Orman parçalanmasının yaban hayatı koruması ve peyzaj ekolojisi temelinde değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Peyzajlar, birbirleriyle ilişki içinde olan çeşitli peyzaj birimlerinden oluşur. Bu birimler hem ekolojik hem de fizyolojik açıdan farklı işlevlere sahiptir. Peyzaj birimlerinin çeşitli işlevlere sahip olması; peyzaj karakterinin değerlendirilmesi, biyolojik çeşitliliğin korunması, mekânsal planlama, habitat ve peyzaj yönetiminde önemli rol oynamaktadır. Peyzaj birimlerinin sağladığı fonksiyonların yanında onlara etki eden çevresel faktörlerin belirlenmesi ve analiz edilmesi, peyzaj tiplerinin koruma değerinin ortaya konmasını sağlar. Bu araştırmada, ekolojik değeri ve Akdeniz havzasındaki parçalanmış dağılımı ile ön planda olan fıstık çamı (Pinus pinea L.) çevresel değişkenlere göre değerlendirilmiştir. Batı Anadolu’da geniş bir yayılışa sahip olan P. pinea L. Muğla, Denizli ve Aydın olmak üzere üç il sınırı içinde peyzaj karakter analizi yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Bu türün mekânsal yayılışının en yüksek olduğu peyzaj kümesi ise peyzaj metrikleri ile değerlendirilmiştir. P. pinea L. topluluğunun 4 varyantı ile temsil edilen ağaç türleri kompozisyonunun veri altlığı olarak kullanıldığı analiz sonucunda çevresel değişkenleri temsil eden toplam 309 karakter tipi elde edilmiştir. 34 farklı meşcere arasındaki mevcut parçalanmayı değerlendirmek amacıyla Fragstats v4.2 yazılımı kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırmanın sonucunda, P. pinea L.’nin rejenerasyonu için habitat koridorları arasında bağlantı sağlayabilecek potansiyel alanlar haritalanmıştır. Ayrıca, yaban hayatı zenginliğini yansıtan kuş türlerinin kompozisyonundaki mekânsal değişim, orman parçalanmasının araştırılmasında bir gösterge niteliği taşıdığı için incelenmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Peyzaj ekolojisi,Peyzaj karakter analizi,Peyzaj metrikleri,Çevresel faktörler,Yaban hayatı zenginliği

Evaluation of forest fragmentation with particular reference to landscape-based ecological assessment and wildlife conservation

Öz

Landscapes are composed of diverse units that associate with each other, and these units have different functions both in ecology and physiognomy. Thus, evaluating landscape character plays an important role for conserving bio-diversity, as well as spatial planning and management of habitats and landscapes. Determining and analyzing environmental factors is an important part of assessing the conservation value of landscape types. For its ecological value, stone pine, botanical name Pinus pinea L. was chosen to be evaluated according to the environmental parameters in this research, because of its scattered distribution around the Mediterranean basin. Although P. pinea L. does not have a widespread distribution, it is naturally found in five regions of Turkey. This research was conducted in three provinces (Muğla, Denizli, and Aydın), located in western Anatolia. Maps representing different classes of soil, geology, aspect, and slope were overlaid in ArcMap 10.5, and characterized by Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). A total of 309 character types were determined, according to tree species composition, represented by 4 variants of the P. pinea L. community. To assess fragmentation among 34 different stands, landscape metrics were calculated using Fragstats v4.2 software. Potential range for regenerating stone pine stands was suggested in this paper, which can be considered as habitat corridors providing connectivity between mature stands. Spatial variation in bird species composition, reflecting wildlife richness, was evaluated as evidence for forest fragmentation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Landscape ecology,Landscape character assessment,Landscape metrics,Environmental factors,Wildlife richness

Kaynakça

1. Abad Viñas, R. A., Caudullo, G., Oliveira, S., de Rigo, D., 2016. Pinus pinea in Europe: Distribution, Habitat, Usage and Threats. European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Publication Office EU, Luxembourg.
2. Akkemik, Ü., 2000. Dendroclimatology of umbrella pine (Pinus pinea L.) in Istanbul, Turkey. Tree-Ring Bulletin 56, 17-20.
3. Alencar, A.A., Brando, P.M., Asner, G.P., Putz, F.E., 2015. Landscape fragmentation, severe drought, and the new Amazon forest fire regime. Ecological applications, 25(6): 1493-1505.
4. Antrop, M,, Van Eetvelde, V., 2017. Landscape Perspectives : The Holistic Nature of Landscape. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
5. Ashcroft, M.B., French, K.O., Chisholm, L.A., 2011. An evaluation of environmental factors affecting species distributions. Ecological Modelling, 222(3): 524-531.
6. Başkaya, Ş., 2003. Pars (Panthera pardus). Orman ve Av Dergisi, 6: 24-30.
7. Baskaya, S., Bilgili, E., 2004. Does the leopard Panthera pardus still exist in the Eastern Karadeniz Mountains of Turkey? Oryx, 38(2): 228-232.
8. BirdLife Int, 2018. State of the world’s birds indicators for our changing world. http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/, Accessed: 21.12.2018.

9. Bogaert, J., Barima, Y.S., Iyongo, W.M.L., Bamba, I., Mama, A., Toyi, M., Lafortezza, R., 2011. Forest fragmentation: causes, ecological impacts and implications for landscape management. In: Landscape Ecology in Forest Management and Conservation (Ed: Li, C., Lafortezza, R., Chen, J.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 273-296.
10. Bojie, F., Liding, C., 1996. Landscape diversity types and their ecological significance. Acta Geographica Sinica, 5: 454-462.
11. Boutheina, A., Hedi El Aouni, M., Balandier, P., 2013. Influence of stand and tree attributes and silviculture on cone and seed productions in forests of Pinus pinea L., in northern Tunisia. In Mediterranean stone pine for agroforestry (Ed: Mutke, S., Piqué, M., Calama, R.), Options Mediterraneenes, Zaragoza, pp. 9-14.
12. Brabyn, L., 2009. Classifying landscape character. Landscape research, 34(3): 299-321.
13. Broadbent, E.N., Asner, G.P., Keller, M., Knapp, D.E., Oliveira, P.J., Silva, J.N., 2008. Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biological conservation, 141(7): 1745-1757.
14. Chakraborty, A., Ghosh, A., Sachdeva, K., Joshi, P.K., 2017. Characterizing fragmentation trends of the Himalayan forests in the Kumaon region of Uttarakhand, India. Ecological Informatics, 38: 95-109.
15. Cook, E.A., 2002. Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Landscape and urban planning, 58(2-4): 269-280.
16. Crooks, K.R., Burdett, C.L., Theobald, D.M., King, S.R., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., Boitani, L, 2017. Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(29): 7635-7640.
17. Cushman, S.A., McGarigal, K., Neel, M., 2008. Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency. Ecological indicators, 8(5): 691-703.
18. Dale, V.H., Joyce, L.A., McNulty, S., Neilson, R.P., Ayres, M.P., Flannigan, M.D., Hanson, P.J, Irland, L.C, Lugo, A.E., Peterson, C.J., Simberloff, D., Swanson, F.J., Stocks, B.J., Wotton, B.M., 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances: Climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. BioScience, 51(9): 723-734.
19. Davidson, C., 1998. Issues in measuring landscape fragmentation. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 26(1): 32-37.
20. Di Castri, F., 1981. Mediterranean-type shrublands of the world. Mediterranean-Type Shrublands Ecosystems of the World, Vol. 11. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1-52.
21. Dušek, R., Popelková, R., 2017. Landscape diversity of the Czech Republic. Journal of Maps. 13, 486-490.
22. Fahrig, L., 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 34(1): 487-515.
23. Farias, I.P., Santos, W.G., Gordo, M., Hrbek, T., 2015. Effects of forest fragmentation on genetic diversity of the Critically Endangered primate, the pied tamarin (Saguinus bicolor): Implications for conservation. Journal of Heredity, 106(S1): 512-521.
24. Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Global ecology and biogeography, 16(3): 265-280.
25. Forman, R.T., 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology, 10: 133-142.
26. Forman, R.T., Alexander, L.E., 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 29(1): 207-231.
27. Forman, R.T., Deblinger, R.D., 2000. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conservation Biology, 14: 36-46.
28. Gil-Tena, A., Saura, S., Brotons, L., 2007. Effects of forest composition and structure on bird species richness in a Mediterranean context: Implications for forest ecosystem management. Forest ecology and Management, 242(2-3): 470-476.
29. Goodwin, B.J., Fahrig, L., 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos, 99: 552-570.
30. Haines-Young, R., Chopping, M., 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: A review of landscape indices and their application to forested landscapes. Progress in physical geography, 20(4): 418-445.
