study from the Phoenix metropolitan region, Arizona, USA. Landsc Ecol 17:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1988) Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Martinuzzi S, Radeloff VC, Higgins JV, Helmers DP, Plantinga AJ, Lewis DJ (2013) Key areas for conserving United States’ biodiversity likely threatened by future land use change. Ecosphere 4(5):58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGarigal K, Marks B (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  43. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mortberg U (2001) Resident bird species in urban forest remnants; landscape and habitat perspectives. Landsc Ecol 16(3):193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Musacchio LR (2011) The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability and the design-in science paradigm. Landsc Ecol 26:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Land Cover Dataset (1992) United States Department of the Interior. Accessed 3 Oct 15
  47. National Resources Conservation Service (NRIS) (2013) 2007 National resources inventory—land use status and trendsGoogle Scholar
  48. NatureServe (2009) International ecological classification standard: terrestrial ecological classifications. NatureServe Central Databases, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Naveh Z (2007) Landscape ecology and sustainability. Landsc Ecol 22:1437–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Noss RF, Beier P, Covington WW, Grumbine RE, Lindenmayer DB, Prather JW, Schmiegelow F, Sisk TD, Vosick DJ (2006) Recommendations for integrating restoration ecology and conservation biology in Pondersa pine forests in the Southwestern United States. Restor Ecol 14:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Radeloff VC, Hammer RG, Voss PR, Hagen AE, Field DR, Mladenoff DJ (2001) Human demographic trends and landscape level forest management in the northwest Wisconsin pine barrens. For Sci 47:229–241Google Scholar
  52. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005a) Rural and suburban sprawl in the US Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conserv Biol 19(3):793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI, Fried JS, Holcomb SS, McKeefry JF (2005b) The wildland–urban interface in the United States. Ecol Appl 15(3):799–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Radeloff VC, Williams JW, Bateman BL, Burke KD, Carter SK, Childress ES, Cromwell KJ, Gratton C, Hasley AO, Kraemer BM, Latzka AW, Marin-Spiotta E, Meine CD, Munoz SE, Neeson TM, Pidgeon AM, Rissman AR, Rivera RJ, Szymanski LM, Usinowicz J (2015) The rise of novelty in ecosystems. Ecol Appl 25(8):2051–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rasker R, Hansen AJ (2000) Natural amenities and populations growth in the Greater Yellowstone region. Hum Ecol Rev 7(2):30–40Google Scholar
  56. Reed SE, Kretser HE, Glennon MJ, Pejchar L, Merenlender AM (2012) Faunal biodiversity at the urban–rural interface: current knowledge, research priorities, and planning strategies. In: Lockaby BG, Zipperer W, Laband DN (eds) Urban-rural interfaces: linking people and nature. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 99–114Google Scholar
  57. Rosenberg MS, Anderson CD (2011) PASSaGE: pattern analysis, spatial statistics and geographic exegesis. version 2. Methods Ecol Evol 2(3):229–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sauer JR, Hines JE, Fallon J (2003) The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2002. Version 2003:1Google Scholar
  59. Shackelford J, Shackelford C (2003) Fragments of a Texas landscape. Texas partners in flight–flyway newsletter. Texas Parks Wildl 10:16–18Google Scholar
  60. Shochat E, Lerman S, Anderies J, Warren P, Faeth S, Nilon C (2010) Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. Bioscience 60(3):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smeins FE, Diamond DD (1983) Remnant grasslands of the Fayette Prairie, Texas. Am Midl Nat 110:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith ZP, Glennon M, Karasin L, Reed S, Kretser H (eds) (2012) Protecting wildlife connectivity through land use planning: best management practices and the role of conservation development. Wildlife Conservation Society, Adirondack Program Technical Paper #4Google Scholar
  63. Stanfield B, Bliss J, Spies T (2002) Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) Coast Range watersheds. Landsc Ecol 17:685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stein BA (2002) States of the union: ranking America’s biodiversity. NatureServe, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  65. Suarez-Rubio M, Leimgruber P, Renner SC (2011) Influence of exurban development on bird species richness and diversity. J Ornithol 152:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swenson J, Franklin J (2000) The effects of future urban development on habitat fragmentation in the Santa Monica Mountains. Landsc Ecol 15:713–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trousdale W, Gregory R (2004) Property evaluation and biodiversity conservation—decision support for making hard choices. Ecol Econ 48:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turner MG, Gardner R, O’Neill R (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2000) Summary report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA, and Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
  71. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1992) Census Bureau.
  72. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenko J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whittaker R (1972) Evolution and measurement of species diversity. Taxon 21:213–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilkins N, Hays A, Kubenka D, Steinbach D, Grant W, González E, Kjelland M, Shakelford J (2003) Texas rural lands. Trends and conservation implications for the 21st century. Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System, College StationGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28(6):999–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wu B, Smeins F, Slack D (2002) Fundamentals of ecology. Laboratory manual. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  77. Zonneveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) (1989) Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edith González Afanador
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael E. Kjelland
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • X. Ben Wu
    • 5
  • Neal Wilkins
    • 2
  • William E. Grant
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Department of Wildlife and Fisheries SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Conservation, Genetics & Biotech, LLCValley CityUSA
  4. 4.U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterVicksburgUSA
  5. 5.Department of Ecosystems Science and ManagementTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations