Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5532/KJAFM.2014.16.2.93

Comparing Connectivity in Forest Networks of Seven Metropolitan Cities of South Korea  

Kang, Wanmo (Forest Ecology Division, Korea Forest Research Institute)
Kim, Jiwon (Forest Ecology Division, Korea Forest Research Institute)
Park, Chan-Ryul (Forest Ecology Division, Korea Forest Research Institute)
Sung, Joo Han (Forest Ecology Division, Korea Forest Research Institute)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology / v.16, no.2, 2014 , pp. 93-102 More about this Journal
Abstract
This quantitative research aims to examine the connectivity of forest networks in seven metropolitan cities of South Korea using a graph-theoretical approach. We first estimated an overall network connectivity at multi-scales (i.e., dispersal distances), ranging from 100 m to 20 km, and quantified the contribution of small forest patches (less than 10 ha) to the overall network connectivity by comparing networks according to the presence and absence of small ones. As a result, the cities were divided into two groups depending on the network connectivity; one group of cities with high connectivity such as Daegu, Daejeon, and Ulsan and the other group of cities with low connectivity including Gwangju, Busan, Seoul, and Incheon. The result showed that small forest patches, especially in the cities with low connectivity, played a key role as stepping stones that connect large forested patches, thereby contributing to maintaining connectivity. This study also suggests that large and well-connected forest areas may be the key factor to preserve the connectivity in the cities with high connectivity, while the cites with low connectivity are in need of some complementary strategies. Through the study, we suggest that the creation of new forest patches in the areas where a gap in connectivity presents is needed in order to improve connectivity; and that the conservation of the existing small forest patches is essential in order to maintain the current connectivity level.
Keywords
Dispersal distance; Graph theory; Landscape connectivity; Urbanization;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Bennett, A. F., 2003: Linkages in the landscape: The role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom, 254pp.
2 Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar, 1999: Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29(2), 293-301.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Cain, M. L., B. G. Milligan, and A. E. Strand, 2000: Longdistance seed dispersal in plant populations. American Journal of Botany 87(9), 1217-1227.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Chae, J. H., J. S. Kim, and T. H. Koo, 2004: The relation of species number of bird to the urban biotope area in Seoul. Korean Journal of Environmental Ecology 17(4), 375-382.   과학기술학회마을
5 Cheplick, G. P., 1998: Seed dispersal and seedling establishment in grass populations. Population biology of grasses, G. P. Cheplick (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 84-105.
6 Soule, M. E., 1986: Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 584pp.
7 Sutherland, G., A. Harestad, K. Price and K. Lertzman, 2000: Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conservation Ecology 4(1), 16.   DOI
8 Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein and G. Merriam, 1993: Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68, 571-573.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Theobald, D. M., 2001: Topology revisited: Representing spatial relations. International Journal of Geogrphical Information Science 15(8), 689-705.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Urban, D., E. Minor, E. Treml and R. Schick, 2009: Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecological Letters 12(3), 260-273.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Urban, D., and T. Keitt, 2001: Landscape connectivity: A graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82, 1205-1218.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Yu, D., B. Xun. P. Shi, H. Shao and Y. Liu, 2012: Ecological restoration planning based on connectivity in an urban area. Ecological Engineering 46, 24-33.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Miller, R.W., 1997: Urban forestry: Planning and managing urban greenspaces (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall, New York, 502pp.
14 Laita, A., J. S. Kotiaho and M. Monkkonen, 2011: Graphtheoretic connectivity measures: What do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecology 26(7), 951-967.   DOI
15 McKinney, M. L., 2002: Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52(10), 883-890.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 McKinney, M. L., 2006: Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127(3), 247-260.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Minor, E. and D. Urban, 2008: A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology 22(2), 297-307.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Minor, E. and T. Lookingbill, 2010: A multiscale network analysis of protected-area connectivity for mammals in the United States. Conservation Biology 24(6), 1549-1558.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Nathan, R., 2001: Dispersal biogeography. Encyclopedia of biodiversity, S. A. Levin (Ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, 127-152.
20 Norberg, J. and G. S. Cumming, 2008: Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York. 312pp.
21 Park C. R. and W. S. Lee, 2000: Relationship between species composition and area in breeding birds of urban woods in Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Planning 51(1), 29-36.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Saura, S. and L. Pascual-Hortal, 2007: A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 91-103.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Pascual-Hortal, L. and S. Saura, 2006: Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: Towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecology 21(7), 959-967.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Sauer, J. D., 1988: Plant migration: The dynamics of geographic patterning in seed plant species. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA, 298pp.
25 Saura, S. and J. Torne, 2009: Short communication: Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling and Software 24(1), 135-139.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Fahrig, L., 1998: When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecological Modelling 105, 273-292.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Hanski, I., 1999: Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87(2), 209-219.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Clergeau, P., and F. Burel, 1997: The role of spatio-temporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: An example in a bird distribution. Landscape and Urban Planning 38, 37-43.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Donnelly, R., and J. Marzluff, 2006: Relative importance of habitat quantity, structure, and spatial pattern to birds in urbanizing environments. Urban Ecosystems 9(2), 99-117.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Hilty, J., W. Lidicker, A. Merenlender, and A. Dobson, 2006: Corridor ecology: The science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 344pp.
31 Kang, W. M., and C. R. Park, 2011: Quantitative analysis of Seoul green space network with the application of graph theory. Korean Journal of Environmental Ecology 25(3), 412-420. (in Korean with English abstract)   과학기술학회마을
32 Honnay, O., H. Jacquemyn, B. Bossuyt, and M. Hermy, 2005: Forest fragmentation effects on patch occupancy and population viability of herbaceous plant species. New Phytologist 166, 723-736.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Jeon, S. W., J. Y. Chun, H. C. Seong, W. K. Song, and J. H. Park, 2010: A study on the setting criteria and management area for the national ecological network. Journal of the Korea Society of Environmental Restoration Technology 13(5), 154-171. (in Korean with English abstract)   과학기술학회마을
34 Jordano, P., C. Garcia, J. A. Godoy, and J. L. Garcia- Castano, 2007: Differential contribution of frugivores to complex seed dispersal patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United states 104(9), 3278-3282.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Keitt, T. and D. Urban, 1997: Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology 1(1), 4.
36 Kong, F., H. Yin, N. Nakagoshi, and Y. Zong, 2010: Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landscape and Urban Planning 95, 16-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Korea Forest Service, 2013: Alteration of master plan on urban forests for the realization of Forests of Urban, Urban of Forests. 81pp. (in Korean)
38 Andren, H., 1994: Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71, 355-366.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Belisle, M., 2005: Measuring landscape connectivity: The challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86, 1988-1995.   DOI   ScienceOn