31. Hamrick, J.L., 2004. Response of forest trees to global environmental changes. Forest ecology and management, 197(1-3): 323-335.
32. Hargis, C.D., Bissonette, J.A., Turner, D.L., 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of applied Ecology, 36(1): 157-172.
33. Hirsch, E., O'Hanlon, M., 1995. The anthropology of landscape: perspectives on place and space. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
34. Kete, R., Yilmaz, I., Karakulak, S., Yildirim, A., 2005. Bafa Gölü çevresi herpetofaunasının çeşitliliği. Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6: 87-96.
35. Kim, K.H., Pauleit, S., 2007. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea. Land Use Policy, 24: 264-274.
36. Kumerloeve, H., 1975. Die säugetiere (Mammalia) der Türkei Die säugetiere (Mammalia) Syriens und des Libanon. Veröffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung, München, 18: 69-225.
37. Laurance, W.F., Lovejoy, T.E., Vasconcelos, H.L., Bruna, E.M., Didham, R.K., Stouffer, P.C., Gascon, C., Bierregaard, R.O., Laurance, S.G., Sampaio, E., 2002. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian forest fragments: A 22‐year investigation. Conservation Biology, 16(3): 605-618.
38. Lausch, A., Blaschke, T., Haase, D., Herzog, F., Syrbe, R.U., Tischendorf, L., Walz, U., 2015. Understanding and quantifying landscape structure-A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecological Modelling, 295: 31-41.
39. Lindenmayer, D.B., Cunningham, R.B., Donnelly, C.F., Lesslie, R., 2002. On the use of landscape surrogates as ecological indicators in fragmented forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 159(3): 203-216.
40. Liu, S., Dong, Y., Deng, L., Liu, Q., Zhao, H., Dong, S., 2014. Forest fragmentation and landscape connectivity change associated with road network extension and city expansion: A case study in the Lancang River Valley. Ecological Indicators, 36: 160-168.
41. Loewe, M., Delard, R., 2012. Un Nuevo Cultivo Para Chile el Pino Pinonero (Pinus pinea L.). Instituto Forestal, Chile.
42. McAlpine, C.A., Eyre, T.J., 2002. Testing landscape metrics as indicators of habitat loss and fragmentation in continuous eucalypt forests (Queensland, Australia). Landscape Ecology, 17(8): 711-728.
43. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J., 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
44. McGarigal, K., Tagil, S., Cushman, S.A., 2009. Surface metrics: An alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape ecology, 24(3): 433-450.
45. Midha, N., Mathur, P.K., 2010. Assessment of forest fragmentation in the conservation priority Dudhwa landscape, India using FRAGSTATS computed class level metrics. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 38(3): 487-500.
46. Muñoz ,V.L., Rodrígue, C.D., Balzarini, M., Contreras, A.Á., Navarro-Cerrillo, R.M., 2015. Impact of climate and management variables on stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) growing in Chile. Agricultural and forest meteorology, 214: 106-116.
47. Prieur, M., Luginbuehl, Y., Zoido Naranjo, F., De Montmollin, B., Pedroli B, Van Mansvelt, J.D., Durousseau, S., 2006. Landscape and Sustainable Development-Challenges of the European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
48. Qian, J., Xiang, W.N., Liu, Y., Meng, X., 2018. Incorporating landscape diversity into greenway alignment planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 35: 45-56.
49. OSIB, 2014. Orman ve Su İşleri Bakanliği Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü IV. Bölge Müdürlüğü, Ulusal Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Envanter ve İzleme Projesi. Aydın İl Şube Müdürlüğü. Aydın İli’nin Karasal Biyolojik Çeşitlilik ve İç Su Ekosistemleri Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Envanter ve İzleme İşi Sonuç Raporu, s. 63-70.
50. Richardson, D.M., 1998. Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, New York.
51. Riitters, K.H., O'neill, R.nV., Hunsaker, C.T., Wickham, J.D., Yankee, D.H., Timmins, S.P., Jones, K.B., Jackson, B.L., 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape ecology, 10(1): 23-39.
52. Rocha-Santos, L., Pessoa, M.S., Cassano, C.R., Talora, D.C., Orihuela, R.L.L., Mariano-Netos, E., Morante-Filho, J.C., Faria, D., Cazetta, E., 2016. The shrinkage of a forest: landscape-sacale deforestation leading to overall changes in local forest structure. Biological Conservation: 196, 1-9.
53. Romero, Y., Gilsanz, F., 1888. Cría, Cultivo y Aprovechamiento Del Pino Pinonero. Universal Fair of Barcelona. Madrid, Spain.
54. Rosati, L., Fipaldini, M., Marignani, M., Blasi, C., 2010. Effects of fragmentation on vascular plant diversity in a Mediterranean forest archipelago. Plant Biosystems, 144(1): 38-46.
55. Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J., Margules, C.R., 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review. Conservation biology, 5(1): 18-32.
56. Saura, S., Piqué, M., 2006. Forests and Forest Sector in Catalonia. Agriculture and Agri-food Production in Perspective: Profile of the Sector in Catalonia. University of Lleida, Lleida.
57. Scarascia-Mugnozzaa, G., Oswald, H., Piussic, P., Radogloud, K., 2000. Forests of the Mediterranean region: Gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecology and Management, 132(1): 97-109.
58. Schnell, J.K., Harris, G.M., Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., 2013. Quantitative analysis of forest fragmentation in the Atlantic Forest reveals more threatened bird species than the current Red List. PLoS One, 8: 1-8.
59. Secmen, O., Leblebici, E., 1982. Batı Anadolu sucul vegatasyonu. IX Ulusal Biyoloji Kongresi Genel ve Sistematik Botanik Seksiyonları, Cilt 3, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi, Sivas, s. 369-381.
60. Simensen, T., Halvorsen, R., Erikstad, L., 2018. Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review. Land Use Policy, 75: 557-569.
61. Sulieman, H.M., 2018. Exploring drivers of forest degradation and fragmentation in Sudan: the case of Erawashda forest and its surrounding community. Science of the Total Environment, 621: 895-904.
62. Swanwick, C., 2002. Landscape character assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user _upload/Planning/LCA_CPD/LC , Accessed: 15.05.2018.
63. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., Merriam, G., 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68: 571-573.
64. Trumbore, S., Brando, P., Hartmann, H., 2015. Forest health and global change. Science, 349: 814-818.
65. Tudor, C., 2014. An approach to landscape character assessment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691184/landscape-character-assessment.pdf, Accessed: 23.06.2018.
66. Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R., Mander, Ü., 2009. Landscape metrics and indices: An overview of their use in landscape research. Living reviews in landscape research, 3(1): 1-28.
67. Uzun, O., Dilek, F., Çetinkaya, D., Erduran, F., Açıksöz, S., 2011. National and regional landscape classification and mapping of Turkey: Konya closed basin, Suğla Lake and its surrounding area. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6(3): 550-565.
68. Varol, O., 2004. Phytosociological Investigations of Pinus pinea L. Forests in the Southwestern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 52: 65-70.
69. Varol, O., Karaer, F., Terzioğlu, S., Kutbay, G., 2003. Phytosociological investigations of Pinus pinea L. forests in the North-East Anatolia region (Trabzon and Artvin–Turkey). Pakistan Journal of Botany, 35: 587-595.
70. Varol, O., Tatli., A., 2002. Phytosociological investigations of a Pinus pinea L. forest in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (K. Maraş-Turkey). Plant Ecology, 158: 223-228.
71. Varol, O., Tel, A.Z., 2010. Ecological features of the Pinus pinea forests in the north-west region of Turkey (Yalova). Ekoloji, 19: 95-101.
72. Wang, X., Blanchet, F.G., Koper, N., 2014. Measuring habitat fragmentation: An evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(7): 634-646.
73. Wascher, D.M., 2005. European Landscape Character Areas-Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes. Final Project Report as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Measure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), funded under the 5th Framework Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/ 1778, Accessed: 12.04.2018.
74. Wilcove, D.S., McLellan, C.H., Dobson, A.P., 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Conservation biology, 6: 237-256.
75. Williams-Linera, G., 1990. Vegetation structure and environmental conditions of forest edges in Panama. The Journal of Ecology, pp. 356-373.
76. Yazgi, D., Yilmaz, K.T., 2017. The evaluation of landscape typology and richness for achieving conservation priorities of habitats. Proceedings of the Ecology 2017 International Symposium, 11-13 May, Kayseri, Turkey. pp. 309-318.
77. Zohary, M., 1973. Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East, Vol. I–II. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stutgart.
78. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape planning, 9(1): 1-33