Application of landscape assessment for biodiversity conservation (the case study of
Eastern Belarus Landscape Province)
Irina P. Usava
Belarussian State University Nezalezhnasti 4, �insk, 220050 Belarus
usovairina@yahoo.co�
________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract. Over the past ti�e anthropogenic influence has greatly increased the hu�an-�ade landscapes at the expense of the natural ones. It results in losses of biological and esthetical diversity, landscape quality. I�prove�ent of landscapes quality is getting a one of the �ain ob��ective of regional planning and decision-�aking.
�he research focuses on deter�ination of landscapes, which are suitable for biodiversity conservation on the regional level. We investigate the territory of Eastern Belarus Landscape Province (23,86 thousands k�2), which is characterized by per�anent hu�an i�pacts and by predo�inance of the agricultural and agro-forestry landscapes of the secondary - �oraine and loess landscapes. �he assess�ent has been carried out within the species (vid) of natural-anthropogenic landscapes (N�L).
Landscape indexes have been calculated such as patch size, patch density, shape index, diversity index, proxi�ity and naturalness. �he assess�ent has been carried out for landscape and ecosyste� level. �ll values of landscape indexes were divided into three intervals: low, average and high. �he intervals have been scored. Criteria for landscape indexes were developed according to i�portance for biodiversity conservation. �he additional data about rare and threatened species has been added. �s a result, the �ap of suitability for biodiversity conservation has been �ade with the following classification as (1) good, (2) satisfactory and (3) not satisfactory. �he spatial analysis has been �ade using �rcView 3.2 GIS software.
key words: natural-anthropogenic landscapes, landscape assess�ent, landscape diversity, landscape �etrics, biodiversity
Introduction
Over the past ti�e anthropogenic influence has greatly increased the hu�an-�ade landscapes at the expense of the natural ones. It results in losses of biological and esthetical diversity, landscape quality. I�prove�ent of landscapes quality is getting a one of the �ain ob��ective of regional planning and decision-�aking. For exa�ple, the landscape function as provision of suitable living space for wild plants and ani�als has been broken.
�herefore, habitat conservation and �ethodologies for its assess�ent get �ore attention nowadays within the regional planning. So�e approaches de�and intensive data about species distribution, which is ti�e and data consu�ed. However, instead of using data about species, especially when these data are not presented, so�e scholars use landscape �etrics. � great variety of �etrics have been suggested, but �any of the� are Klasyfikacja krajobrazu. Teoria i praktyka. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu. 2008, t. XX. 357-363.
registered in researches �ade by Pino et al. (2000) and Honnay et al. (2003). �hus, the present knowledge of the relations between landscape structural co�ponents and landscape fuction is still insufficient to built reliable
�odels (Leitao et al. 2002). �hus, there is a necessity of specification of set of indexes, which with high degree of reliability would describe ecological properties of landscapes. �espite all these deficiencies we decided that landscape �etrics can be used as a tool to �easure biological capacity of landscapes.
In this research we checked suitability �ethodology to �easure capacity for biodiversity protection of different natural-anthropogenic landscapes for conservation planning. Since, the infor�ation about spatial distribution of species is not developed for Belarus; we applied only land use cover data. Natural-anthropogenic landscapes have been used as a suitable spatial unit for assess�ent consistent with our purpose (�artsinkevich et al.
2002). We use �etrics that indicate the biological capacity of the different natural-anthropogenic co�plexes for study area.
�he �ain ob��ectives of this paper are: to �ake classification and provide description of natural-anthropogenic landscapes of Eastern Belarus Landscape Province; to identify a suitable ecological �etrics for landscape assess�ent of biodiversity capacity for conservation planning and to produce assess�ent according to defined criteria and scores.
Data and Met�ods
We investigate the territory of Eastern Belarus Landscape Province (23,86 thousands k�2), which is characterized by per�anent hu�an i�pacts and by predo�inance of the agricultural and agro-forestry landscapes of the secondary-�oraine and loess landscapes. �he �ost part of the territory is occupied by Orsha-�ahilew plain with wavy relief and absolute heights 150-200 �. �he study area is described by high level of erosion. �he distinctive features of surface are denudated �oraine ridges and karts funers. �he cli�ate is war� and �oderately hu�id.
Forest areas take a low percent of territory. �he size of forest patches is about 10 - 15 k�2.
