IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v76y2018icp487-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forestland connectivity in Romania—Implications for policy and management

Author

Listed:
  • Stăncioiu, Petru Tudor
  • Niță, Mihai Daniel
  • Lazăr, Gabriel Ervin

Abstract

Forest policies and management rules imposed on forests in Romania provide favourable habitat conditions for many species across forest landscapes. This is empirically proven by the high biodiversity of the Carpathians and their surroundings. However, they do not explicitly address the spatial arrangement of forest patches across landscapes. Therefore, assessment of the connectivity (inside tracts of continuous forest – i.e. intrapatch connectivity – and also among spatially separate patches – i.e. interpatch connectivity) is important. To analyze this, the CORINE Land Cover data set (2012) available for Romania was used. Forest patches were classified into three size categories considered to ensure survival of tree populations on short term, medium and long term: Interconnectivity Nodes (IN: 1,5 to 14,9 ha, minimum 30 m width), Habitat Islands (HI: 15,0 ha and 499,0 ha, minimum 100 m width) and Habitat Continuum (HC: over 500 ha with a minimum 200 m width) respectively. The connectivity of each patch to others around it was assessed for a maximum threshold distance of 1 km. Further connectivity was classified in terms of its strength (depending on the size category to which a patch is connected) and quality (size and structure of a resulting connected cluster). Next, the distributions of the main forest tree species on the various sizes, connectivity strength and quality patches of forest vegetation were assessed. The results showed good connectivity between forest patches, both in terms of intrapatch connectivity (85% of the area was included in the HC class) and interpatch connectivity (92,4% are included in 12 clusters over 10.000 ha; among these the one around Carpathians comprised 86,7% of the total forest area). The main tree species showed good connectivity in general, higher in mountainous areas than at lower elevations (area in Habitat Continuum patches: 97,5% for Norway spruce vs. 63,3% for pedunculate oak; strong connection – 97,8% for Norway spruce vs. 67,2% for pedunculate oak; high quality connectivity – 98,2% for Norway spruce vs. 68,6% for pedunculate oak). These results confirm that management policies and guidelines inherited from the past provide good conditions for connectivity of the main forest tree species and for forests in general. Further enforcement of these practices in the future should ensure the conservation of species across the forested landscapes at national scale and also provide routes for species migration in the context of climate change. However, as a large proportion of forestland is today not state-owned, financial incentives for private owners are a key condition for further acceptance of these policies and ensure these major goals are met.

Suggested Citation

  • Stăncioiu, Petru Tudor & Niță, Mihai Daniel & Lazăr, Gabriel Ervin, 2018. "Forestland connectivity in Romania—Implications for policy and management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 487-499.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:76:y:2018:i:c:p:487-499
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717312929
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heinrichs, Julie A. & Bender, Darren J. & Schumaker, Nathan H., 2016. "Habitat degradation and loss as key drivers of regional population extinction," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 335(C), pages 64-73.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikoláš, Martin & Svitok, Marek & Teodosiu, Marius & Nagel, Thomas A. & Svoboda, Miroslav, 2019. "Land use planning based on the connectivity of tree species does not ensure the conservation of forest biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 63-65.
    2. Nichiforel, Liviu & Duduman, Gabriel & Scriban, Ramona Elena & Popa, Bogdan & Barnoaiea, Ionut & Drăgoi, Marian, 2021. "Forest ecosystem services in Romania: Orchestrating regulatory and voluntary planning documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fazlolah Ahmadi Mirghaed & Bubak Souri, 2021. "Relationships between habitat quality and ecological properties across Ziarat Basin in northern Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16192-16207, November.
    2. Haiyan Meng & Yi Hu & Zuoji Dong, 2023. "Landscape Pattern Change and Ecological Effect in a Typical Mountain–Oasis–Desert Region in the Northwest Region of China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Liu, Haoqi & Li, Weide & Lv, Guanghui, 2019. "How nonrandom habitat loss affects nature reserve planning strategies," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 397(C), pages 39-46.
    4. Liu, Haoqi & Li, Weide & Lv, Guanghui, 2017. "The design of nature reserves in the face of habitat loss," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 358(C), pages 50-58.
    5. Ying, Zhixia & Ge, Gang & Liu, Yongjie, 2018. "The effects of clonal integration on the responses of plant species to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 384(C), pages 290-295.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:76:y:2018:i:c:p:487-499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.