Limits...
The spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity in fragmented landscapes.

Auffret AG, Plue J, Cousins SA - Ambio (2015)

Bottom Line: Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place.Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together.In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Landscape Ecology, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, alistair.auffret@natgeo.su.se.

ABSTRACT
Connectivity is key for understanding how ecological systems respond to the challenges of land-use change and habitat fragmentation. Structural and functional connectivity are both established concepts in ecology, but the temporal component of connectivity deserves more attention. Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place. Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together. In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Changes in broad land-use categories over four time-steps in an area of Selaön, southeastern Sweden. Land cover digitized and interpreted from old cadastral maps in 1854 and 1897 and from aerial photographs in 1954 and 2006
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4289002&req=5

Fig1: Changes in broad land-use categories over four time-steps in an area of Selaön, southeastern Sweden. Land cover digitized and interpreted from old cadastral maps in 1854 and 1897 and from aerial photographs in 1954 and 2006

Mentions: In rural landscapes, humans, more specifically farmers and policy-makers, are the major drivers of structural connectivity by means of their decisions on landscape management (Kininmonth et al. 2015). Therefore, the total area of semi-natural grassland habitat, the size distribution of remnant fragments, and their physical configuration can provide an example of how humans shape the physical landscape and consequently structural habitat connectivity. Like much of agricultural Sweden, Selaön is an old cultural landscape, with continuous and relatively static human occupation for around 2000 years. Available records show that management remained quite stable until the mid-late 19th century and the beginning of the agricultural revolution (Dahlström et al. 2006). Forest grazing outside village boundaries was gradually replaced by permanent fodder production and grazing on arable fields. Mown grasslands on deep moist soils were drained and converted to arable fields, whereas grasslands on poorer soils later became afforested (Fig. 1; Dahlström et al. 2006; Cousins and Eriksson 2008). These changes are representative of the changes occurring in the surrounding region (Cousins et al. 2015).Fig. 1


The spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity in fragmented landscapes.

Auffret AG, Plue J, Cousins SA - Ambio (2015)

Changes in broad land-use categories over four time-steps in an area of Selaön, southeastern Sweden. Land cover digitized and interpreted from old cadastral maps in 1854 and 1897 and from aerial photographs in 1954 and 2006
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4289002&req=5

Fig1: Changes in broad land-use categories over four time-steps in an area of Selaön, southeastern Sweden. Land cover digitized and interpreted from old cadastral maps in 1854 and 1897 and from aerial photographs in 1954 and 2006
Mentions: In rural landscapes, humans, more specifically farmers and policy-makers, are the major drivers of structural connectivity by means of their decisions on landscape management (Kininmonth et al. 2015). Therefore, the total area of semi-natural grassland habitat, the size distribution of remnant fragments, and their physical configuration can provide an example of how humans shape the physical landscape and consequently structural habitat connectivity. Like much of agricultural Sweden, Selaön is an old cultural landscape, with continuous and relatively static human occupation for around 2000 years. Available records show that management remained quite stable until the mid-late 19th century and the beginning of the agricultural revolution (Dahlström et al. 2006). Forest grazing outside village boundaries was gradually replaced by permanent fodder production and grazing on arable fields. Mown grasslands on deep moist soils were drained and converted to arable fields, whereas grasslands on poorer soils later became afforested (Fig. 1; Dahlström et al. 2006; Cousins and Eriksson 2008). These changes are representative of the changes occurring in the surrounding region (Cousins et al. 2015).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place.Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together.In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Landscape Ecology, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, alistair.auffret@natgeo.su.se.

ABSTRACT
Connectivity is key for understanding how ecological systems respond to the challenges of land-use change and habitat fragmentation. Structural and functional connectivity are both established concepts in ecology, but the temporal component of connectivity deserves more attention. Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place. Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together. In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus