Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:54:41.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Optimization of landscape pattern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2010

By
John Hof and
Curtis Flather
Edited by
Jianguo Wu and
Richard J. Hobbs
John Hof
Affiliation:
US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
Curtis Flather
Affiliation:
US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
Jianguo Wu
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Richard J. Hobbs
Affiliation:
Murdoch University, Western Australia
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Wu and Hobbs (2002) state that:

A fundamental assumption in landscape ecology is that spatial patterns have significant influences on the flows of materials, energy, and information while processes create, modify, and maintain spatial patterns. Thus, it is of paramount importance in both theory and practice to address the questions of landscape pattern optimization …For example, can landscape patterns be optimized in terms of both the composition and configuration of patches and matrix characteristics for purposes of biodiversity conservation, ecosystem management, and landscape sustainability?

Physical restructuring of landscapes by humans is a prominent stress on ecological systems (Rapport et al. 1985). Landscape restructuring occurs primarily from land-use conversions or alteration of native habitats through natural resource management. A common faunal response to such land-use intensification is an increased dominance of opportunistic species leading to an overall erosion of biological diversity (Urban et al. 1987). Slowing the loss of biodiversity in managed systems will require interdisciplinary planning efforts that meld analysis approaches from several fields including landscape ecology, conservation biology, and management science. Again from Wu and Hobbs (2002), “Such studies are likely to require theories and methods more than those in traditional operations research (e.g., different types of mathematical programming), as well as the participation of scientists and practitioners in different arenas.”

The objective of this chapter is to review emerging methods from this set of disciplines that allow analysts to make explicit recommendations (prescriptions) concerning the placement of different features in managed landscapes.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Key Topics in Landscape Ecology , pp. 143 - 160
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, L. J. S. 1983. Persistence and extinction in single-species reaction–diffusion models. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 45, 209–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G. and Wooster, D.. 1995. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 236–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, T. M., Gilless, J. K., and Davis, L. S.. 1998. Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions. Forest Science 44, 569–77.Google Scholar
Bettinger, P., Sessions, J. and Boston, K.. 1997. Using tabu search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game. Ecological Modelling 42, 111–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, W. M., Morrison, M. L., Verner, J., and Manley, P. N.. 1994. Assessing wildlife–habitat–relationships models: a case study with California oak woodlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 22, 549–61.Google Scholar
Boston, K. 1999. Review: spatial optimization for managed ecosystems. Forest Science 45, 595.Google Scholar
Boston, K. and Bettinger, P.. 1999. An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing, and tabu search heuristics for solving spatial harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 45, 292–301.Google Scholar
Calkin, D. E., Montgomery, C. A., Schumaker, N. H., et al. 2002. Developing a production possibility set of wildlife species persistence and timber harvest value. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32, 1329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R. 1990. Large-scale perturbations: opportunities for innovation. Ecology 71, 2038–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clobert, J., Danchin, E., Dhondt, A. A., and Nichols, J. D. (eds.). 2001. Dispersal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conroy, M. J. 1993. The use of models in natural resource management: prediction, not prescription. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 58, 509–19.Google Scholar
Conroy, M. J., Cohen, Y., James, F. C., Matsinos, Y. G., and M. B. A, . 1995. Parameter estimation, reliability, and model improvement for spatially explicit models of animal populations. Ecological Applications 5, 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roos, A. M. and Sabelis, M. W.. 1995. Why does space matter? In a spatial world it is hard to see the forest before the trees. Oikos 74, 347–8.Google Scholar
Fahrig, L. 1991. Simulation methods for developing general landscape-level hypotheses of single-species dynamics. Pages 416–42 in Turner, M. G. and Gardner, R. H. (eds.). Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61, 603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrig, L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival?Ecological Modelling 105, 273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falcao, A. O. and Borges, J.. 2001. Combining random and systematic search heuristic procedures for solving spatially constrained forest management scheduling models. Forest Science 48, 608–21.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. H. and Wiens, J. A.. 1999. Models and reality: time–energy trade-offs in pectoral sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) migration. Ecology 80, 2566–80.Google Scholar
Fischer, D. T. and Church, R. L.. 2003. Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model. Forest Science 49, 555–65.Google Scholar
Flather, C. H., Wilson, K. R., Dean, D. J., and McComb, W. C.. 1997. Identifying gaps in conservation networks: of indicators and uncertainty in geographic-based analyses. Ecological Applications 7, 531–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, H. G. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, R. G., Cypher, B., Kelly, P. A., et al. 2002. Optimizing habitat protection using demographic models of population viability. Conservation Biology 16, 1386–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, R. G. and Travis, L. E.. 1997. Wildlife conservation planning using stochastic optimization and importance sampling. Forest Science 43, 129–39.Google Scholar
Hansson, L. and Angelstam, P.. 1991. Landscape ecology as a theoretical basis for nature conservation. Landscape Ecology 5, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargrove, W. W. and Pickering, J.. 1992. Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 6, 251–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. and Bruna, E.. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure?Ecography 22, 225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havens, K. E. and Aumen, N. G.. 2000. Hypothesis-driven experimental research is necessary for natural resource management. Environmental Management 25, 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Hill, M. F. and Caswell, H.. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds on fractal landscapes. Ecological Letters 2, 121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hof, J. and Bevers, M.. 1998. Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hof, J. and Bevers, M.. 2002. Spatial Optimization in Ecological Applications. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hof, J. and Raphael, M. G.. 1997. Optimization of habitat placement: a case study of the Northern Spotted Owl in the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications 7, 1160–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jager, H. I. and Gross, L. J.. 2000. Spatial control: the final frontier in applied ecology (a book review of Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems). Ecology 81, 1473–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kierstead, H. and Slobodkin, L. B.. 1953. The size of water masses containing plankton blooms. Journal of Marine Research 12, 141–7.Google Scholar
Lande, R. 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial populations. American Naturalist 130, 624–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loehle, C. 1999. Optimizing wildlife habitat mitigation with a habitat defragmentation algorithm. Forest Ecology and Management 120, 245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., Gaines, S. D., and Andelman, S.. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13, S3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNally, R. and Fleishman, E.. 2002. Using “indicator” species to model species richness: model development and predictions. Ecological Applications 12, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martell, D., Gunn, E., and Weintraub, A.. 1998. Forest management challenges for operational researchers. European Journal of Operations Research 104, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, M. L., Timossi, I. C., and With, K. A.. 1987. Development and testing of linear regression models predicting bird-habitat relationships. Journal of Wildlife Management 51, 247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, A. T. and Church, R. L.. 1995. Heuristic approaches to operational forest planning problems. OR Spektrum 17, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalle, D. J., Arthur, J. L., and Sessions, J.. 2002. Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic algorithm. Forest Science 48, 59–68.Google Scholar
Nevo, A. and Garcia, L.. 1996. Spatial optimization of wildlife habitat. Ecological Modelling 91, 271–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noon, B., K. McKelvey, and D. Murphy. 1997. Developing an analytical context for multispecies conservation planning. Pages 43–59 in Pickett, S. T. A., Ostfeld, R. S., Shachak, M., and Likens, G. E. (eds.). The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onal, H. and Briers, R. A.. 2002. Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269, 2437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onal, H. and R. A. Briers. 2003. Selection of a minimum boundary reserve network using integer programming. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London270, 1487–91.
Polasky, S., Camm, J. D., and Garber-Yonts, B.. 2001. Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Economics 77, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Possingham, H., I. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. Pages 291–306 in Ferson, S. and Burgman, M. (eds.). Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pressey, R. L., Humphries, C. J., Margules, C. R., Vane-Wright, R. I., and Williams, P. H.. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 124–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapport, D. J., Regier, H. A., and Hutchinson, T. C.. 1985. Ecosystem behavior under stress. American Naturalist 125, 617–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, C. R. 1993. Modern Heuristic Techniques for Combinatorial Problems. New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
Reid, W. V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 275–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodrigues, A. S. L. and Gaston, K. J.. 2002. Optimisation in reserve selection procedures: why not?Biological Conservation 107, 123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J., and Margules, C. R.. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5, 18–32.CrossRefGoogle 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
Skellum, J. G. 1951. Random dispersal in theoretical populations. Biometrika 38, 196–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toregas, C. and ReVelle, C.. 1973. Binary logic solutions to a class of location problems. Geographical Analysis 5, 145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trzcinski, M. K., Fahrig, L., and Merriam, G.. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9, 586–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turchin, P. 1998. Quantitative Analysis of Movement: Measuring and Modeling Population Redistribution in Animals and Plants. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Turner, M. G., Arthaud, G. J., Engstrom, R. T., et al. 1995. Usefulness of spatially explicit population models in land management. Ecological Applications 5, 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban, D. L., O'Neill, R. V., and Shugart, H. H.. 1987. Landscape ecology. BioScience 37, 119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, W., Ordway, F. I. III, and Dooling, D.. 1985. Space Travel: A History, 4th edn. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Walters, C. J. and Holling, C. S.. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 2060–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennergren, U., Ruckelshaus, M., and Kareiva, P.. 1995. The promise and limitations of spatial models in conservation biology. Oikos 74, 349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. C. and ReVelle, C. S.. 1997. Applying mathematical programming to reserve selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2, 167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. C., ReVelle, C. S., and Levin, S. A.. 2004. Using mathematical optimization models to design nature reserves. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2, 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A. and Crist, T. O.. 1995. Critical thresholds in species' responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76, 2446–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, J. and Hobbs, R.. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17, 355–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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.

  • Optimization of landscape pattern
    • By John Hof, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA, Curtis Flather, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
  • Edited by Jianguo Wu, Arizona State University, Richard J. Hobbs, Murdoch University, Western Australia
  • Book: Key Topics in Landscape Ecology
  • Online publication: 12 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618581.009
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.

  • Optimization of landscape pattern
    • By John Hof, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA, Curtis Flather, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
  • Edited by Jianguo Wu, Arizona State University, Richard J. Hobbs, Murdoch University, Western Australia
  • Book: Key Topics in Landscape Ecology
  • Online publication: 12 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618581.009
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.

  • Optimization of landscape pattern
    • By John Hof, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA, Curtis Flather, US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA
  • Edited by Jianguo Wu, Arizona State University, Richard J. Hobbs, Murdoch University, Western Australia
  • Book: Key Topics in Landscape Ecology
  • Online publication: 12 January 2010
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618581.009
Available formats
×