4.7 Article

The influence of forest definition on landscape fragmentation assessment in Rondonia, Brazil

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 1163-1168

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.001

关键词

Thematic resolution; Tropical deforestation; Landscape metrics; Amazon basin; GRASS/r.le software

资金

  1. Research Council of the University of Antwerp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Estimates of tropical deforestation and forest degradation are misleading, partly because different studies make use of different forest definitions. This paper investigates the influence of this confusion on the assessment of forest extent and its spatial distribution, by means of fine-scaled land cover maps and landscape metrics. The state of Rondonia, Brazil, located in the southwestern part of the Amazon basin and known for its fishbone-like pattern of deforestation, is used as a Study area. A 1:250 000 vector data product from the Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE), describing the land cover type in a three-step hierarchy specifying canopy density, topography, and dominant life forms, was rasterized and analyzed. Forest subcategories were aggregated into a seven level gradient, ranging from a level that is very specific and only includes dense multi-layered rain forest, to less strict levels containing open forest systems, secondary vegetation, and tree savannas. We show that there is a consistent difference between the initial class aggregation level, and all other levels, which gradually broaden the forest definition and are characterized by very distinct ecological parameters, such as a higher mean patch size, increased levels of landscape connectivity and slightly more irregularly shaped patches. We recommend a harmonization of the major forest definitions in use today, while taking care not to lose the relevant ecological information that can be extracted from its most detailed classification level. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据