410 likes | 520 Vues
This research focuses on the long-term patterns of landscape heterogeneity in Kruger National Park and their relationship to changing ecosystem processes. By understanding the interactions between spatial patterns and ecological processes, we can identify functional importance at various scales. The study aims to analyze these heterogeneities to inform park management decisions and enhance ecological understanding, ensuring that natural patterns guide conservation efforts rather than administrative boundaries.
E N D
Linking long-term patterns of landscape heterogeneity to changing ecosystem processes in the Kruger National Park, South Africa Sandra MacFadyen11 PhD student and GeoSpatial Analyst, South African National Parks (sandra.macfadyen@sanparks.org) Hui C 2 and Verburg P 3 2 Supervisor, Stellenbosch University, Department of Botany & Zoology (chui@sun.ac.za)3 Co-supervisor, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Environmental Studies (peter.verburg@ivm.vu.nl)
Research Unpacked • Linking long-term patterns of landscape heterogeneity to changing ecosystem processes in the Kruger National Park, South Africa
Landscape Heterogeneity • Landscape heterogeneity is the cause and consequence of interactions between spatial patterns and ecological processes (Turner et al 2001).
< > < > 1composition (type) + 2function (process) = 3structure (pattern) @ different scales 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 MacFadyen 2010
Functional Importance • Spatial heterogeneity at a variety of scales is functionally important (Pickett et al 1999) • Without an adequate understanding of natural pattern and process, protected area managers are flying blind (Olson 2010)
….Pattern = Process = Pattern…. • Spatial pattern affect ecological processes, which in response affects spatial patterns. • Natural spatial patterns should guide management decisions not unnatural administrative boundaries (Leitão et al 2006) Use pattern to decipher process Bailey 2009
Research Objectives • ID patterns of heterogeneity at different scales. • ID processes responsible for these patterns. • Investigate dynamics of pattern and process. • Management implications.
OBJECTIVE 2 ID processes <=> Patterns OBJECTIVE 1 ID landscape heterogeneity patterns ∆ scales OBJECTIVE 3 Dynamics of Pattern & process OBJECTIVE 4 Management Implications 1972 2010
INTRODUCTION South African National Parks Mabunda et al. 2003
INTRODUCTION Kruger National Park
INTRODUCTION History of Change
CHAPTER 1 Chapter 1 Landscape Metrics Band Combination spectral variance Ancillary Data topography geology rainfall Image Classification Spectral Heterogeneity Inter-calibrated MSS TM ETM+ object spectral entropy
CHAPTER 1 What constitutes a Landscape
What constitutes a Landscape Landform (geology + topographic elements) +> climate <=> ecological processes <=> vegetation and animal response <=+> disturbance Wiens (1999)
Landscape Schematic HABITAT SOIL MOVEMENT OF WATER elevation regime slope + CLIMATE local weather LANDFORM aspect microclimate geology HABITAT
FLORA FAUNA HABITAT HABITAT SOIL MOVEMENT OF WATER elevation regime slope + CLIMATE local weather LANDFORM aspect microclimate geology HABITAT HABITAT
DISTURBANCES FLORA FAUNA HABITAT HABITAT HABITAT SOIL MOVEMENT OF WATER elevation regime slope + CLIMATE local weather LANDFORM aspect microclimate geology HABITAT HABITAT
CHAPTER 1 • Topography • Geology • Soil • Rainfall • Temperature • Flora • Fauna
LANDSAT ETM+ 10 May 2000 False-color composite
LANDSAT ETM+ 10 May 2000 False-color composite
LANDSAT ETM+ 10 May 2000 False-color composite
LANDSAT ETM+ 10 May 2000 True-color composite
LANDSAT ETM+ 10 May 2000 Panchromatic
CHAPTER 1 Limitations of Data • Scale: Extent and Resolution • Horizontal and Vertical structure
CHAPTER 1 Difference of Scale Elephant Elephant Shrew VS.
CHAPTER 1 Horizontal and Vertical
CHAPTER 2 Chapter 2 Landscape Metrics Drivers and/or Responders Ecological Processes animal movement population distribution fire frequency rainfall Spectral Heterogeneity
CHAPTER 2 Exclusion Experiments Inside vs. Outside: What is different/missing?
CHAPTER 3 Chapter 3 1972 Landscape Metrics diversify Spectral Heterogeneity Kruger National Park Landscapes homogenize 2010 greatest change
LANDSAT ETM+ False-color composite 2000
LANDSAT TM False-color composite 1984
CHAPTER 4 Chapter 4 ? areas which have diversified over 38yrs ? Kruger National Park Landscapes areas which have homogenized over 38yrs ? areas which have under gone greatest change over 38yrs
CHAPTER 4 Application of Results • Philosophically • Theoretically • Practically • KNP management plan
Thank you Questions?
Notes to myself • Be clear about what elements of landscape heterogeneity are being measured • What metrics and why. How will I decide what indices prove useful and how will I know if a changed index is important to ecosystem functioning. • Develop causal diagram to explain how factors interact, how will I investigate relationships and what data to use • Be clear about auto-correlation and spatial variability (e.g. within satellite image) • Be more specific about scale (explain extent vs. grain) • Stress natural systems when talking about ecological importance of heterogeneity (e.g. fragmentation=bad) • Be clear about what aspects of function will be addressed • NB to explain and defend image classification technique and add sensitivity tests • Can I test the validity of the statement, “ greater landscape heterogeneity provides increased ecosystem resilience and higher species richness”? • Add general explanation of landscape trend analysis • NB to explain why each time I describe how i.e why a certain technique/statistic