Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T18:38:52.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Landscape conservation: a new paradigm for the conservation of biodiversity

from PART V - Applications of landscape ecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2009

By
Kimberly A. With
Edited by
John A. Wiens  and
Michael R. Moss
Kimberly A. With
Affiliation:
Division of Biology Kansas State University USA
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC
Michael R. Moss
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ontario
Get access

Summary

We are in the midst of one of the greatest ecological disasters ever to befall this planet. Species are vanishing worldwide at a rate rivaling the mass extinction events chronicled in the geological record, a rate which exceeds the “normal” or expected rate of extinction by several orders of magnitude (Wilson, 1988). Unlike previous mass extinctions, however, this one has been precipitated by a single species, Homo sapiens. It is no coincidence that the global biodiversity crisis occurs at a time when landscapes are being transformed at a rate unprecedented in human history. Humans have transformed up to 50% of the land surface on the planet, such that no landscape (or “aquascape”) remains untouched by the direct or indirect effects of human activities (Vitousek et al., 1997). Habitat destruction, in the form of outright loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat, is the leading cause of the current extinction crisis (Wilcove et al., 1998). Humans are the primary drivers of landscape change, and thus the current ecological crisis is really a cultural one (Naveh, 1995; Nassauer, this volume, Chapter 27). An understanding of the factors affecting land-use decisions, which involve cultural, political, and socioeconomic dimensions, must be integrated with the ecological consequences of landscape transformation if a full rendering of the biodiversity crisis is to be had and the crisis averted. This will require a holistic approach that transcends disciplines.

Type
Chapter
Information
Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology , pp. 238 - 247
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, T. F. H. and Starr, T. B. (1982). Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. (1998). Conservation Biological Control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bunnell, F. L. and Dupuis, L. A. (1995). Conservation biology's literature revisited: wine or vinaigrette?Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23, 56–62.Google Scholar
Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A., Brown, J. H., et al. (1996). The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 6, 665–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V. H. and Haeuber, R. A. (2001). Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, V. H., Pearson, S. M., Offerman, H. L., and O'Neill, R. V. (1994). Relating patterns of land-use change to faunal biodiversity in the central Amazon. Conservation Biology, 8, 1027–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doak, D. F. and Mills, L. S. (1994). A useful role for theory in conservation. Ecology, 75, 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, J. B., Stewart, D. J., Danielson, B. J., et al. (1995). Spatially explicit population models: current forms and future uses. Ecological Applications, 5, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, T. C. Jr. 1989. The Wildlife Society and the Society for Conservation Biology: strange but unwilling bedfellows. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17, 340–343.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. H. and O'Neill, R. V. (1991). Pattern, process, and predictability: the use of neutral models for landscape analysis. In Quantitative Methods In Landscape Ecology, ed. Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. H., Milne, B. T., Turner, M. G., and O'Neill, R. V. (1987). Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 1, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. J. (ed.) (2002). Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A. J. and di Castri, F. (eds.) (1992). Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, G. R. (1994). Conservation corridors and contagious disease: a cautionary note. Conservation Biology, 8, 256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. J. (1992). The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon?Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 389–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, R. (1994). Landscape ecology and conservation: moving from description to application. Pacific Conservation Biology, 1, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, R. (1997). Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IALE, (1998). IALE mission statement. IALE Bulletin, 16, 1.(http://www.wsl.ch/land/lale/bulletin.php)Google Scholar
Jensen, M. N. and Krausman, P. R. (1993). Conservation biology's literature: new wine or just a new bottle?Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 199–203.Google Scholar
Liu, J. and Taylor, W. W. (2002). Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, C. C. and Plummer, M. L. (1995). Are wildlife corridors the right path?Science, 270, 1428–1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, B. A. (1999). Untangling Ecological Complexity: The Macroscopic Perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Naveh, Z. (1995). Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. (1983). A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience, 33, 700–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. F. (1991). Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales. In Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity, ed. Hudson, W.. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
O'Neill, R. V., DeAngeles, D. L., Waide, J. B., and Allen, T. F. H. (1986). A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Petit, L. J., Petit, D. R., and Martin, T. E. (1995). Landscape-level management of migratory birds: looking past the trees to see the forest. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23, 420–429.Google Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. and Dunning, J. B. (1997). Demographic processes: population dynamics on heterogeneous landscapes. In Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd edn, ed. Meffe, G. K. and Carroll, C. R.. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, pp. 203–232.Google Scholar
Salwasser, H. (1991). New perspectives for sustaining diversity in US national forest ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 5, 567–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. M., Davis, F., Csutin, B.et al. (1993). Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 123.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. (1988). The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 473–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. and Cox, J. (1987). Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology, 1, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., and Mehlman, D. W. (1992). Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?Conservation Biology, 6, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soulé, M. E. (ed.) (1986). Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. (1993). Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68, 571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L. (2000a). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, 90, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L. (2000b). How should we measure landscape connectivity?Landscape Ecology, 15, 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G. (1989). Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20, 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H. (eds.) (1991). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., and O'Neill, R. V. (2001). Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Urban, D. and Keitt, T. (2001). Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology, 82, 1205–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., and Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science, 277, 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A. (1992). What is landscape ecology, really?Landscape Ecology, 7, 149–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A. (1996). Wildlife in patchy environments: metapopulations, mosaics, and management. In Metapopulations and Conservation, ed. McCullough, D. R.. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A. (1997). Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. In Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution, ed. Hanski, I. A. and Gilpin, M. E.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 43–62.Google Scholar
Wiens, J. A., Stenseth, N. C., Horne, B., and Ims, R. A. (1993). Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos, 66, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcove, D. S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., and Lossos, E. (1998). Assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, over-exploitation, and disease. BioScience, 48, 607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1988). Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
With, K. A. (1997a). The theory of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 11, 1436–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. (1997b). The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 11, 1069–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. (1999). Is landscape connectivity necessary and sufficient for wildlife management? In Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Management Implications, ed. Rochelle, J. A., Lehmann, L. A, and Wisniewski, J.. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, pp. 97–115.Google Scholar
With, K. A. (2002). Using percolation theory to assess landscape connectivity and effects of habitat fragmentation. In Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation, ed. Gutzwiller, K. J.. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. and Crist, T. O. (1995). Critical thresholds in species' responses to landscape structure. Ecology, 76, 2446–2459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. and King, A. W. (1997). The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. Oikos, 79, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. and King, A. W. (1999a). Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape Ecology, 14, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. and King, A. W. (1999b). Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conservation Biology, 13, 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. and King, A. W. (2001). Analysis of landscape sources and sinks: the effect of spatial pattern on avian demography. Biological Conservation, 100, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A., Gardner, R. H., and Turner, M. G. (1997). Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos, 78, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A., Pavuk, D. M., Worchuck, J. L., Oates, R. K., and Fisher, J. L. (2002). Threshold effects of landscape structure on biological control in agroecosystems. Ecological Applications, 12, 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×