Landscape Fragmentation and Landscape Planning, with a Focus on Germany

  • M. Kleyer
  • G. Kaule
  • J. Settele
Part of the The GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 35)

Abstract

This volume deals with the documented deleterious effects of habitat fragmentation on the survival of species. As a consequence, landscape planners are asked to present models for land use systems that ensure a better connectivity of habitats for endangered species. Results of ecological research presented in this volume show that habitat networks designed for target species are needed, at least in some cases. Consider, for instance, a regional network of open meadows and wetlands for white storks (Ciconia ciconia LINNAEUS, 1758) or a network of diy grasslands for butterfly populations (see Seufert & Grosser this volume: 268–274). However, when plans are executed and measures have been implemented to realize the network, the results will most often deviate from the original requirements.

Keywords

Habitat Quality Environmental Impact Assessment Cultural Landscape Reserve System Landscape Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, G., L. Lüttmann & U. Riedl (1986). Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines Biotopsystems – Beispiel Pfälzer Rheinniederung. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 14, 185–191.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, M.P. & M.J. Gaywood (1994). Current problems of environmental gradients and species response curves in relation to continuum theory. Journal of Vegetation Science 5, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baudry, J. (1989). Interactions between agricultural and ecological systems at the landscape level. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baudry, J. &; H.G. Merriam (1988). Connectivity and connectedness: Functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. - In: K.F. Schreiber (ed.). Connectivity in Landscape Ecology. Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of IALE Münster 1987. Münstersche Geographische Arbeiten 29, 23–28.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, A.D. (1991). Plant Form. An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Box, E.O. (1981). Macroclimate and Plant Forms: An Introduction to Predictive Modelling in Phyto- geography. Jungk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, S., H. Schreier, W.A. Thompson & I. Vertinsky (1994). Linking multiple accounts with GIS as decision support system to resolve forstry/wildlife conflicts. Journal of Environmental Management 42, 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, V.K. (1991). The effects of changes in habitat structure during succession in terrestrial communities. - In: S.S. Bell, E.D. McCoy & H.R. Mushinsky (eds.). Habitat Structure. The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 141–168.Google Scholar
  9. Buuren, van, M. (1994). The hydrological landscape structure as a basis for network formulation; a case study for the Regge Catchment (NL). - In: E.A. Cook & H.N. van Lier (eds.). Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 117–136.Google Scholar
  10. De Swart, E.O.A..M., A.G. van der Valk, K.J. Koehler, A. Barendregt (1994): Experimental evaluation of realized niche models for predicting responses of plant species to a change in environmental conditions. Journal of Vegetation Science 5, 541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dierschke, H. (1994). Pflanzensoziologie. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  12. Erz, W. (1994). Bewerten und Erfassen für den Naturschutz in Deutschland: Anforderungen und Probleme aus dem Bundesnaturschutzgesetz und der UVP. - In: M.B. Usher, & W. Erz (eds.). Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz. UTB Quelle & Meyer, Wiesbaden, pp. 131–166.Google Scholar
  13. Garrison, B.A. (1994). Determining the biological significance of changes in predicted habitat values from the California wildlife habitat relationships system. California Fish and Game 80 (4), 150–160.Google Scholar
  14. Gassner, E. (1995). Das Recht der Landschaft. Neumann, Radebeul.Google Scholar
  15. Given, D.R. (1994). Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  16. Gremmen, N.J.M., M.J.S.M. Reijnen, J. Wiertz & G. van Wirdum (1990). A model to predict and assess the effects of groundwater withdrawal on the vegetation in the Pleistocene areas of The Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management 31, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Griebeler, E.M., R. Pauler & H.J. Poethke (1995). Maculinea arion (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Ein Beispiel für die Deduktion von Naturschutzmaßnahmen aus einem Modell. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft för Ökologie 24, 201–206.Google Scholar
  18. Haber, W. (1972). Grundzüge einer ökologischen Theorie der Landnutzungsplanung. Innere Kolonisation 21, 294–298.Google Scholar
