Landscape Ecology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 137–153

Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities

  • Joseph N. Miller
  • Robert P. Brooks
  • Mary Jo Croonquist
Article

Abstract

A comparative evaluation was performed using descriptors oflandscape and land cover patterns as to how they relate tovarying levels of anthropogenic disturbance and the structure ofbiotic communities. A spatial analysis program (a modifiedversion of SPAN) was used to compute measures of land coverdiversity, dominance, contagion, scaled dominance and contagion,fractal dimension of land cover patches, mean forest-wetlandpatch size, amount of forest edge, clustering of selected foresttypes, and the largest cover patches within two 100-km2watersheds of the Ridge and Valley province of centralPennsylvania. Landscape pattern analysis was conducted on asubwatershed basis, emphasizing different levels ofresidential-agricultural versus forest land cover, the majordifference between the two watersheds. Bird and vascular plantguilds were chosen to represent the overall biotic community. Thegeneral descriptors of diversity, contagion, mean forest-wetlandpatch size, proportion of forest cover, and the amount of forestedge were most effective in reflecting the disturbance levelswithin the watersheds and changes in guild composition for bothbirds and plants.

landscape disturbance diversity contagion anthropogenic effects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach and R.E. Witmer, 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey Professional Paper 964., U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 28 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Bazzaz, F.A. 1983. Characteristics of populations in relation to disturbance in natural and manmodified ecosystesm. In H.A. Mooney and M. Godron (eds) Disturbance and Ecosystesm. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 292pp.Google Scholar
  3. Brooks, R.P., M.J. Croonquist, D.E. Arnold and E.D. Bellis. 1990. Analysis of wetlandriparian corridors. Final Rep., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Exp. Stn., Vicksburg, MI.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R.P., E.D. Bellis, C.S. Keener, M.J. Croonquist and D.E. Arnold, 1991a. A methodology for biological monitoring of cumulative impacts on wetland, stream, and riparian components of watersheds. Pages 387–398 in Proc. Intl. Symp. Wetlands and River Corridor Manage., Assoc. Wetland Managers, N.Y., 520 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, R.P., M.J. Croonquist, E.T. D'Silva, J.E. Gallagher and D.E. Arnold, l991b. Selection of biological indicators for integrating assessments of wetland, stream, and riparian habitats. Pages 81–89 in Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. EPA-440/5-91-005. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, R.P. and M.J. Croonquist, 1990. Wetland, habitat, and trophic response guilds for wildlife species in Pennsylvania. J. PA. Acad. Sci. 64: 93–102.Google Scholar
  7. Croonquist, M.J. 1990. Avian and mammalian community comparisons between protected and altered watersheds–A landscape approach. M.S. Thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
  8. Croonquist, M.J. and R.P. Brooks, 1991. Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-wetland areas. Environ. Manage. 15: 701–714.Google Scholar
  9. Croonquist, M.J. and R.P. Brooks. 1993. Effects of habitat disturbance on bird communities in riparian corridors. J. Soil Water Cons. 48(1): 65–70.Google Scholar
  10. Forman, R.T.T., A.E. Galli and C.F. Leck, 1976. Forest size and avian diversity in New Jersey woodlots with some land use implications. Oecologia 26: 1–8.Google Scholar
  11. Galli, A.E., C.F. Leck and R.T.T. Forman, 1976. Avian distribution patterns within different sized forest islands in central New Jersey. Auk 93: 356–364.Google Scholar
  12. Kendall, M.G. 1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30: 81–93.Google Scholar
  13. Krummel, J.R., R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, R.V. O'Neill and P.R. Coleman, 1987. Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48: 321–324.Google Scholar
  14. Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr. 1986. Summary: predicting effects of habitat patchiness and fragmentation. Pages 331–333 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph, (eds) Wildlife 2000: Modelling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 470pp.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, J.N. 1991. Landscape patterns and biotic community characteristics. MS thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.Google Scholar
  16. Naveh, Z. and A.S. Lieberman, 1984. Landscape ecology: theory and application. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 356pp.Google Scholar
  17. O'Neill, R.V., J.R. Krummel, R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D.L. DeAngelis, B.T. Milne, M.G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S.W. Christensen, V.H. Dale and R.L. Graham, 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 1: 153–162.Google Scholar
  18. Robbins, C.S. 1980. Management of north central and north-eastern forests for nongame birds. U.S. Dept. of Agric., Forest Service General Technical Report NC-51, 198–212.Google Scholar
  19. Turner, M.G. and C.L. Ruscher, 1988. Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecol. 1: 241–251.Google Scholar
  20. Yahner, R.H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conser. Biol 2: 333–339.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph N. Miller
    • 1
  • Robert P. Brooks
    • 1
  • Mary Jo Croonquist
    • 1
  1. 1.Intercollege Graduate Program in Ecology and School of Forest Resources, Forest Resources LaboratoryPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkU.S.A

Personalised recommendations