Quantifying the Changes in Persian Gazelle Habitat in Shirahmad Wildlife Refuge Using Landscape Ecological Metrics

Document Type : Animal environment

Authors

School of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran

Abstract

Today, pristine nature and remote habitats from human impacts have become very rare. Establishing protected areas is a conscious effort to support the last survivors of biodiversity, which more or less maintains their natural characteristics in the current unsustainable state of developments. The capability of the landscape ecological approach to trace ecological processes throughout a vast spectrum of spatio-temporal scales with special attention to cultural impacts, make it possible to understand the real consequences of human activities and their related planning efforts. In the present research, in a ten-year period of time from 2006 to 2016, the changes in Shirahmad Wildlife Refuge landscape has been investigated in order to determine the effects on Persian gazelle habitat. For this purpose, after preparing and processing satellite images of the studied area, land coverage maps for this region were extracted, for the specified period of investigation. Then, in order to quantify the changes in the Persian gazelle habitat, landscape ecological metrics were calculated. The results of metrics calculating indicate an increase in the area and continuity in the Haloxylon and Tamarix trees besides reduction in area and fragmentation and changes in shapes and number of patches in rangelands, salt marshes and agricultural land covers which is mainly due to the emergence of villages and residential areas and human activities such as overgrazing and natural causes like drought.    

Keywords

References

  1. Antrop, M., 2000. Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Vol. 77, pp: 17-28.
  2. Coppin, P.; Jonckheere, I.; Nackaerts, K.; Muys, B. and Lambin, E., 2004. Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review. Remote Sensing. Vol. 25. No. 9. pp: 1565-1596.
  3. Erickson, S.L. and King, B.J., 1999. Fundamentals of Environmental Management. John Wiley & Sons inc.
    USA. 352 p.
  4. Farina, A., 2009. Ecology, Cognition & Landscape; Linking Natural and Social System. Springer, NewYork. 161 p.
  5. Forman, R.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 632 p.
  6. Herzog, F.; Lausch,A.; Müller,E.; Thulke,H.; Steinhardt, U. and Lehmann, S., 2001. Landscape metrics for the assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation.  Environmental Management. Vol.  27, No. 1, pp: 91-107.
  7. Jowkar,H.;Ostrowski,S.;Tahbaz, M.andZahler,P., 2016. The Conservation of Biodiversity in Iran: Threats, Challenges and Hopes. Iranian Studies. Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 1065-1077.
  8. Leitao, A.B. and Ahern, J., 2002. Applying Landscape Ecological Concepts and Metrics in Sustainable Landscape Planning. Landscape & Urban Planninig. Vol.  59, pp: 65-93.
  9. Mallon, D.P., 2008. Gazella subgutturosa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008. e. T8976A12945246. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T8976A129452.en. s.l.: IUCN.
  10. Margules, C.R. and Pressy, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. Vol. 405, pp: 243-253.
  11. Mc Neely, J.A., 1994. Protected Area in the Modern World. Protecting Nature, Regional Reviews of Protected Area. IUCN/IV World Congress.
  12. Oldfield, T.E.E.; Smith, R.J.; Harrop, S.R. and Leader, W.N., 2004. A gap analysis of terrestrial protected areas in England and its implications for conservation policy. Biological Conservation. Vol. 120, pp: 303-309.
  13. Salem, B.B., 2003. Application of GIS to biodiversity monitoring. J of arid environments. Vol. 54, pp: 91-114.
  14. Tso, B. and Mather, P.M., 2001. Classification methods for remotely sensed data. Taylor and Francis. New York. 356 p.
Journal of Animal Environment
Volume 10, Issue 3
October 2018
Pages 9-16

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics