Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying HNV Areas Using Geographic Information Systems and Landscape Metrics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Birds as Useful Indicators of High Nature Value Farmlands

Abstract

This chapter describes some spatial tools suitable to map and identify High Nature Value (HNV) farmlands, applying geographical information systems (GIS). It provides a list and definitions of some of the most adequate landscape metrics that can be used to identify HNV areas from maps, as well as the main issues that operators can find when handling GIS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ceresa F, Bogliani G, Pedrini P, Brambilla M. The importance of key marginal habitat features for birds in farmland: an assessment of habitat preferences of red-backed shrikes Lanius collurio in the Italian Alps. Bird Study [Internet]. BTO; 2012 Aug 13 [cited 2015 Feb 15];59(3):327–34. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00063657.2012.676623#.VOSmWPmG_X4

  2. Regos A, Domínguez J, Gil-Tena A, Brotons L, Ninyerola M, Pons X. Rural abandoned landscapes and bird assemblages: winners and losers in the rewilding of a marginal mountain area (NW Spain). Reg Environ Chang. 2016;16(1):199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Morelli F. Relative importance of marginal vegetation (shrubs, hedgerows, isolated trees) surrogate of HNV farmland for bird species distribution in Central Italy. Ecol Eng [Internet]. Elsevier B.V.; 2013 Aug [cited 2013 May 16];57:261–6. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925857413001614

  4. Bennett AF, Radford JQ, Haslem A. Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biol Conserv [Internet]. 2006 Nov [cited 2012 Oct 4];133(2):250–64. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320706002850

  5. O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, et al. Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol. 1988;1(3):153–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT. Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landsc Ecol. 2002;17(8):761–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shao G, Wu J. On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landsc Ecol. 2008;23(5):505–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Riitters K, Vogt P, Soille P, Estreguil C. Landscape patterns from mathematical morphology on maps with contagion. Landsc Ecol. 2009;24(5):699–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kelly M, Tuxen KA, Stralberg D. Mapping changes to vegetation pattern in a restoring wetland: finding pattern metrics that are consistent across spatial scale and time. Ecol Indic. Elsevier Ltd; 2011;11(2):263–73.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Saura S, Vogt P, Velázquez J, Hernando A, Tejera R. Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses. For Ecol Manag. 2011;262(2):150–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Šímová P, Gdulová K. Landscape indices behavior: a review of scale effects. Appl Geogr [Internet]. 2012 May [cited 2014 Sep 2];34(3):385–94. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0143622812000057

  12. Lausch A, Blaschke T, Haase D, Herzog F, Syrbe RU, Tischendorf L, et al. Understanding and quantifying landscape structure—a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol Modell. Elsevier B.V.; 2015;295:31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McGarigal K. Fragstats.Help.4.2. 2015. p. 1–182.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bailey D, Herzog F, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Billeter R, Szerencsits E, et al. Thematic resolution matters: indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecol Indic. 2007;7(3):692–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Benedek Z, Nagy A, Rácz IA, Jordán F, Varga Z. Landscape metrics as indicators: quantifying habitat network changes of a bush-cricket Pholidoptera transsylvanica in Hungary. Ecol Indic. 2011;11:930–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gao J, Li S. Detecting spatially non-stationary and scale-dependent relationships between urban landscape fragmentation and related factors using geographically weighted regression. Appl Geogr Elsevier Ltd. 2011;31(1):292–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li H, Wu J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol. 2004;19(4):389–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu J. A landscape approach for sustainability science. In: MP W, RE T, editors. Sustainability science: the emerging paradigm and the urban environment. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 441.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wheatley M. Domains of scale in forest-landscape metrics: implications for species-habitat modeling. Acta Oecologica Elsevier Masson SAS. 2010;36(2):259–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shannon CE. The mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27:379–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pielou EC. Ecological diversity. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lillesand T, Kiefer RW, Chipman J. Remote sensing and image interpretation. 7th ed: Wiley; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sluiter R, Jong SM. Spatial patterns of Mediterranean land abandonment and related land cover transitions. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22(4):559–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baessler C, Klotz S. Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50 years. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2006;115(1–4):43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sklenicka P, Šímová P, Hrdinová K, Salek M. Changing rural landscapes along the border of Austria and the Czech Republic between 1952 and 2009: roles of political, socioeconomic and environmental factors. Appl Geogr. 2014;47:89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Applied Geoinformatics and Spatial Planning, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, CZ-165 00, Prague 6, Czech Republic

    Petra Šímová

Authors
  1. Petra Šímová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Šímová .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Department of Applied Geoinformatics and Spatial Planning, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, Czech Republic

    Federico Morelli

  2. Institute of Zoology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland

    Piotr Tryjanowski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Šímová, P. (2017). Identifying HNV Areas Using Geographic Information Systems and Landscape Metrics. In: Morelli, F., Tryjanowski, P. (eds) Birds as Useful Indicators of High Nature Value Farmlands. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50284-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation