Circuit model; Ecological security pattern; Landscape connectivity; Spaital conservation prioritization; Zonation model; Circuit modeling; Conservation prioritization; Ecological security; Landscape connectivities; Security patterns; Study areas; Yellow river; Environmental Engineering; Waste Management and Disposal; Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law; General Medicine
Abstract :
[en] Global urbanization has not only promoted social and economic development, but also contributed to seriously ecological challenges. As a type of sustainable landscape patterns, ecological security pattern is considered as an effective spatial pathway to simultaneously conserve ecological security and maintain social-economic development. However, the fragmentation issue of ecological sources of ecological security pattern has not been effectively addressed, although many case studies have been conducted to identify ecological security pattern. In this study, we used spatial conservation prioritization to identify the ecological security pattern of the city belt along the Yellow River in Ningxia, China. Ecological sources were selected using Zonation model while ecological corridors and key ecological nodes were identified with circuit model. The results showed that the ecological security pattern was composed of 97 ecological sources, 226 ecological corridors, 267 pinch points and 22 barriers, covering a total area of 7713.1 km2 and accounting for 34% of the study area. Ecological sources were concentrated in the Helan Mountain, Xiang Mountain and along the Yellow River. Besides, ecological corridors were dense in the southern and eastern part of the study area. Both indicated that the Yellow River and Helan Mountain were the conservation hotspots. Landscape connectivity of ecological sources identified through Zonation-based spatial conservation prioritization was better than that with the scoring approach based on ecosystem service importance. Particularly, in the Zonation approach the landscape connectivity increased with 44% while the average patch area increased with 28% when comparing with the scoring approach. The spatial conservation prioritization approach proposed in this study provides a new effective tool to construct ecological security pattern, which is conducive to the synergic enhancement of landscape connectivity and ecosystem services conservation.
Disciplines :
Environmental sciences & ecology
Author, co-author :
Tang, Hui ; Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Human-Earth Relations, Ministry of Natural Resources, School of Urban Planning and Design, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen, 518055, China
Peng, Jian; Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China. Electronic address: jianpeng@urban.pku.edu.cn
Jiang, Hong; Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China
Lin, Yifan ; Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China
Dong, Jianquan; Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China
Liu, Menglin; Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Human-Earth Relations, Ministry of Natural Resources, School of Urban Planning and Design, Shenzhen Graduate School, Peking University, Shenzhen, 518055, China
Meersmans, Jeroen ; Université de Liège - ULiège > TERRA Research Centre > Echanges Eau - Sol - Plantes
Language :
English
Title :
Spatial analysis enables priority selection in conservation practices for landscapes that need ecological security.
Albert, C.H., Rayfield, B., Dumitru, M., Gonzalez, A., Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change: prioritizing a network for biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 31 (2017), 1383–1396.
Aminzadeh, B., Khansefid, M., A case study of urban ecological networks and a sustainable city: Tehran's metropolitan area. Urban Ecosyst. 13 (2010), 23–36.
Armsworth, P.R., Jackson, H.B., Cho, S.-H., Clark, M., Fargione, J.E., Iacona, G.D., Kim, T., Larson, E.R., Minney, T., Sutton, N.A., Is conservation right to go big? Protected area size and conservation return-on-investment. Biol. Conserv. 225 (2018), 229–236.
Arponen, A., Heikkinen, R.K., Thomas, C.D., Moilanen, A., The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: representation, species weighting, and benefit functions. Conserv. Biol. 19:6 (2005), 2009–2014.
Brennan, A., Naidoo, R., Greenstreet, L., Mehrabi, Z., Ramankutty, N., Kremen, C., Functional connectivity of the world's protected areas. Science 376 (2022), 1101–1104.
Brum, F.T., Graham, C.H., Costa, G.C., Hedges, S.B., Penone, C., Radeloff, V.C., Rondinini, C., Loyola, R., Davidson, A.D., Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 (2017), 7641–7646.
Cimon-Morin, J., Poulin, M., Setting conservation priorities in cities: approaches, targets and planning units adapted to wetland biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 33 (2018), 1975–1995.
Cotter, M., Häuser, I., Harich, F.K., He, P., Sauerborn, J., Treydte, A.C., Martin, K., Cadisch, G., Biodiversity and ecosystem services−A case study for the assessment of multiple species and functional diversity levels in a cultural landscape. Ecol. Indicat. 75 (2017), 111–117.
Crooks, K.R., Burdett, C.L., Theobald, D.M., King, S.R.B., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., Boitani, L., Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceed. National Academy of Sci. United States of America 114 (2017), 7635–7640.
Dai, L., Liu, Y., Luo, X., Integrating the MCR and DOI models to construct an ecological security network for the urban agglomeration around Poyang Lake, China. Sci. Total Environ., 754, 2021, 141868.
Ding, Z., Zheng, H., Wang, J., O'Connor, P., Li, C., Chen, X., Li, R., Ouyang, Z., Integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches improves practicality and efficiency of large-scale ecological restoration planning: Insights from a social-ecological system. Engineering, 2022, 10.1016/j.eng.2022.08.008 2022.
Gordon, A., Simondson, D., White, M., Moilanen, A., Bekessy, S.A., Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 91 (2009), 183–194.
Jalkanen, J., Toivonen, T., Moilanen, A., Identification of ecological networks for land-use planning with spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc. Ecol. 35 (2020), 353–371.
Jiang, H., Peng, J., Dong, J., Zhang, Z., Xu, Z., Meersmans, J., Linking ecological background and demand to identify ecological security patterns across the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in China. Landsc. Ecol. 36 (2021), 2135–2150.
Kareksela, S., Aapala, K., Alanen, A., Haapalehto, T., Kotiaho, J.S., Lehtomäki, J., Leikola, N., Mikkonen, N., Moilanen, A., Nieminen, E., Tuominen, S., Virkkala, R., Combining spatial prioritization and expert knowledge facilitates effectiveness of large-scale mire protection process in Finland. Biol. Conserv., 241, 2020, 108324.
Knaapen, J.P., Scheffer, M., Harms, B., Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plann. 23 (1992), 1–16.
Kukkala, A.S., Moilanen, A., Ecosystem services and connectivity in spatial conservation prioritization. Landsc. Ecol. 32 (2017), 5–14.
Larson, K.L., Nelson, K.C., Samples, S.R., Hall, S.J., Bettez, N., Cavender-Bares, J., Groffman, P.M., Grove, M., Heffernan, J.B., Hobbie, S.E., Learned, J., Morse, J.L., Neill, C., Ogden, L.A., O'Neil-Dunne, J., Pataki, D.E., Polsky, C., Chowdhury, R.R., Steele, M., Trammell, T.L.E., Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosyst. 19 (2016), 95–113.
Lehtomäki, J., Moilanen, A., Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environ. Model. Software 47 (2013), 128–137.
Li, D., Yang, Y., Xia, F., Sun, W., Li, X., Xie, Y., Exploring the influences of different processes of habitat fragmentation on ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plann., 227, 2022, 104544.
Li, P., Cao, H., Sun, W., Chen, X., Quantitative evaluation of the rebuilding costs of ecological corridors in a highly urbanized city: the perspective of land use adjustment. Ecol. Indicat., 141, 2022, 109130.
Lyu, R., Zhao, W., Tian, X., Zhang, J., Non-linearity impacts of landscape pattern on ecosystem services and their trade-offs: a case study in the City Belt along the Yellow River in Ningxia, China. Ecol. Indicat., 136, 2022, 108608.
McGowan, J., Smith, R.J., Di Marco, M., Clarke, R.H., Possingham, H.P., An evaluation of marine important bird and biodiversity areas in the context of spatial conservation prioritization. Conserv. Lett., 11(3), 2018, e12399.
McRae, B.H., Dickson, B.G., Keitt, T.H., Shah, V.B., Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89 (2008), 2712–2724.
McRae, B.H., Hall, S.A., Beier, P., Theobald, D.M., Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and Quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e52604.
Mitchell, M.G.E., Bennett, E.M., Gonzalez, A., Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps. Ecosystems 16 (2013), 894–908.
Mitchell, M.G.E., Suarez-Castro, A.F., Martinez-Harms, M., Maron, M., McAlpine, C., Gaston, K.J., Johansen, K., Rhodes, J.R., Reframing landscape fragmentation's effects on ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30 (2015), 190–198.
Moilanen, A., Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biol. Conserv. 134 (2007), 571–579.
Moilanen, A., Anderson, B.J., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Roy, D.B., Gillings, S., Armsworth, P.R., Gaston, K.J., Thomas, C.D., Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol. Appl. 21 (2011), 1419–1426.
Moilanen, A., Franco, A.M.A., Early, R.I., Fox, R., Wintle, B., Thomas, C.D., Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc. Biol. Sci. 272 (2005), 1885–1891.
Moilanen, A., Lehtinen, P., Kohonen, I., Jalkanen, J., Virtanen, E.A., Kujala, H., Novel methods for spatial prioritization with applications in conservation, land use planning and ecological impact avoidance. Methods Ecol. Evol., 2022, 13819 2041–210X.
Moilanen, A., Pouzols, F.M., Meller, L., Veach, V., Arponen, A., Lappanen, J., Kujala, H., Zonation User Manual V4.0. 2014, C-Big Conservation Biology Group, Helsinki, Finland.
Moilanen, A., Wilson, K.A., Possingham, H.P., Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Environ. Conserv. 36 (2009), 348–349.
Moilanen, A., Wintle, B.A., The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conserv. Biol. 21 (2007), 355–364.
Montesino Pouzols, F., Toivonen, T., Di Minin, E., Kukkala, A.S., Kullberg, P., Kuusterä, J., Lehtomäki, J., Tenkanen, H., Verburg, P.H., Moilanen, A., Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516 (2014), 383–386.
Peng, J., Pan, Y., Liu, Y., Zhao, H., Wang, Y., Linking ecological degradation risk to identify ecological security patterns in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Habitat Int. 71 (2018), 110–124.
Peng, J., Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Hu, Y., Du, Y., Meersmans, J., Qiu, S., Linking ecosystem services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns. Sci. Total Environ. 644 (2018), 781–790.
Piao, S., Fang, J., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Huang, Y., Sitch, S., Wang, T., The carbon balance of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Nature 458 (2009), 1009–1013.
Pilosof, S., Porter, M.A., Pascual, M., Kéfi, S., The multilayer nature of ecological networks. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1, 2017, 0101.
Reyers, B., Selig, E.R., Global targets that reveal the social–ecological interdependencies of sustainable development. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 (2020), 1011–1019.
Simpkins, C.E., Dennis, T.E., Etherington, T.R., Perry, G.L.W., Assessing the performance of common landscape connectivity metrics using a virtual ecologist approach. Ecol. Model. 367 (2018), 13–23.
Stralberg, D., Carroll, C., Nielsen, S.E., Toward a climate‐informed North American protected areas network: Incorporating climate‐change refugia and corridors in conservation planning. Conserv. Lett., 13(4), 2020, e12712.
Sun, W., Shao, Q., Liu, J., Zhai, J., Assessing the effects of land use and topography on soil erosion on the Loess Plateau in China. Catena 121 (2014), 151–163.
Virtanen, E.A., Moilanen, A., Viitasalo, M., Marine connectivity in spatial conservation planning: analogues from the terrestrial realm. Landsc. Ecol. 35 (2020), 1021–1034.
Xu, Z., Peng, J., Ecosystem services-based decision-making: a bridge from science to practice. Environ. Sci. Pol. 135 (2022), 6–15.
Zhang, L., Peng, J., Liu, Y., Wu, J., Coupling ecosystem services supply and human ecological demand to identify landscape ecological security pattern: a case study in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, China. Urban Ecosyst. 20 (2017), 701–714.
Zhang, Y., Zhao, Z., Fu, B., Ma, R., Yang, Y., Lv, Y., Wu, X., Identifying ecological security patterns based on the supply, demand and sensitivity of ecosystem service: a case study in the Yellow River Basin, China. J. Environ. Manag., 315, 2022, 115158.
