IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i11p459-d447084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is There an Equivalence between Measures of Landscape Structural and Functional Connectivity for Plants in Conservation Assessments of the Cerrado?

Author

Listed:
  • Thais Martins Issii

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, UNIFESP, São Paulo 09913-030, Brazil)

  • Erico Fernando Lopes Pereira-Silva

    (Department of Ecology, Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo 05508-090, Brazil)

  • Carlos Tomás López de Pablo

    (Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, UCM, 28040 Madrid, Spain)

  • Rozely Ferreira dos Santos

    (Department of Ecology, Universidade de São Paulo, USP, São Paulo 05508-090, Brazil)

  • Elisa Hardt

    (Department of Environmental Sciences, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, UNIFESP, São Paulo 09913-030, Brazil)

Abstract

Landscape connectivity can be assessed based on the physical connection (structural connectivity) or the maintenance of flow among habitats depending on the species (functional connectivity). The lack of empirical data on the dispersal capacity of species can lead to the use of simple structural measures. Comparisons between these approaches can improve decision-making processes for the conservation or restoration of habitats in fragmented landscapes, such as the Cerrado biome. This study aimed to understand the correspondence between the measures of landscape structural and functional connectivity for Cerrado plants. Three landscapes with cerradão patches in a pasture matrix were selected for the application of these metrics based on the functional connectivity of four profiles of plant dispersal capacity. The results showed divergent interpretations between the measures of landscape structural and functional connectivity, indicating that the assessment of biodiversity conservation and landscape connectivity is dependent on the set of metrics chosen. Structurally, the studied landscapes had the same number of cerradão patches but varied in optimal resource availability, isolation, heterogeneity, and aggregation. Functional connectivity was low for all profiles (based on the integral index of connectivity—IIC) and null for species with a low dispersal capacity (based on the connectance index—CONNECT), indicating that species with a medium- to long-distance dispersal capacity may be less affected by the history of losses and fragmentation of the Cerrado in the pasture matrix. The functional connectivity metrics used allowed a more robust analysis and, apparently, better reflected reality, but the lack of empirical data on dispersal capacity and the difficulty in choosing an indicator organism can limit their use in the management and planning of conservation and restoration areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Thais Martins Issii & Erico Fernando Lopes Pereira-Silva & Carlos Tomás López de Pablo & Rozely Ferreira dos Santos & Elisa Hardt, 2020. "Is There an Equivalence between Measures of Landscape Structural and Functional Connectivity for Plants in Conservation Assessments of the Cerrado?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:11:p:459-:d:447084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/11/459/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/11/459/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Issii, Thais M. & Romero, Amanda C. & Pereira-Silva, Erico F.L. & Attanasio, Mario R. & Hardt, Elisa, 2020. "The role of legal protection in forest conservation in an urban matrix," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. de la Fuente, Begoña & Mateo-Sánchez, María C. & Rodríguez, Gema & Gastón, Aitor & Pérez de Ayala, Ramón & Colomina-Pérez, Diana & Melero, María & Saura, Santiago, 2018. "Natura 2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors: The connectivity backbone of forest green infrastructure," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 429-441.
    3. Trakhtenbrot, A. & Katul, G.G. & Nathan, R., 2014. "Mechanistic modeling of seed dispersal by wind over hilly terrain," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 29-40.
    4. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    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. Federica Isola & Federica Leone & Corrado Zoppi, 2022. "Mapping of Ecological Corridors as Connections between Protected Areas: A Study Concerning Sardinia, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Renato Luciani Chagas & Marcos Roberto Martines & Rogério Hartung Toppa, 2024. "Analyzing the role of public policies in landscape connectivity," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 29379-29399, November.

    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. Eliška Fňukalová & Vladimír Zýka & Dušan Romportl, 2021. "The Network of Green Infrastructure Based on Ecosystem Services Supply in Central Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Tamara S. Wilson & Benjamin M. Sleeter & Rachel R. Sleeter & Christopher E. Soulard, 2014. "Land-Use Threats and Protected Areas: A Scenario-Based, Landscape Level Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.
    4. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    5. Wang, Haoluan, 2017. "Land Conservation for Open Space: The Impact of Neighbors and the Natural Environment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    7. Shirley Saenz & Tomas Walschburger & Juan Carlos González & Jorge León & Bruce McKenney & Joseph Kiesecker, 2013. "A Framework for Implementing and Valuing Biodiversity Offsets in Colombia: A Landscape Scale Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-27, November.
    8. Iritie, Jean-Jacques, 2015. "Economic Growth, Biodiversity and Conservation Policies in Africa: an Overview," MPRA Paper 62005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Zhouqiao Ren & Wanxin Zhan & Qiaobing Yue & Jianhua He, 2020. "Prioritizing Agricultural Patches for Reforestation to Improve Connectivity of Habitat Conservation Areas: A Guide to Grain-to-Green Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Sari, Dwi Amalia & Margules, Chris & Lim, Han She & Widyatmaka, Febrio & Sayer, Jeffrey & Dale, Allan & Macgregor, Colin, 2021. "Evaluating policy coherence: A case study of peatland forests on the Kampar Peninsula landscape, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    11. Michael A. Wulder & Jeffrey A. Cardille & Joanne C. White & Bronwyn Rayfield, 2018. "Context and Opportunities for Expanding Protected Areas in Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Robert F. Baldwin & Nakisha T. Fouch, 2018. "Understanding the Biodiversity Contributions of Small Protected Areas Presents Many Challenges," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, October.
    13. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. H. K. Millington & J. E. Lovell & C. A. K. Lovell, 2013. "Using Fieldwork, GIS and DEA to Guide Management of Urban Stream Health," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072013, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    15. Li, Shicheng & Zhang, Heng & Zhou, Xuewu & Yu, Haibin & Li, Wangjun, 2020. "Enhancing protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Patricio Sarmiento-Mateos & Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & Francisco D. Pineda & María F. Schmitz, 2019. "Designing Protected Areas for Social–Ecological Sustainability: Effectiveness of Management Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Taeyoung & Larson, Eric R. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2017. "Economies of scale in forestland acquisition costs for nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-82.
    18. Bi Goli Jean Jacques Iritie, 2015. "Economic Growth and Biodiversity: An Overview Conservation Policies in Africa," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 196-196, February.
    19. Di Pirro, E. & Sallustio, L. & Capotorti, G. & Marchetti, M. & Lasserre, B., 2021. "A scenario-based approach to tackle trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and land use pressure in Central Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 448(C).
    20. Brad H McRae & Sonia A Hall & Paul Beier & David M Theobald, 2012. "Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-12, December.

    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:9:y:2020:i:11:p:459-:d:447084. 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.