4 results
Contributors
-
- By Ghazi Al-Rawas, Vazken Andréassian, Tianqi Ao, Stacey A. Archfield, Berit Arheimer, András Bárdossy, Trent Biggs, Günter Blöschl, Theresa Blume, Marco Borga, Helge Bormann, Gianluca Botter, Tom Brown, Donald H. Burn, Sean K. Carey, Attilio Castellarin, Francis Chiew, François Colin, Paulin Coulibaly, Armand Crabit, Barry Croke, Siegfried Demuth, Qingyun Duan, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Thomas Dunne, Ying Fan, Xing Fang, Boris Gartsman, Alexander Gelfan, Mikhail Georgievski, Nick van de Giesen, David C. Goodrich, Hoshin V. Gupta, Khaled Haddad, David M. Hannah, H. A. P. Hapuarachchi, Hege Hisdal, Kamila Hlavčová, Markus Hrachowitz, Denis A. Hughes, Günter Humer, Ruud Hurkmans, Vito Iacobellis, Elena Ilyichyova, Hiroshi Ishidaira, Graham Jewitt, Shaofeng Jia, Jeffrey R. Kennedy, Anthony S. Kiem, Robert Kirnbauer, Thomas R. Kjeldsen, Jürgen Komma, Leonid M. Korytny, Charles N. Kroll, George Kuczera, Gregor Laaha, Henny A. J. van Lanen, Hjalmar Laudon, Jens Liebe, Shijun Lin, Göran Lindström, Suxia Liu, Jun Magome, Danny G. Marks, Dominic Mazvimavi, Jeffrey J. McDonnell, Brian L. McGlynn, Kevin J. McGuire, Neil McIntyre, Thomas A. McMahon, Ralf Merz, Robert A. Metcalfe, Alberto Montanari, David Morris, Roger Moussa, Lakshman Nandagiri, Thomas Nester, Taha B. M. J. Ouarda, Ludovic Oudin, Juraj Parajka, Charles S. Pearson, Murray C. Peel, Charles Perrin, John W. Pomeroy, David A. Post, Ataur Rahman, Liliang Ren, Magdalena Rogger, Dan Rosbjerg, José Luis Salinas, Jos Samuel, Eric Sauquet, Hubert H. G. Savenije, Takahiro Sayama, John C. Schaake, Kevin Shook, Murugesu Sivapalan, Jon Olav Skøien, Chris Soulsby, Christopher Spence, R. ‘Sri’ Srikanthan, Tammo S. Steenhuis, Jan Szolgay, Yasuto Tachikawa, Kuniyoshi Takeuchi, Lena M. Tallaksen, Dörthe Tetzlaff, Sally E. Thompson, Elena Toth, Peter A. Troch, Remko Uijlenhoet, Carl L. Unkrich, Alberto Viglione, Neil R. Viney, Richard M. Vogel, Thorsten Wagener, M. Todd Walter, Guoqiang Wang, Markus Weiler, Rolf Weingartner, Erwin Weinmann, Hessel Winsemius, Ross A. Woods, Dawen Yang, Chihiro Yoshimura, Andy Young, Gordon Young, Erwin Zehe, Yongqiang Zhang, Maichun C. Zhou
- Edited by Günter Blöschl, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, Murugesu Sivapalan, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Thorsten Wagener, University of Bristol, Alberto Viglione, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, Hubert Savenije, Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Runoff Prediction in Ungauged Basins
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 18 April 2013, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
22 - Assessing positive and negative ecological effects of corridors
-
- By Nick M. Haddad, North Carolina State University, Brian Hudgens, Institute for Wildlife, California, Ellen I. Damschen, University of Wisconsin, Douglas J. Levey, University of Florida, John L. Orrock, University of Wisconsin, Joshua J. Tewksbury, University of Washington, WA, USA, Aimee J. Weldon, Potomac Conservancy, MD, USA
- Edited by Jianguo Liu, Michigan State University, Vanessa Hull, Michigan State University, Anita T. Morzillo, Oregon State University, John A. Wiens
-
- Book:
- Sources, Sinks and Sustainability
- Published online:
- 05 July 2011
- Print publication:
- 30 June 2011, pp 475-504
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The most popular landscape-level strategy to conserve biodiversity is to link reserves with corridors. Despite much theoretical and empirical support for their benefits in creating or maintaining population sources, corridors may have negative effects and create sinks by altering the dynamics of competitors and natural enemies. In this chapter, we synthesize results from the largest and longest-running experiment to test the effects of corridors, the Savannah River Site Corridor Experiment, and assess their positive and negative ecological effects. In addition to reviewing previously published studies from this experiment, we present new findings about corridor effects on seed mass and number, bird-dispersed seed rain, and bird nest predation and density. Taken together, these empirical studies broadly affirm the positive effects of corridors, particularly on dispersal and diversity. Where there are negative impacts of corridors, the underlying processes are nearly always linked to edge effects, a side-effect of creating corridors. These negative edge effects have the potential to change source patches into sink patches. To further explore the balance of positive and negative corridor effects, we conducted a modeling study, and found that corridors can benefit populations despite edge effects, as long as the edge effects associated with corridors are not too large. Our synthesis serves to highlight areas for future research, particularly on the effects of corridors on population persistence and how corridor characteristics (e.g., width, length) and matrix permeability alter corridor efficacy. As long as efforts are taken to reduce the negative effects of edges, our findings generally support efforts to reconnect landscapes for biodiversity conservation.
16 - Impacts of corridors on populations and communities
- Edited by Kevin R. Crooks, Colorado State University, M. Sanjayan, The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Connectivity Conservation
- Published online:
- 24 May 2010
- Print publication:
- 02 November 2006, pp 390-415
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses specifically on the most popular approach to maintain connectivity in conservation and management, which is to create or maintain habitat corridors. The popularity of corridors in conservation derives from the direct and intuitive relationship to their purported function: by physically connecting otherwise isolated fragments, corridors should increase the movement of both individuals and genes. In doing so, corridors provide sources of immigrants to offset local extinction, and sources of genetic diversity to reduce harmful effects of inbreeding and drift. The most fundamental spatial models in ecology, including island biogeographic models (MacArthur and Wilson 1967) and metapopulation models (Levins 1969; Hanski 1999), predict that movement between patches will increase population size and persistence and, through the rescue of declining populations (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977), maintain local species richness. We recognize that studies focusing on corridors represent only a small fraction of studies on connectivity, and the large literature examining effects of patch isolation on colonization and occupancy in metapopulations has been reviewed elsewhere (see Table 9.1 in Hanski 1999; Moilanen and Nieminen 2002; Molainen and Hanski Chapter 3). The goal of this chapter is to assess existing evidence for corridor effects on populations and communities, and to discuss future directions that would permit more rigorous evaluation of their use in conservation.
We focus on population and community impacts of corridors because evidence for the necessary prerequisite – that corridors increase movement and gene flow – has been growing and has also been reviewed elsewhere.
8 - Incorporating the effects of habitat edges into landscape models: Effective area models for cross-boundary management
- Edited by Jianguo Liu, Michigan State University, William W. Taylor, Michigan State University
-
- Book:
- Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management
- Published online:
- 14 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 01 August 2002, pp 208-240
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Natural resource managers are increasingly charged with meeting multiple, often conflicting goals in landscapes undergoing significant change due to shifts in land use. Conversion from native to anthropogenic habitats typically fragments the landscape, reducing the size and increasing the isolation of the resulting patches, with profound ecological impacts (see Whitcomb et al., 1981; Harris, 1984; Wilcove et al., 1986; Robinson et al., 1995). These impacts occur both within and adjacent to the area under active management, creating new and extensive edges between habitat types. Boundaries established between management areas, for example, between timber harvest units or between reserves and adjacent agricultural fields, inevitably lead to differences in the quality of habitats on either side of the boundary, and a habitat edge results. Although edges are common components of undisturbed landscapes, the amount of edge proliferates rapidly as landscapes are fragmented (Fig. 8.1).
The creation of edges has important ecological implications at the individual, population, and ecosystem levels. Early ecologists and wildlife managers noted that community organization and species abundances are often markedly different near habitat edges (Leopold, 1933; Lay, 1938). Resource managers and conservation biologists have long attempted to translate these observations into managementactions,oftenbyattemptingtomaximizeorminimizetheamountof edge in some manner (e.g., Giles, 1971; Forman et al., 1976). Despite this long history of consideration and recent advances in understanding the consequences of habitat fragmentation, the development of tools for predicting these impacts has progressed slowly. In this chapter, we offer an historical perspective on attempts to address the influence of habitat edges on wildlife and ecological processes, and we describe a spatial modeling approach that can help managers quantify these effects and incorporate species-specific data into a predictive framework for comparing the likely impacts of alternative managements cenarios.