Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지

Analysis of Wildlife Moving Route with Landscape Characteristics

경관의 특성에 따른 동물의 이동경로에 관한 연구

  • Lee, Dong-Kun (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University) ;
  • Park, Chan (Graduate School, Seoul national University) ;
  • Song, Won-Kyong (Graduate School, Seoul national University)
  • 이동근 (서울대학교 조경.지역시스템공학부) ;
  • 박찬 (서울대학교 대학원) ;
  • 송원경 (서울대학교 대학원)
  • Received : 2007.11.27
  • Accepted : 2008.04.22
  • Published : 2008.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat have led to a reduction of biodiversity. The growing awareness of the negative effects of habitat fragmentation on natural systems has resulted in conservation strategy that is concerned with not only population and habitat level but also ecosystem and landscape level. Especially, ecological network to link core areas or major habitat patches is one of the most important issues. Recently, landscape connectivity is increasingly used in decision making for fragmented landscape management in order to conserve the biodiversity in the regional scale. The objective of this study was to find potential forest as a ecological corridor in Go-yang city, Gyung-gi province using cost-distance modelling method that can measure connectivity based on animal movement. 'Least cost-distance' modelling based on functional connectivity can be useful to establish ecological network and biodiversity conservation plan. This method calculates the distance modified with the cost to move between habitat patches based on detailed geographical information on the landscape as well as behavioural aspects of the animal movement. The least cost-distance models are based on two biologically assumptions: (1) dispersers have complete knowledge of their surroundings, and (2) they do select the least cost route from this information. As a result of this study, we can find wildlife moving route for biodiversity conservation. The result is very useful for long-term aspect of biodiversity conservation plan in regional scale, because this is reflection of geographical information and behavioural aspects of the animal movement.

Keywords

References

  1. 김명수, 2001, 파편화된 서식처 복원을 위한 기초이론 고찰, 한국환경복원기술녹화학회지, 4(2), 52-61
  2. 김명수, 2002, 대도시 녹지 연결성과 생물이동성 평가기법 개발 : 경관생태학적 접근, 서울대학교대학원 박사학위 논문
  3. 박종화, 서창완, 2000, GIS와 로지스틱 회귀분석을 이용한 멧돼지 서식지 모형 개발, 한국GIS학회지, 8(1), 85-99
  4. 박정은, 2007, 용어풀이(102) : 국제연합환경계획 / 국토생태네트워크, 국토, 304, 60
  5. 안동만, 김명수, 2003, 환경친화적인 도시공원녹지계획 연구-생물서식처 연결성 향상을 위한 서울시 녹지조성방안을 중심으로-, 한국조경학회지, 31(1), 34-41
  6. 최태영, 이윤수, 박종화, 2006, 지리산의 멧돼지 Sus scrofa 행동건, 한국생태학회지, 29(3), 253-257 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2006.29.3.253
  7. 최태영, 박종화, 2006, 토지이용 유형에 따른 포유류 로드킬 발생 특성, 한국조경학회지, 34(5), 52-58
  8. Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., DeBlust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H. and Matthysen, E., 2003, The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233-247 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6
  9. Baguette, M. and Dyck, H. V., 2007, Landscape connectivity and animal behavior : functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol. 22,1117-1129 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9108-4
  10. Belisle, M., 2005, Measuring landscape connectivity: The challenge of behavioral landscape ecology, Ecology 86(8), 1988-1995 https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0923
  11. Bunn, A. G., Urban, D. L. and Keitt, T. H., 2000, Landscape connectivity: A conservation application of graph theory, Journal of Environmental Management, 59, 265-278 https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0373
  12. Clinton, W, E., John, D,W., Vernon, C. B., Steven, G. T., Justin, S. B., 2007, Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics, Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 714-724 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01325.x
  13. Clevenger, A. P., Wierzchowski, J., Chruszcz, B. and Gunson., K., 2002., GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages, Conservation Biology, 16(2), 503-514 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00328.x
  14. Drielsma, M., Ferrier. S. and Manion, G., 2007, A raster-based technique for analysing habitat configuration : The cost-benefit approach, Ecological Modelling, 202, 324-332 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.10.016
  15. Ferrari, J. R., Lookingbill, T. R. and Neel, M. C., 2007, Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity : assessment across gradients in area and configuration, Landscape Ecol, 80(10), 9121-9127
  16. Perreras, P., 2001, Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx, Biological Conservation, 100(1), 125-136 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00213-5
  17. Finke, J. and Sonnenschein, M., 2007, Simulation and Optimization of Habitat Network Permeability, Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering, 433-444
  18. Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fazey, I., 2005, Appreciating ecological complexity: Habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model. Conservation Biology, 18(5), 1245-1253 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00263.x
  19. Foltete, J. C., Berthierb, K. and Cosson, J. F., 2007, Cost distance defined by a topological function of landscape, Ecological Modelling, (in press)
  20. Forman, R. T. T., 1995, Land Mosaics : The ecology of landscape and regions, New York Cambridge University Press
  21. Forman, R. T. T., 2000, Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States, Conserv. Bioi, (14), 31-35
  22. Hawbaker, T. J., Ranerloff, V. C., Clayton, M. K. and Hammer, R. B., Gonzalenz-Abraham, C. E., 2006, Road development, Housing growth, and landscape fragmentation in northem Wisonsin: 1937-1999, Ecological Application, 16(3), 1222-1237 https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1222:RDHGAL]2.0.CO;2
  23. Marulli, J. and Mallarach, J. M., 2005, A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity : application to the Barcelona metropolitan area, Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 243-262 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00079-9
  24. Meffe, G. K. and Carroll, C. R., 1994, Principles of conservation biology, Sinauer Associates. Inc
  25. Nikolakaki, P., 2004, A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimation connectivity of habitat patches, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 77-94 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00167-1
  26. Palomares, F., Delibes, M., Ferreras, P., Fedriani, J. M., Calzada, J. and Revilla, E., 2000, Iberian lynx in a fragmented landscape: Predispersal, dispersal, and postdispersal habitats, Conservation Biology, 14(3), 809-818 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98539.x
  27. Schonewald-Cox, C. M., 1983, Guidelines to management : A beginning attempt. In Richard B. Primack. 1993, Essentials of conservation biology, Sunderland, Messachusetts : Stnauer Associates, Inc
  28. Taylor, P., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G., 1993, Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure, Oikos, 68(3), 571-573 https://doi.org/10.2307/3544927
  29. Theobald, D. M., 2004, Modeling functional landscape connectivity using effective distance and graph theory, International Association of Landscape Ecologists, Las Vegas, NV, April 1
  30. Theobald, D. M., 2006, Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks. In: Crooks, K.R. and M.A. Sanjayan (ed.), Connectivity conservation: Maintaining connections for nature. Cambridge University Press. Pgs.416-443
  31. Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L., 2000, On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity, Oikas, 90, 7-19 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x
  32. Urban, D. L. and Keitt, T. H., 2001, Landscape connectivity : A graph - theoretic perspective, Ecology. 82(5), 1205-1218 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2
  33. Winfree,R., Dushoff, J., Crone, E., Schultz, C., Budny, R., Williams, N. and Kremen.,c., 2005, Testing simple indices of habitat proximity, The American Naturalist, 165, 707-717 https://doi.org/10.1086/430009