Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative ecological network pattern analysis: a case of Nanchang

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban–ecological landscape connectivity and pattern optimization can significantly enhance biodiversity and sustainable development capacity, which play an important role in continued ecosystem functioning. Previous studies identified ecological sources based on the area threshold method or combination with morphological spatial pattern analysis and the landscape connectivity index (CMSPACI) method, but few studies have compared the advantages, disadvantages, and applicability of the two methods. In this paper, taking Nanchang as the study area, we address the ecological sources via area threshold and the CMSPACI method. Then, the minimum cost distance method is used to generate potential corridors of different methods, and the differences in ecological networks are analyzed. Finally, the circuit theory is used to identify barriers, and we provide targeted recommendations for ecological network pattern optimization in the study area. The results show that (1) the ecological sources extracted by different methods are different. The ecological sources extracted by the area threshold are far away from the surrounding sources, and the landscape connectivity is low. The ecological sources identified by the CMSPACI method are closely related to the surrounding sources, and the landscape connectivity is high. (2) Compared with the area threshold method, the habitat quality of corridors under the CMSPACI method is better, and the interaction intensity between patches is larger. (3) There is little difference in the number of ecological barriers under different methods; all of them are located between patches or on the edge of patches, and most of them are roads or construction land. Overall, the area threshold method is simpler. Ecological sources can be effectively addressed through the CMSPACI method, and the landscape connectivity of the ecological network will be better. This study provides an important reference for the selection of ecological sources in the construction of ecological networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during the current study are presented in this article. Raw data will be also accessible from the author group if requested.

References

  • Bruinderink GG, Sluis T, Lammertsma D, Opdam P, Pouwels R (2010) Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in Northwestern Europe. Conserv Biol 17(2):549–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlier J, Moran J (2018) Landscape typology and ecological connectivity assessment to inform Greenway design. Sci Total Environ 651:3241–3252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chi Y, Xie Z, Wang J (2019) Establishing archipelagic landscape ecological network with full connectivity at dual spatial scales. Ecol Model 399:54–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clerici N, Vogt P (2013) Ranking European regions as providers of structural riparian corridors for conservation and management purposes. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 21:477–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui L, Wang J, Sun L, Lv C (2020) Construction and optimization of green space ecological networks in urban fringe areas: a case study with the urban fringe area of Tongzhou district in Beijing. J Clean Prod 276:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalang T, Hersperger AM (2012) Trading connectivity improvement for area loss in patch-based biodiversity reserve networks. Biol Conserv 148(1):116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong JQ, Peng J, Liu YX, Qiu SJ, Han YN (2020) Integrating spatial continuous wavelet transform and kernel density estimation to identify ecological corridors in megacities. Landsc Urban Plan 199:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta T, Sharma S, Mcrae BH, Roy PS, Defries R (2016) Connecting the dots: mapping habitat connectivity for tigers in central India. Reg Environ Chang 16:53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epps CW, Mutayoba BM, Gwin L, Brashares JS (2011) An empirical evaluation of the African elephant as a focal species for connectivity planning in East Africa. Divers Distrib 17(4):603–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist BE, Buhle ER, Baldwin DH, Spromberg JA, Damm SE, Davis JW, Scholz NL (2017) Roads to ruin: conservation threats to a sentinel species across an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 27:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong SH, Han BH, Choi SH, Chan YS, Lee KJ (2013) Planning an ecological network using the predicted movement paths of urban birds. Landsc Ecol Eng 9(1):165–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal PL, Saura S (2007) Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Landsc Urban Plan 83(2-3):176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RHG, Mart K, Kristiansen L (2004) European ecological networks and greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 68(2–3):305–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordán F, Báldi A, Orci KM, Rácz I, Varga Z (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landsc Ecol 18(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knaapen JP, Scheffer M, Harms B (1992) Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning - ScienceDirect. Landsc Urban Plan 23(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong F, Yin H, Nakagoshi N, Zong Y (2010) Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc Urban Plan 95(1-2):16–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landsc Ecol 26(7):951–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li XQ, Wang MZ, Liu XJ, Chen ZA, Wei XJ, Che WT (2018) MCR-modified CA–Markov model for the simulation of urban expansion. Sustainability 10(9):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Li J (2008) Scientific solutions for the functional zoning of nature reserves in China. Ecol Model 215(1-3):237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malekmohammadi B, Blouchi LR (2014) Ecological risk assessment of wetland ecosystems using multi criteria decision making and geographic information system. Ecol Indic: Integrating Monit Assess Manag 41:133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcrae B, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(50):19885–19890

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McRae B, Hall SA, Beier P, Theobald D (2012) Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One 7:1–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mikel G, Lozano PJ, Gabriel DB (2010) GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning. J Nat Conserv 18(4):318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Urban D (2010) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol J Soc Conserv Biol 22(2):297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolakaki P (2004) A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches. Landsc Urban Plan 68(1):77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Steingröver E, Rooij SV (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 399:54–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21(7):959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng J, Liu YX, Liu ZC, Yang Y (2017) Mapping spatial non-stationarity of human-natural factors associated with agricultural landscape multifunctionality in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 246:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng J, Liu YX, Liu ZC, Yang Y (2018) Linking ecological degradation risk to identify ecological security patterns in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Habitat Int 71:110–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng J, Wang A, Luo LW, Liu YX, Li HL, Hu YN, Meersmans J, Wu JS (2019) Spatial identification of conservation priority areas for urban ecological land: an approach based on water ecosystem services. Land Degrad Dev 30:683–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock MGO, Evans DM, Memmott J (2012) The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks. Science 335(6071):973–977

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33(3):523–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83(2007):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Vogt P, Velázquez J, Hernando A, Tejera R (2011) Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses[J]. For Ecol Manag 262(2):150–160

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein KM, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Théau J, Bernier A, Fournier RA (2015) An evaluation framework based on sustainability-related indicators for the comparison of conceptual approaches for ecological networks. Ecol Indic 52:444–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YH, Yang KC, Bridgman CL, Lin LK (2008) Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity. Landsc Ecol 23(8):989–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Zhang B, Liu Y, Liu Y, Xu S, Zhao Y, Chen Y, Hong S (2020) Urban expansion patterns and their driving forces based on the center of gravity-GTWR model: a case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. J Geogr Sci 30(2):297–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham JD, Riitters KH, Wade TG, Vogt P (2010) A national assessment of green infrastructure and change for the conterminous United States using morphological image processing. Landsc Urban Plan 94(2010):186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf SJ (2006) Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment: development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 77:94–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2013) Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landsc Ecol 28(1):1–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao S, Wu W, Guo J, Ou M, Tao Y (2020) An evaluation framework for designing ecological security patterns and prioritizing ecological corridors: application in Jiangsu Province, China. Landsc Ecol 35(11):1–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller KA, Mcgarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27(6):777–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Xu X (2015) Research on landscape ecological security pattern in a Eucalyptus introduced region based on biodiversity conservation. Russ J Ecol 46(1):59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors and anonymous referees for their constructive comments.

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Foundation of Key Laboratory for Digital Land and Resources in Jiangxi Province (DLLJ201814) and postgraduate innovation fund of Jiangxi province (YC2020-S486).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory for Digital Land and Resources in Jiangxi Province, Key Laboratory for Digital Land and Resources in Jiangxi Province, East China University of Technology, Nanchang, 30013, China

    Binbin Ma, Zhu-an Chen, Xiaojian Wei & Liting Zhang

  2. School of Geomatics, East China University of Technology, Nanchang, 30013, China

    Binbin Ma, Zhu-an Chen, Xiaojian Wei & Liting Zhang

  3. Key Laboratory of Virtual Geographic Environment (Nanjing Normal University), Ministry of Education, Nanjing, 210023, China

    Xiuquan Li

Authors
  1. Binbin Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhu-an Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaojian Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiuquan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Liting Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

BM and XL completed the experiment and wrote the paper. BM completed the comparison experiment and model. ZC, XW, and LZ revised the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhu-an Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The locations of materials collected here are neither privately owned lands nor protected areas. No specific permits were required for our research.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, B., Chen, Za., Wei, X. et al. Comparative ecological network pattern analysis: a case of Nanchang. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 37423–37434 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17808-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17808-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation