Research Article

Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity

Volume: 11 Number: 2 December 15, 2021
TR EN

Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity

Abstract

Protected areas have two tasks on a global scale: First, to protect biodiversity and second, to ensure the continuity of ecosystem services. Identifying potential links between protected areas in a region and barriers between these links or restoration points is very important for the effective development and implementation of conservation strategies within the scope of biodiversity. In this study firstly, potential connectivity corridors between 10 different protected areas were determined to support the biological diversity in the Rize landscape, then the barriers that could block the ecological flows in these corridors were determined by using 100 m, 500 m, 300 m radii. Least Cost Path and Cost Weighted Distance methods were used for both analyses. The most suitable corridors have been identified between Kaçkar Mountains National Park-1st Degree Natural Protected Areas-Wildlife Protection and Development Area and Firtina Creek. Improvement scores were calculated by considering the radii determined for the barriers. As a result, the highest improvement scores at 100 m, 500 m 300 m radii were calculated as 21.1, 4.49, and 7.0, respectively, and according to these scores, it showed that there were barriers between Karadere, Handüzü Nature Park, Uzungöl Special Environmental Protection Area and Kaçkar Mountains National Park. The method used in this study is important in terms of generating protection strategies for protected areas in the Rize landscape. The results of this study will guide not only protected areas in Rize landscape, but also conservation priority planning studies.

Keywords

Landscape connectivity, Protected areas, Barriers, Restoration opportunities, Improvement score, Biodiversity

References

  1. Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., De Blust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H., & Matthysen, E. (2003). The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 233-247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6
  2. Baldwin, R. F., Perkl, R. M., Trombulak, S. C., & Burwell, W. B. (2010). Modeling Ecoregional Connectivity. In S. C. Trombulak & R. F. Baldwin (Eds.), Landscape-scale Conservation Planning (pp. 349-367). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  3. Bingham, H. C., Juffe Bignoli, D., Lewis, E., MacSharry, B., Burgess, N. D., Visconti, P., . . . Kingston, N. (2019). Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(5), 737-743. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0869-3
  4. Carroll, C., McRae, B. H., & Brookes, A. (2012). Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of Gray wolf populations in Western North America. Conservation Biology, 26(1), 78-87.
  5. Castillo, L. S., Correa Ayram, C. A., Matallana Tobón, C. L., Corzo, G., Areiza, A., González-M..R., . . . Godínez-Gómez, O. (2020). Connectivity of protected areas: Effect of human pressure and subnational contributions in the ecoregions of tropical Andean Countries. Land, 9(8), 239. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/8/239
  6. Chardon, J. P., Adriaensen, F., & Matthysen, E. (2003). Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecology, 18(6), 561-573. doi:10.1023/A:1026062530600
  7. Corrigan, C., Bingham, H., Shi, Y., Lewis, E., Chauvenet, A., & Kingston, N. (2018). Quantifying the contribution to biodiversity conservation of protected areas governed by indigenous peoples and local communities. Biological Conservation, 227, 403-412. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.007
  8. Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S., Hayden, J., & Schwartz, M. K. (2006). Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. The American Naturalist, 168(4), 486-499. doi:10.1086/506976
  9. Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics : The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Graham, C. H. (2001). Factors influencing movement patterns of Keel-Billed Toucans in a fragmented tropical landscape in Southern Mexico. Conservation Biology, 15(6), 1789-1798. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3061279
APA
Sütünç, H. S. (2021). Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(2), 355-369. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.835382
AMA
1.Sütünç HS. Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity. KFBD. 2021;11(2):355-369. doi:10.31466/kfbd.835382
Chicago
Sütünç, Huriye Simten. 2021. “Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity”. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 11 (2): 355-69. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.835382.
EndNote
Sütünç HS (December 1, 2021) Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 11 2 355–369.
IEEE
[1]H. S. Sütünç, “Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity”, KFBD, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 355–369, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.31466/kfbd.835382.
ISNAD
Sütünç, Huriye Simten. “Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity”. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 11/2 (December 1, 2021): 355-369. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.835382.
JAMA
1.Sütünç HS. Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity. KFBD. 2021;11:355–369.
MLA
Sütünç, Huriye Simten. “Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity”. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 2, Dec. 2021, pp. 355-69, doi:10.31466/kfbd.835382.
Vancouver
1.Huriye Simten Sütünç. Detecting Barriers Between Protected Areas to Restore Ecological Connectivity. KFBD. 2021 Dec. 1;11(2):355-69. doi:10.31466/kfbd.835382