Comparison of Abiotic and Structurally Defined Patch Patterns in a Hypothetical Forest Landscape

Comparison of Abiotic and Structurally Defined Patch Patterns in a Hypothetical Forest Landscape An understanding of landscape patterns is now considered essential information in developing programs for biological conservation. We examined the adequacy of conventional approaches to landscape‐pattern characterization by evaluating the spatial patterns in environmental conditions and their ecological implications at the landscape level. Six factors were varied in a hypothetical, managed, old‐growth Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franko) landscape of 3000 ha in the Pacific Northwest: two variables were associated with biotic processes and four with abiotic processes. The two biotic variables represented the distribution of habitat for edge and interior forest species. The abiotic variables included air temperature at dawn and noon, wind speed, and direct solar radiation. The area of edge influence between forest patches and the clearcut matrix was simulated as a unique landscape element in the spatial analysis. The structurally defined landscape pattern (based on vegetation or soil type) differed clearly from the patterns associated with the six variables, which also differed among themselves. Spatial patterns changed at various temporal scales, substantiating the notion that landscape patterns of abiotic variables are very dynamic. Area of edge influence played an important role in configuring spatial patterns of a landscape, occupied much area in the landscape, and significantly influenced ecosystem structure and function. Simulation results showed that landscape patterns based solely on traditional structural parameters are limited in their usefulness because the ecological landscape is the integration of all variables and the associated movement of energy, materials, and species. This information about landscape patterns delineated by various biotic and abiotic variables is critical in reserve design and monitoring and in managing habitats for target species across landscapes. Efforts to describe the ecological function of an area will have to consider not only structurally‐defined patches but also patterns in abiotic variables that are typically not congruent with structural patches and showing daily and seasonal changes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

Comparison of Abiotic and Structurally Defined Patch Patterns in a Hypothetical Forest Landscape

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/comparison-of-abiotic-and-structurally-defined-patch-patterns-in-a-emCUUmhI0p
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
D.O.I.
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10030854.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

An understanding of landscape patterns is now considered essential information in developing programs for biological conservation. We examined the adequacy of conventional approaches to landscape‐pattern characterization by evaluating the spatial patterns in environmental conditions and their ecological implications at the landscape level. Six factors were varied in a hypothetical, managed, old‐growth Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franko) landscape of 3000 ha in the Pacific Northwest: two variables were associated with biotic processes and four with abiotic processes. The two biotic variables represented the distribution of habitat for edge and interior forest species. The abiotic variables included air temperature at dawn and noon, wind speed, and direct solar radiation. The area of edge influence between forest patches and the clearcut matrix was simulated as a unique landscape element in the spatial analysis. The structurally defined landscape pattern (based on vegetation or soil type) differed clearly from the patterns associated with the six variables, which also differed among themselves. Spatial patterns changed at various temporal scales, substantiating the notion that landscape patterns of abiotic variables are very dynamic. Area of edge influence played an important role in configuring spatial patterns of a landscape, occupied much area in the landscape, and significantly influenced ecosystem structure and function. Simulation results showed that landscape patterns based solely on traditional structural parameters are limited in their usefulness because the ecological landscape is the integration of all variables and the associated movement of energy, materials, and species. This information about landscape patterns delineated by various biotic and abiotic variables is critical in reserve design and monitoring and in managing habitats for target species across landscapes. Efforts to describe the ecological function of an area will have to consider not only structurally‐defined patches but also patterns in abiotic variables that are typically not congruent with structural patches and showing daily and seasonal changes.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Jun 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off