Landscape Ecology

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 137–145 | Cite as

Transitions in forest fragmentation: implications for restoration opportunities at regional scales

  • James D. Wickham
  • K. Bruce Jones
  • Kurt H. Riitters
  • Timothy G. Wade
  • Robert V. O'Neill


Where the potential natural vegetation is continuous forest (e.g., eastern US), a region can be divided into smaller units (e.g., counties, watersheds), and a graph of the proportion of forest in the largest patch versus the proportion in anthropogenic cover can be used as an index of forest fragmentation. If forests are not fragmented beyond that converted to anthropogenic cover, there would be only one patch in the unit and its proportional size would equal 1 minus the percentage of anthropogenic cover. For a set of 130 watersheds in the mid-Atlantic region, there was a transition in forest fragmentation between 15 and 20% anthropogenic cover. The potential for mitigating fragmentation by connecting two or more disjunct forest patches was low when percent anthropogenic cover was low, highest at moderate proportions of anthropogenic cover, and again low as the proportion of anthropogenic cover increased toward 100%. This fragmentation index could be used to prioritize locations for restoration by targeting watersheds where there would be the greatest increase in the size of the largest forest patch.

GIS hierarchy land-cover percolation theory scale threshold 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ehrlich, P.R, Ehrlich, A.H. and Holdren, J.P. 1977. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Gardner, R.H., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G. and O'Neill, R.V. 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1(1): 19–28.Google Scholar
  3. Gardner, R.H. and O'Neill, R.V. 1991. Pattern, process, and predictability: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In: Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Edited by R.H. Gardner and M.G. Turner. pp. 289–307, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Healy, R.G. and Short, J.L. 1981. The Market for Rural Land: Trends, Issues, Policies. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 4: 1–23.Google Scholar
  6. Hunsaker, C.T. and Levine, D.A., 1995. Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in rivers. Bioscience 45(3): 193–203.Google Scholar
  7. King, A.W., O'Neill, R.V. and DeAngelis, D.L. 1989. Using ecosystem models to predict regional CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the terrestrial biosphere. Global Biogeochem Cycl 3(4): 337–361.Google Scholar
  8. Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. Map and Manual. American Geographical Society, Special Publication 36, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Loehle, C., Li, B.L. and Sundell, R.C. 1996. Forest spread and phase transitions at forest prairie ecotones in Kansas, USA. Landsc Ecol 11(4): 225–325.Google Scholar
  10. Lynch, J.F. and Whigham, D.F. 1984. Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding bird communities in Maryland, USA. Biol Cons 28: 287–324.Google Scholar
  11. McDonnell, J.J. and Pickett, S.T.A. (eds.) 1993. Humans as Components of Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Milne, B.T., Johnston, A.R., Keitt, T.H., Hatfield, C.A., David, J. and Hraber, P.T. 1996. Detection of critical densities associated with pinyon-juniper woodland ecotones. Ecology 77(3): 805–821.Google Scholar
  13. Noss, R.F. and Cooperrider, A.Y. 1993. Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. O'Neill, R.V., Johnson, A.R. and King, A.W. 1989. A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landsc Ecol 3(3/4): 193–205.Google Scholar
  15. O'Neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., DeAngelis, D.L., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., Zygmunumt, B., Christensen, S.W., Dale, V.H. and Graham, R.L. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1(3): 153–162.Google Scholar
  16. Plotnick, R.E. and Gardner, R.H. 1993. Lattices and landscapes. In Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences: Predicting Spatial Effects in Ecological Systems. Volume 23 Edited by R.H. Gardner. pp. 129–157. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
  17. Stauffer, D. 1985. Introduction to Percolation Theory. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Turner, M.G., Romme, W.H., Gardner, R.H., O'Neill, R.V. and Kratz, T.K. 1993. A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: disturbance and stability across scaled landscapes. Landsc Ecol, 8(3): 213–227.Google Scholar
  19. Vogelmann, J.E. 1995. Assessment of forest fragmentation in southern New England using remote sensing and geographic information system technology. Cons Biol 9: 439–449.Google Scholar
  20. Vogelmann, J.E., Sohl, T.L. and Howard, S.M. 1998. Regional characterization of land cover using multiple sources of data. Photog Eng Remote Sensing 64(1): 45–57.Google Scholar
  21. Westman, W.E. 1977. How much are nature's services worth. Science 197: 960–964.Google Scholar
  22. Wessman, C.A. 1992. Spatial scales and global change: bridging the gap from plots to GCM grid cells. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23: 175–200.Google Scholar
  23. Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems, 2nd Ed. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
  24. Wickham, J.D., Wu, J. and Bradford, D.F. 1997a. A conceptual framework for selecting and analyzing stressor data to study species richness at large spatial scales. Env Manage 21(2): 247–257.Google Scholar
  25. Wickham, J.D., O'Neill, R.V., Riitters, K.H., Wade, T.G. and Jones, K.B. 1997b. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to land-cover misclassification and differences in land-cover composition. Photog Eng Remote Sensing 63(4): 397–402.Google Scholar
  26. Wilcove, D.S., McLellan, C.H. and Dobson, A.P. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Edited by M.E. Soule pp. 234–256 Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Wickham
    • 1
  • K. Bruce Jones
    • 2
  • Kurt H. Riitters
    • 3
  • Timothy G. Wade
    • 2
  • Robert V. O'Neill
    • 4
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-56), National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research LaboratoryLas VegasUSA
  3. 3.Biological Resources DivisionU.S. Geological SurveyRaleighUSA
  4. 4.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations