当前位置: X-MOL 学术Landsc. Urban Plan. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The influence of model frameworks in spatial planning of regional climate-adaptive connectivity for conservation planning
Landscape and Urban Planning ( IF 7.9 ) Pub Date : 2021-06-17 , DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104169
Hyeyeong Choe , Annika T.H. Keeley , D. Richard Cameron , Melanie Gogol-Prokurat , Lee Hannah , Patrick R. Roehrdanz , Carrie A. Schloss , James H. Thorne

Landscape connectivity improves species’ capacity to adapt to climate change. These models are increasingly needed and available for climate-change conservation planning. However, their relative strengths and weaknesses are unclear. We asked how well do the spatial outputs from four connectivity models intended to support climate change conservation agree? To understand the implications of selecting one or several approaches, we compared various combinations of four connectivity models for ecoregions in California, U.S.A. Two models are based on landscape structure, Land Facet Corridors and Omniscape, while two other models, Meta-Corridor Approach and Network Flow Analysis (NFA), use focal species’ range dynamics to determine connectivity. We also describe how each approach integrates climate-adaptive connectivity concepts. Variation in modeling methods, objectives, inputs, and landscape representations strongly affects the modeled connectivity patterns. For the region where all four models were run, almost three quarters of the landscape was selected by one or more models, but three or more agree for only 9.5% of the area, all of which is riparian. This emphasizes the importance of riparian areas for climate adaptation. We found NFA prioritized connections close to protected areas, while Meta-Corridor avoided higher cost agricultural and developed areas. The structural models agreed in areas with low human impact but Omniscape avoided areas of low topographic diversity and Land Facet Corridors avoided connections in areas with no protected areas.

Connectivity models should be selected based on the conservation objectives, such as spatial scale to be implemented, and a combination of models may be best.



中文翻译:

模式框架对保护规划区域气候适应性连通空间规划的影响

景观连通性提高了物种适应气候变化的能力。这些模型越来越需要和可用于气候变化保护规划。然而,它们的相对优势和劣势尚不清楚。我们询问了旨在支持气候变化保护的四种连通性模型的空间输出是否一致?为了了解选择一种或几种方法的含义,我们比较了美国加利福尼亚州生态区的四种连通性模型的各种组合 两种模型基于景观结构,Land Facet Corridors 和 Omniscape,而另外两种模型,Meta-Corridor Approach 和 Network流动分析 (NFA),使用焦点物种的范围动态来确定连通性。我们还描述了每种方法如何整合气候适应性连接概念。建模方法、目标、输入和景观表示的变化强烈影响建模的连接模式。对于所有四个模型都运行的区域,几乎四分之三的景观是由一个或多个模型选择的,但三个或三个以上的模型只选择了 9.5% 的区域,所有这些都是河岸的。这强调了沿岸地区对气候适应的重要性。我们发现 NFA 优先考虑靠近保护区的连接,而元走廊则避开了成本较高的农业和发达地区。结构模型在人类影响低的地区达成一致,但 Omniscape 避免了地形多样性低的地区,而陆地面廊则避免了没有保护区的地区的连接。对于所有四个模型都运行的区域,几乎四分之三的景观是由一个或多个模型选择的,但三个或三个以上的模型只选择了 9.5% 的区域,所有这些都是河岸的。这强调了沿岸地区对气候适应的重要性。我们发现 NFA 优先考虑靠近保护区的连接,而元走廊则避免了成本较高的农业和发达地区。结构模型在人类影响低的地区达成一致,但 Omniscape 避免了地形多样性低的地区,而陆地面廊则避免了没有保护区的地区的连接。对于所有四个模型都运行的区域,几乎四分之三的景观是由一个或多个模型选择的,但三个或三个以上的模型只选择了 9.5% 的区域,所有这些都是河岸的。这强调了沿岸地区对气候适应的重要性。我们发现 NFA 优先考虑靠近保护区的连接,而元走廊则避免了成本较高的农业和发达地区。结构模型在人类影响低的地区达成一致,但 Omniscape 避免了地形多样性低的地区,而陆地面廊则避免了没有保护区的地区的连接。这强调了沿岸地区对气候适应的重要性。我们发现 NFA 优先考虑靠近保护区的连接,而元走廊则避免了成本较高的农业和发达地区。结构模型在人类影响低的地区达成一致,但 Omniscape 避免了地形多样性低的地区,而陆地面廊则避免了没有保护区的地区的连接。这强调了沿岸地区对气候适应的重要性。我们发现 NFA 优先考虑靠近保护区的连接,而元走廊则避免了成本较高的农业和发达地区。结构模型在人类影响低的地区达成一致,但 Omniscape 避免了地形多样性低的地区,而陆地面廊则避免了没有保护区的地区的连接。

应根据保护目标选择连通性模型,例如要实施的空间尺度,模型组合可能是最好的。

更新日期:2021-06-18
down
wechat
bug