�he classification of natural-anthropogenic co�plexes has been �ade (�artsinkevich et al. 2002). �he following classification levels have been defined: class, subclass and species. �he structure of land use is the
�ain attribute for allocation of natural-anthropoginic co�plexes (N�L). �he class of N�L should be defined according to the do�inant type of land use. �he relative abundance of various type of land use within landscape (arable, forest-arable, etc.) and their spatial distribution (visual �osaics) are indicators for deter�ination of N�L subclasses. �he specie of landscape considers a type of econo�ic activities within natural landscape.
Six landscape �etrics were defined as particularly suitable for this study fro� the large range of available
�etrics (�cGarigal et al. 1995). �hese indexes were landscape and ecosyste� indexes: diversity index (�odified Si�pson index), shape index, landscape naturalness index, patch size, patch density and proxi�ity index (tab. 1). �he �etrics has been calculated using vector �ap and Patch �nalyst 3.2 for �rcView.
�ll values of landscape �etrics were divided into three intervals with the following scale as low, average and high. �he intervals have been scored. Finally, criteria for different landscapes indexes were developed according to i�portance for biodiversity conservation (tab. 2).
�o develop criteria for biodiversity assess�ent of ecosyste� level we identified regional significant species of plants and ani�als (Usava et al. 2007). �ll species (plants and ani�als) were ranked on habitats (size of habitats and size of �igration), according to the European classification of habitats adapted for Belarus conditions. �hese species �ostly represent forest and �eadow habitats; therefore we �ake assess�ent only for forest and �eadow ecosyste�s.
�he scores of different landscape indexes were su��arized for every spatial unit (every species of N�L).
However, finally in this research the results are presented only for sub-classes.
�s a result, the �ap of suitability for living wild ani�als and plants has been �ade with the following classification levels as (1) good, (2) satisfactory and (3) not satisfactory. �he spatial analysis has been �ade using �rcView
�able 1. �he landscape �etrics used for landscape diversity assess�ent
landscape index Formula
Landscape level
�iversity index (�odified Si�pson index)
�ean shape index
Index of landscape naturalness
Ecosyste� level (forest, �eadow)
�ean Patch Size (�PS)
Patch density (P�)
�ean Proxi�ity Index
∑
=−
= m
1 i
i2
P MSIDI ln
N a 2
p MSI
m 1 i
n 1
j 0 ij
∑∑ ij
= =
= p
= 100001 N MPS A
N h a MPI
m 1 i
n 1 j
n 1
s 2
ijs
∑∑∑ ijs
= = =
=
�able 2. Criteria for landscape assess�ent of i�portance for biodiversity conservation
Level Landscape indexes Ecosystem indexes
Indexes / values �iversity
index (1) Shape
index (2) Naturalness Index (3)
�ean patch Size (4)
Patch density (5)
Patch proxi�ity
index (6)
Low 1 1 3 1 1 1
�verage 2 2 2 2 2 2
High 3 3 1 3 3 3
Explanations:
(1) Landscapes that have greater diversity of land use types are supposed to be richer in biodiversity and hence have a higher conservation value than ho�ogeneous ones;
(2) Landscape, where co�plex patch shapes predo�inate, has �ore species richness than landscapes with straight borders influenced by intensive land uses (�oser et al., 2002);
(3) Landscape with low values of anthropogenic i�pact are characterized by better conditions for biodiversity conservation;
(4) �he largest patches have �ore biodiversity capacity than s�allest one;
(5) �he group of s�all and average-sized ecosyste�s can have greater habitats types and charaterized by higher environ�ental heteroigeneity and therefore be described by better conservation capacity (�ore species diversity);
(6) Well-connected patches are characterized by better biodiversity capacity, than the less-connected ones.
(100) A D N P =
+
= +
Water Forest
l a Agricultur Urban
log10 H A
Results
classification and description of natural-anthropogenic landscapes of eastern Belarus landscape Province
�he final classification of N�L includes five classes, 20 subclasses and 75 species (fig.1). �he agricultural- forestry landscapes prevail in structure of classes N�L and share 56,3% of the area. �gricultural landscapes occupy 25%. Recreational and forest landscape take accordingly 15,4% and 2,1%. Protected landscapes have a �ini�u� distribution (1,2%) and presented by s�all areas of local i�portance. Forestry-arable landscapes do�inate in the structure of agricultural-forestry landscape. �rable-forestry-bog N�L occupies �ini�u� territory and takes the south-east part of study area. �gricultural-forestry landscapes do�inate in the north-western, western, central and south-eastern part of Eastern Belarus Landscape Province. �hese N�L are developed within loess, secondary-�oraine and �oraine-sandr natural landscapes. �rable N�L spread in northen and southern part of the landscape province within loess and secondary-�oraine natural landscapes correspondingly. Urban- arable natural-anthropogenic landscapes present in western and eastern part of study areas within secondary-
�oraine natural landscape.
In the north-eastern and southern part of province these subclass of N�L broaden within secondary fluvial- glacial landscape and �oraine landscape with eroded hills. Pasture-�eadow and urban-�eadow-arable N�L are developed within river valleys. Pasture-arable landscape do�inates in eastern part of study areas within loess landscapes and south-eastern part – �oraine-sandr and �oraine landscape with eroded hills. Forest N�L prevails in south-eastern part of the Eastern Belarus Landscape province within secondary fluvial-glacial landscapes. �he structure of recreational N�L is diverse, that is reflected in allocation of six subclasses.
the landscape assessment for biodiversity conservation of natural-anthropogenic landscapes
�he scored data of landscape assess�ent according to the set of landscape �etrics provide infor�ation to
�ake the �ap of landscape assess�ent of biodiversity conservation of N�L (fig. 2).
�he group of landscapes, which characterized by low ecological value (unsatisfactory capacity for biodiversity conservation) includes only landscapes of agricultural class of N�L: arable, urban arable and pasture-arable landscapes. �hese N�L are described by a high proportion of arable lands and urban areas. �he diversity index (�SI�I) is low. N�L of this group distinguishes high values of anthropogenic i�pact (high and average values of naturalness index). �he territory is characterised by the si�plified shape of patches. �he average size of forests and �eadow patches describes this group of N�L. �he patch density of natural ecosyste� patches (forest and �eadows) is also average. � distance between patches of ecosyste�s specifies that forest and �eadow ecosyste�s are considerably isolated fro� each other.
Large group of agricultural, agricultural-forestry, several recreational and forestry landscapes de�onstrates satisfactory conditions for biodiversity conservation. �hese N�L are following: hay �eadow arable, pasture-
�eadow, urban-�eadow-arable, forestry-arable, urban-forestry-arable, arable-forestry-bog, arable-forestry- recreational, forestry-arable-recreational and forestry landscapes. Values of �etrics vary considerable; however the �ain rule can be described as follows. Landscapes are described by high and average values of diversity index. �verage values of �SI specify an irregular shape of patches, with exception of arable-forestry-bog, which has low values of �SI index. �he values of index of naturalness change fro� low to high. �he lowest anthropogenic i�pact describes forestry landscape, where forest lands do�inate. �he average sizes of forests and �eadows specify this group of N�L. �he density of ecosyste� patches varies considerable fro� low to high. Every class of N�L has distinctive features of ecosyste� distribution. �eadows patches for agricultural
Fig. 1. �he structure of natural-anthropogenic landscapes for Eastern Belarus Landscape Province
1. forestry-arable, 2. urban-forestry-arable, 3. arable-forestry, 4. arable-forestry-bog, 5. arable, 6. urban arable, 7.
pasture-�eadow, 8. urban-�eadow-arable, 9. hay �eadow-arable, 10. pasture-arable, 11. water-arable-recreational, 12. forestry-bog-arable-recreational, 13. forestry-bog-recreational, 14. forestry-arable-recreational, 15. forestry- recreational, 16. �eadow-forestry recreational, 17. arable-forestry-recreational, 18. forestry, 19. forestry bog, 20.
protected.
landscapes have diverse structure and therefore for these landscapes two opposite way of distribution of
�eadows and forests can be shown. For one subgroup of recreational landscapes �eadows patches are s�all and nu�erous and locate close to each other. For other subgroup of recreational landscape the size of �eadow patches is large, yet the density is low and patches are less connected with each other. Forests patches for recreational landscapes have average values of �PS and P� indexes and low values of proxi�ity index.
Forest, recreational and agricultural-forestry landscapes have high capacity for biodiversity conservation.