  19. Hansen, A.J., S.L. Garman & B. Marks (1993). An approach for managing vertebrate diversity across multiple-uselLandscapes. Ecological Applications 3 (3), 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski, I., T. Pakkala, M. Kuussari & G. Lei (1995). Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. OIKOS 72, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harms, W.B. (1995). Scenarios for nature development. - In: J.F.T. Schoute (ed.). Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 391–403.Google Scholar
  22. Harms, W.B., J.P. Knaapen & J.G. Rademakers (1993). Landscape planning for nature restoration: comparing regional scenarios. - In: C.C. Vos & P. Opdam (eds.). Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 197–218.Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, S. (1994). Metapopulations and conservation. In: P.J. Edwards, R.M. May & N.R. Webb (eds.). Large Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology. Blackwell., Oxford, pp. 111–128.Google Scholar
  24. Henle, K. (1994). Naturschutzpraxis, Naturschutztheorie und theoretische Ökologie. Zeitschrift Ökologie und Naturschutz 3, 139–153.Google Scholar
  25. Hobbs, R.J. & D.A. Saunders (1991). Re-integrating fragmented landscapes - a preliminary framework for the Western Australian wheatbelt. Journal Environmental Management 33, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horlitz, T. (1994). Flächenansprüche des Arten- und Biotopschutzes. - LIBRIBOTANICI 12, IHW: Eching.Google Scholar
  27. Kaule, G. (1986). Arten- und Biotopschutz. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  28. Kaule, G. & P. Jürging (1977). Biotopkartierung für die Landschaftsrahmenplanung, dargestellt am Beispiel der Donauebene, Region 10, Ingolstadt. Schriftenreihe Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege 8, 7–22.Google Scholar
  29. Kaule, G., J. Schaller & H.M. Schober (1979). Auswertung der Kartierung schutzwürdiger Biotope in Bayern. Außeralpine Naturraüme. - In: Bayerisches Landesamt für Umweltschutz (Hrsg.). Schutzwürdige Biotope in Bayern 1. Oldenburg, München.Google Scholar
  30. Kaule, G., E. Osinski, H. Reck, R. Walter & M. Weiß (in press). Innere Abgrenzung, Bewertung und Controlling in großräumigen Vorranggebieten für den Naturschutz. Veröffentlichung Projekt Angewandte Ökologie.Google Scholar
  31. Keddy, P.A. (1990). The use of functional as opposed to phylogenetic systematics: A first step to predictive community ecology. - In: S. Kawano (ed.). Biological Approaches and Evolutionary Trends in Plants. Academic Press., London, pp. 387–406.Google Scholar
  32. Kleyer, M. (1991). Die Vegetation linienförmiger Kleinstrukturen in Beziehung zur landwirtschaftlichen Produktionsintensität. Dissertationes Botanicae 169. Cramer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  33. Kleyer, M., G. Kaule & K. Henle (1992). Landschaftsökologische Ökosystemforschung für die Umwelt- und Landschaftsplanung. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 1,35–50.Google Scholar
  34. Kleyer, M. (1994a). Habitat Networks in Stuttgart. - In: E.A. Cook & H.N. van Lier (eds.). Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 249–272.Google Scholar
  35. Kleyer, M. (1994b). Von der Agrarlandschaft zur Stadtlandschaft. Urbanisierungsprozesse in der Kulturlandschaft. Der Bürger im Staat, Stuttgart, 44 (1), 65–70.Google Scholar
  36. Kleyer, M. (1995). Biological traits of vascular plants. A database. Arbeitsberichte Institut ßr Landschaftsplanung und Ökologie, Universität Stuttgart, N.F. 2,1–23 (with diskette).Google Scholar
  37. Kleyer, M. (1995). Vergleichende Ökologie von Pflanzengemeinschaften in Stuttgart bezüglich Wasserangebot und Störungsintensität. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie 24,403–410.Google Scholar
  38. Kleyer, M. (in press). Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Ökologie von Pflanzengemeinschaften. Disser- tationes Botanica.Google Scholar
  39. Knisei, W.G. (1980). CREAMS: A field-scale model for chemicals, runoff and erosion from agricultural management systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report 26.Google Scholar
  40. Konoid, W., K. Schwineköper & P. Seiffert (1994). Landschaftsgerechte Planung. Der Bürger im Staat, 44 (1), 90–98.Google Scholar
  41. Küster, H. (1995). Die Geschichte der Landschaft in Mitteleuropa. Beck, München.Google Scholar
  42. Lacy, R.C. & T.W. Clark (1993). Simulation modeling of American marten (Martes americana) populations: vulnerability to extinction. Great Basin Naturalist 53 (3), 282–292.Google Scholar
  43. Langevelde, van, F. (1994). Conceptual integration of landscape planning and landscape ecology, with a focus on the Netherlands. - In: E.A. Cook & H.N. van Lier (eds.). Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 27–70.Google Scholar
  44. Levins, R. (1970). Extinction. - In: M. Gerstenhaber (ed.). Some Mathematical Problems in Ecology. Mathematical Society, Providence, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
