IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i9p904-d623058.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Forest Landscape Restoration Based on Landscape Connectivity: A Case Study in the Yi River Basin, China, during 2015–2020

Author

Listed:
  • Ziqi Bian

    (College of Geography and Environmental Science, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
    Key Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for the Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions, Henan University, Ministry of Education, Kaifeng 475004, China)

  • Lyuyi Liu

    (Henan Provincial Academy of Eco-Environmental Sciences, Zhengzhou 450003, China)

  • Shengyan Ding

    (College of Geography and Environmental Science, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China
    Key Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for the Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions, Henan University, Ministry of Education, Kaifeng 475004, China)

Abstract

Landscape connectivity has widely been recognized as one of the key objectives in studies of forest landscape management, ecological conservation and construction. Protecting virgin forests and afforesting marginal cropland are two long-term ecological projects in China. However, along with rapid urbanization and industrialization in China, the relationship between landscape connectivity and forest landscape restoration (FLR) has not been fully explored. The emergent question concerns whether the connectivity of a restored forest landscape could benefit the local flora and fauna. We evaluated the status of FLR in the Yi River watershed based on remote sensing images during 2015–2020. The forest landscape connectivity (FLC) was investigated using landscape connectivity indicators, applying the theory of landscape connectivity. We also examined the variations of FLC under different landform types (hills and low mountains) according to distance threshold values ranging from 100 m to 20,000 m. The most appropriate distance thresholds for analyzing FLC in hills and low mountains are 500 m and 100 m, respectively. The results showed that in this period, the FLC in low mountains was increased, whereas that of hills was decreased. The contributions for reforested patches on the improvement of the FLC were evaluated. In hills, patches that made “very high” and “high” contributions to improve the FLC occupied 15.6% of the total reforested area, whereas the proportion in low mountains was 25.5%. The results indicated that although rainfed cropland patches have been converted to forest patches, some of them have made small contributions to the FLC. Through this case study, we hope to have confirmed that landscape connectivity analysis could be used as a criterion for selecting important patches in the planning of FLR. Moreover, we have introduced this implementable method for future ecological restoration management programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziqi Bian & Lyuyi Liu & Shengyan Ding, 2021. "Analysis of Forest Landscape Restoration Based on Landscape Connectivity: A Case Study in the Yi River Basin, China, during 2015–2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-11, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:904-:d:623058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/904/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/9/904/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rodriguez Gonzalez, Jesus & del Barrio, Gabriel & Duguy, Beatriz, 2008. "Assessing functional landscape connectivity for disturbance propagation on regional scales—A cost-surface model approach applied to surface fire spread," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 211(1), pages 121-141.
    2. Ricardo Gomes César & Loren Belei & Carolina Giudice Badari & Ricardo A. G. Viani & Victoria Gutierrez & Robin L. Chazdon & Pedro H. S. Brancalion & Carla Morsello, 2020. "Forest and Landscape Restoration: A Review Emphasizing Principles, Concepts, and Practices," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robin Knight & Fakhar Khalid, 2015. "Evaluation of the potential of friction surface analysis in modelling hurricane wind damage in an urban environment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 76(2), pages 891-911, March.
    2. Junga Lee & Christopher D. Ellis & Yun Eui Choi & Soojin You & Jinhyung Chon, 2015. "An Integrated Approach to Mitigation Wetland Site Selection: A Case Study in Gwacheon, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, March.
    3. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Pariyar, Shiva & Pant, Basant & Bhattarai, Sushma & Kaini, Tika Raj & Karki, Gyanendra & Marahattha, Anisha, 2022. "Sixty-five years of forest restoration in Nepal: Lessons learned and way forward," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Keane, Robert E. & McKenzie, Donald & Falk, Donald A. & Smithwick, Erica A.H. & Miller, Carol & Kellogg, Lara-Karena B., 2015. "Representing climate, disturbance, and vegetation interactions in landscape models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 309, pages 33-47.
    5. Pingxing Li & Jinlong Gao & Jianglong Chen, 2020. "Quantitative assessment of ecological stress of construction lands by quantity and location: case study in Southern Jiangsu, Eastern China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1559-1578, February.

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:9:p:904-:d:623058. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.