The landscape and habitat permeability for animals: reviewing existing approaches

  • Alena V. Shushkova Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 27 Akademichnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus
  • Anna A. Sidorovich Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 27 Akademichnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus
  • Irina I. Lukina Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 27 Akademichnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus

Abstract

The article presents an overview of up-to-date approaches and methods for assessing the permeability of landscapes and habitats for animals. In particular, the authors consider species (eco-system-species), ecosystem (landscape) and territorial approaches. The species (eco-system-species) approach considers the permeability of the habitat for the certain species of wild animals, taking into account their ecological requirements for habitats and the nature of their movements. Species-specific studies typically involve assessments of habitat suitability for a particular species and the minimum population size of a species. The ecosystem (landscape) approach is characterised by the analysis of the ecological characteristics of natural areas. This approach is routed on the theory of island biogeography (R. H. McArthur and E. O. Wilson) and landscape ecology (R. T. T. Forman). The approach has been widely developed in connection with the development of geoinformation modelling and the use of remote sensing data. The territorial approach, the founder of which is B. B. Rodoman, is associated with the study of the peculiarities of the location of territories subject to special protection, and the study of various regimes for their protection and use. The analysis carried out allows us to determine the relevance of studying the permeability of landscapes and habitats for animals on the territory of Belarus.

Author Biographies

Alena V. Shushkova, Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 27 Akademichnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus

senior researcher

Anna A. Sidorovich, Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 27 Akademichnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus

PhD (biology), leading researcher

Irina I. Lukina, Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 27 Akademichnaja Street, Minsk 220072, Belarus

PhD (biology), senior researcher

References

  1. Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K. Biological corridors and connectivity. In: MacDonald DW, Willis KJ, editors. Key topics in conservation biology 2. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 284–404. DOI: 10.1002/9781118520178.ch21.
  2. Haber J, Nelson P. Planning for connectivity: a guide to connecting and conserving wildlife within and beyond America’s national forests [Internet]. Bozeman: Center for Large Landscape Conservation; 2015 [cited 2021 June 17]. 24 p. Available from: https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/planning-for-connectivity.pdf.
  3. Parks S, Harcourt A. Reserve size, local human density, and mammalian extinctions in U. S. Protected Areas. Conservation Biology. 2002;16(3):800–808. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00288.x.
  4. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105(52):20770–20775. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0806080105.
  5. Pulsford I, Lindenmayer D, Wyborn C, Lausche B, Vasilijevic M, Worboys GL, et al. Connectivity conservation management. In: Worboys GL, Lockwood M, Kothari A, Feary S, Pulsford I, editors. Protected Area Governance and Management. Canberra: ANU Press; 2015. p. 851–888. DOI: 10.22459/PAGM.04.2015.27.
  6. Okániková Z, Romportl D, Kluchová A, Hlaváč V, Strnad M, Papp C-R. Methodology for identification of ecological corridors in the Carpathian countries by using large carnivores as umbrella species. Stockholm: Interreg Europe; 2021. 82 p.
  7. Ament R, Callahan R, McClure M, Reuling M, Tabor G. Wildlife connectivity: fundamentals for conservation action. Bozeman: Center for Large Landscape Conservation; 2014. 28 p.
  8. Hity J, Worboys GL, Keeley A, Woodley S, Lausche BJ, Locke H, et al. Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. Groves C, editor. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature; 2020. 140 p. DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.PAG.30.en.
  9. Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Lehmkuhl JF. Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Portland: United States Department of Agriculture; 2002. 89 p. DOI: 10.2737/PNW-RP-549.
  10. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer; 2001. 420 p.
  11. Estreguil C, Caudullo G, de Rigo D, San-Miguel-Ayanz J. Forest landscape in Europe: pattern, fragmentation and connectivity: executive report. Ispra: Institute for Environment and Sustainability; 2013. 18 p. DOI: 10.2788/77842.
  12. McGarigal K. Landscape metrics for categorical map patterns [Internet]. Massachusetts: Massachusetts University; 2012 [cited 2021 April 19]. 77 p. Available from: https://studylib.net/doc/7944344/landscape-metrics-for-categorical-map-patterns.
  13. Wu J. Landscape ecology. In: Leemans R, editor. Ecological systems. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 179–200. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5755-8_11.
  14. Jongman RHG, Kristiansen I. National and regional approaches for ecological networks in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2001. 86 p.
  15. Boitani L, Falcucci A, Maiorano L. National ecological network: the role of the protected areas in the conservation of vertebrates. Rome: University of Rome; 2003. 90 p.
  16. Puzachenko YuG. Metodologicheskie osnovy geograficheskogo prognoza i okhrany sredy [Methodological basis of geography assessment and environmental protection]. Moscow: Universitet Rossiiskoi akademii obrazovaniya; 1998. 210 p. Russian.
  17. Grodzyns’kyj MD. Piznannja landshaftu: misce i prostir. Tom 2 [Landscape knowledge: place and space. Volume 2]. Kyiv: Kyivs’kyj universytet; 2005. 503 p. Ukrainian.
  18. Suter W, Bollmann K, Holdereger R. Landscape permeability: form individual dispersal to population persistence. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S, editors. A changing world: challenges for landscape research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. p. 157–174. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4436-6_11.
  19. Meiklejohn K, Ament R, Tabor G. Habitat corridors & landscape connectivity: clarifying the terminology [Internet]. Bozeman: Center for Large Landscape Conservation; 2010 [cited 2021 May 5]. 6 p. Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.542.4218&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  20. Forman RTT. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. 632 p.
  21. Anděl P, Andreas M, Bláhová A, Gorčicová I, Hlaváč V, Mináriková T. Protection of landscape connectivity for large mammals. Anděl P, Mináriková T, Andreas M, editors. Liberec: Evernia; 2010. 134 p.
  22. Beier P, Majka D, Jenness J. Conceptual steps for designing wildlife corridors [Internet]. San Francisco: Northern Arizona University; 2007 [cited 2021 December 10]. 90 p. Available from: http://corridordesign.org/dl/docs/ConceptualStepsForDesigningCorridors.pdf.
  23. Bouwma IM, Jongman RHG, Butovsky RO, editors. The indicative map of pan-European ecological network. Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation; 2002. 101 p.
  24. Frazier AE, Kedron P. Landscape metrics: past progress and future directions. Current Landscape Ecology Reports. 2017;2:63–72. DOI: 10.1007/s40823-017-0026-0.
  25. Herzog F, Lausch A. Supplementing land-use statistics with landscape metrics: some methodological considerations. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2001;72:37–50. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011949704308.
  26. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecology. 2003;18:17–39. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022937226820.
  27. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC. Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecological Indicators. 2008;8(5):691–703. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.12.002.
  28. Santos JS, Leite CCC, Viana JCC, dos Santos AR, Fernandes MM, de Souza Abreu V, et al. Delimitation of ecological corridors in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ecological Indicators. 2018;88:414–424. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.011.
  29. Gusev AP. [Fragmentation of the land cover as a factor of degradation of geosystems restoration’s potential]. Vesci BDPU. Seryja 3, Fizika. Matjematyka. Infarmatyka. Bijalogija. 2014;1:58–61. Russian.
  30. Rodoman BB. [Landscape polarisation as a means of preserving the biosphere and recreational resources]. In: Komar IV, editor. Resursy, sreda, rasselenie [Resources, environment, resettlement]. Moscow: Nauka; 1974. p. 150–162. Russian.
  31. Sepp K, Kaasik A, editors. Development of national ecological networks in the Baltic countries in the framework of the panEuropean ecological network. Warsaw: International Union for Conservation of Nature Office for Central Europe; 2002. 183 p.
  32. Skachkova AS, Kurlovich DM, Katkovskii LV. [Structure and dynamics of the land fund of the Volozhinsky district of the Minsk region for the period from 1975 to 2010 (based on the results of automated interpretation of land cover classes in the European Corine land Cover nomenclature)]. Vestnik BGU. Seriya 2, Khimiya. Biologiya. Geografiya. 2013;1:98–103. Russian.
  33. Yurgenson NA, Shushkova AV, Shliakhtsich AA. [Features of the formation of a National ecological network in Belarus]. Natural resources. 2015;2:99–106. Russian.
  34. Yurgenson NA, Abramchuk AV, Shushkova AV. Challenges for integraton of the National ecological network and the Emerald network in Belarus. Natural resources. 2018;1:127–137. Russian.
Published
2023-05-27
Keywords: landscape permeability, habitat connectivity, fragmentation, landscape metric, corridor
Supporting Agencies The work was supported by the state programme of scientific research «Natural resources and environment» for 2021–2025 (the subprogramme «Biodiversity, bioresources, ecology», task 01.08 «Modelling the permeability of the habitat (presence of corridors and distribution barriers) for focal animal species for Belarusian Poozerye using remote sensed data (RSD) and GIS software tools» for 2021–2023) (state registration No. 20210242).
How to Cite
Shushkova, A. V., Sidorovich, A. A., & Lukina, I. I. (2023). The landscape and habitat permeability for animals: reviewing existing approaches. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Geography and Geology, 1, 47-56. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/geography/article/view/5104