�hese subclasses are following: forestry-arable, forestry-bog-recreational, forestry-recreational, �eadow- forestry-recreational and forest-bog N�L. �his group of natural-anthropogenic landscapes is characterised by a high area of forest within landscape. Landscapes are described by average values of diversity with exception for forestry-recreational N�L (low value of �SI�I). Forest area do�inates for this landscape (al�ost 80% of
nu�erous (average values of patch density index) and well-connected with each other (high values of proxi�ity index). Forests patches are rather large and few (patch density index has low values) and forest areas locate close to each other (high values of proxi�ity index).
Conclusion
In this research we checked �ethodology to �easure the suitability of different N�L for biodiversity conservation purposes. �he results of this study de�onstrate the possibility of using landscape �etrics. �his approach provides opportunity to reduce so�e data proble�s, since supports to identify several �a��or attributes of the natural-anthropogenic co�plexes for biodiversity conservation only fro� land use data. �he selected landscape and class �etrics represent different landscape ecological di�entions.
Fig. 2. �he suitability assess�ent for biodiversity conservation of natural-anthropogenic landscapes for Eastern Belarus Landscape Province.
1-good, 2- satisfactory, 3- not satisfactory
�he study shows uncertain results as values of different indexes varied between N�L of the one species.
However, the final results are acceptable. �he research reveals that agricultural and agricultural-forestry landscapes still have biodiversity capacity (for exa�ple, forestry-arable subclass of N�L). However, further studies are needed to validate the �etrics for landscape assess�ent as a basis for biodiversity conservation.
�hus, landscape indexes are i�portant tool for assess�ent of capacity for biodiversity protection and for assess�ent of ecological conditions of landscapes. However, the choice of the set of indexes can be deter�ine the assess�ent of ecological values of landscapes. Further�ore, the for�at of �aps (vector or raster) and scale (regional and local) also can have high influence on the values of indexes.
Results of research can be used for the nature conservation purposes at allocation of the territories having capacity for the organisation of protected territories. Especially it is actual for the Eastern Belarus Landscape province which is characterised by the �ini�u� area of protected territories in Belarus.
References
�eutschewitz �., Lausch �., �uhns I., �lotz S., 2003. Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Ger�any. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12. 299-311.
Honnay O., Piessens �., Van Landuyt W., Her�y �., Gulinck H., 2003. Satellite based land use and landscape co�plexity indices as predictors for regional plant species diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 63.
241 – 250.
Leitao �.B., �hern, J., 2002. �pplying landscape ecological concepts and �etrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59. 65-93.
�i� �-H, Pauleit S., 2007. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: �he case of �wang��u City Region, South �orea. Land Use Policy 24. 264-274.
�artsinkevich G.I., �litsunova N.�., Schastnaya I.I., 2002. Principles of natural-antropogenic co�plexes classification �yna�ic of landscapes and proble�s and conservation and sustainable develop�ent of biodiversity, Belarusian State Pedagogic University Press: pp. 90-91. (in Russian)
�cGarigal �., �arks B.J., 1995. FR�GS���S: spatial pattern analysis progra� for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. �ech. Rep. PNW-G�R-351. Portland, OR: U.S. �epart�ent of �griculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 122.
�oser �., Zech�eister H.G., Plutzar C., Sauberer N., Wrbka �., Grabherr G., 2002. Landscape patch shape co�plexity as an effective �easure for plant species richness in rural landscape. Landscape ecology 17. 657-669.
Pino J., Roda F., Ribas J., Pons X., 2000. Landscape structure and bird species richness: i�plications for conservation in rural areas between natural parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 49. 35-48.
Usava I.P., Shushkova E.V., Ya�insky B.V., 2007. �he approach to define regionally significant species (case study: Poozerskaya and Eastern Belarus Province). I�portant issues of biodiversity conservation on the natural protected areas (in press) (in Russian).
Venturelli R.C., Galli �., 2006. Integrated indicators in environ�ental planning: �ethodological considerations and applications. Ecological Indicators 6. 228-237.
Verboo� J, Pouwels R., 2004. Ecological functioning of ecological networks: a species perspective. (In:) Jong�an R. H. G., Pungetti G. (eds). Ecological networks and greenways: concepts, design, i�ple�entation.
Ca�bridge University Press. 56-73.
Wiegand �., Revilla E., �oloney �.�., 2005. Effects of habitat loss and frag�entation on population dyna�ics.
Conservation Biology 19. 108-121.