  45. LfU (1986). Planung zur “Biotopvernetzung Weißenhof”. Landesanstalt f. Umweltschutz Baden- Württemberg, Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  46. MacArthur, R.H. & E.O. Wilson (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  47. Meuss, J.H.A. (1993). The transformation of agricultural landscapes in Western Europe. The Science of the TotalEnvironment 129, 171–190.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, A.D. & I.R. Noble (1990). An individalistic model of vegetation stand dynamics. Journal of Environmental Management 31, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mühlenberg, M., T. Hovestadt & J. Röser (1991). Are there minimal areas for animal populations? - In: A. Seitz & V. Loeschcke (eds.). Species Conservation: a Population-Biological Approach. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp. 227–264.Google Scholar
  50. Noest, V. (1994). A Hydrology-Vegetation Interaction Model for Prediction the Occurrence of Plant Species in Dune Slacks. Journal of Environmental Management 40, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearsall, S.H., D. Durham & D.C. Eagar (1986). Evaluation Methods in the United States. - In: M.B. Usher (ed.). Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 111–133.Google Scholar
  52. Pfadenhauer, J. (1994). Integration der Landnutzung bei der Umsetzung von Naturschutzzielen. Veröffentlichungen Projekt Angewandte Ökologie 8, 45–72.Google Scholar
  53. Plachter, H. (1991). Naturschutz. UTB Fischer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  54. Poethke, H.J., E.M. Griebeler & R. Pauler (1994). Individuenbasierte Modelle als Entscheidungshilfe im Naturschutz. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 3, 197–206.Google Scholar
  55. Reiche, E.-W. (1991). Entwicklung, Validierung und Anwendung eines Modellsystems zur Beschreibung und flächenhaften Bilanzierung der Wasser- und Stickstoffdynamik in Böden. Kieler Geographische Schriften 79.Google Scholar
  56. Roweck, H., M. Kleyer & B. Schmelzer (1987). Lebensraumverbund Mittlerer Neckar. Planerische Aufarbeitung arten- und biotopschutzrelevanter Daten unter Berücksichtigung ökosystemarer Beziehungen. Landschaft + Stadt 19, 173–187.Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, A.C. (1984). Biotopschutzprogramm NRW: Vom isolierten Schutzgebiet zum Biotopverbundsystem. LÖLF-Mitteilungen 9(1), 3–9 und 9 (2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  58. Settele, J. & S. Geissler (1988). Schutz des vom Aussterben bedrohten Blauschwarzen Moorbläulings durch Brachenerhalt, Grabenpflege und Biotopverbund im Filderraum. Natur und Landschaft 63, 467–470.Google Scholar
  59. Settele, J., K. Henle & C. Bender (in press). Metapopulation und Biotopverbund: Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Tagfaltern und Reptilien.Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 5.Google Scholar
  60. Severinghaus, W.D. (1981). Guild theory development as a mechanismen for assesing environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Management 5, 187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shaffer, M.L. (1981). Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation. Bioscience 31, 131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shmida, A. & S. Ellner (1984). Coexistence of Plant Species with Similar Niches. Vegetatio 58, 29–55.Google Scholar
  63. Shugart, H.H. (1984). A Theory of Forest Dynamics. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, R.E. (1992). OPUS - An Integrated Simulation Model for Transport of Non-Point-Source Pollutants at the Field Scale. Vol. 1. Documentation. USDA-ARS-98.Google Scholar
  65. Solbrig, O.T. (1993). Plant Traits and Adaptive Strategies: Their Role in Ecosystem Function. - In: E.D. Schulze & H.A. Mooney: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Ecological Studies 99. Springer, Berlin, pp. 97–116.Google Scholar
  66. Soulé, M.E. (1987). Viable Populations for Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tilman, D. (1988). Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  68. Verboom, J., J.A.J. Metz & E. Meelis (1993). Metapopulation models for impact assessment of fragmentation. - In: C. Vose & P. Opdam (eds.). Landscape Ecology of a Stressed Environment. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 172–191.Google Scholar
  69. Whitby, M. (1994). Incentives for Countryside Management. The Case of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. CAB International,Wallingford,UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kleyer
    • 1
  • G. Kaule
    • 1
  • J. Settele
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Landscape Planning and EcologyUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Department Semi-natural LandscapesCentre for Environmental Research (UFZ)LeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations