Microsoft Word - 55castellanos.docx
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS
VOL. 64, 2018
A publication of
The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.aidic.it/cet
Guest Editors: Enrico Bardone, Antonio Marzocchella, Tajalli Keshavarz
Copyright © 2018, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608- 56-3; ISSN 2283-9216
Identification of Key Patches for Biodiversity Conservation
Based on Possibility of Connectivity Method
Yue Zhanga, Bo Song*a, Zaiqiang Liua, Siyu Leia
a Department of Environmental Engineering, School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Science and
Technology Beijing, Xueyuan Road 30, Beijing 100083, China
songbo@pku.edu.cn
Abstract: The optimization of landscape structure will benefit for biodiversity conservation by analysing the
best landscape layout as the habitat patches have been rapidly lost. Based on the possibility of connectivity
(PC) method have been proposed for the assessment of biodiversity value that considered both habitat size
and spatial connectivity, which regards the index of PC as its primary parameter. Miyun County, Beijing is
studied as a case area to evaluate the biodiversity value by both the popular method and the proposed
method. It is concluded that the total biodiversity value of each concerned land use types based on 2010 data
are: grazing land 3.69×106 Yuan•ha-1•year-1, forest land 132.39×106 Yuan•ha-1•year-1, cropland 5.65×106
Yuan•ha-1•year-1, water area 18.94×106 Yuan•ha-1•year-1, built-up land 0, and unused land 0.11×106 Yuan•ha-
1•year-1. Secondly, for the identification of key patches, there are three kinds of key patches: (1) the patches
with larger habitat size; (2) the satellite patches around the large patches as the undertaken area for biological
migration; (3) the stepping stone patches. It is found that biodiversity value is not evenly distributed with patch
area because of the difference of connectivity. Larger patches and the patches locate in the connecting
position are important for maintaining connectivity. The results of this paper will provide technology and data
references for environmental protection in the near future.
1. Introduction
Ecosystem service (ES) is the benefit that human obtained from natural system (MA, 2005), which is the
cornerstone of the survival of mankind and the modern civilization (Feng et al., 2009). The loss of ES will
severely affect the sustainable development. Biodiversity, as an important kind of ES, is the regulator of
ecological process (Mace et al., 2012). Biodiversity and habitats have been degraded and fragmentized due to
human activities and disturbance, which is the main cause of biodiversity recession. For example, global
biodiversity has declined about 12% (WWF, 2011; UNEP, 2015). By 2020, at the current rate of biodiversity
loss, the world could have witnessed a two-thirds decline in global wildlife populations in only half a century
(WWF, 2015).
The protection of biodiversity should be proceeded with the maintaining of biodiversity conservation (Lazarus
et al., 2015) and identified the area of high value density. The current assessments of biodiversity value
mainly follow the conventional method which is represented by Costanza (1997). The conventional method
considers patch area as the only factor that related to biodiversity value. The ability and products that
ecosystem had provided are usually not evenly distributed. Landscape pattern is also another
important factor that affected ES value, which was not fully reflected in recent studies (Frank et al.,
2012). Landscape features, such as patch size, edge effect, proximity, and corridor, could affect the ES
provision and be integrated to assess ES (Kreuter et al., 2001). Landscape connectivity, one of the
representative indicators that reflected landscape patterns, was closely related to animal migration, species
reproduction, population growth, ecological functions maintaining and so on (Mitchell et al., 2013). Landscape
connectivity can reflect landscape structure and function. There are a variety of definitions for connectivity,
which can be divided into two categories: 1) one referred to the spatial continuity of landscape patches,
corridors and matrix (Pelorossoa et al., 2016) which tended to reflect the structure of landscape; 2) the other
meaning was the smooth degree of ecological processes between patches (Taylor et al., 1993), which was
DOI: 10.3303/CET1864101
Please cite this article as: Yue Zhang , Bo Song , Zaiqiang Liu , Siyu Lei , 2018, Identification of key patches for biodiversity conservation
based on possibility of connectivity method, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 64, 601-606 DOI: 10.3303/CET1864101
601
defined from the perspective of landscape functions. In this article, we primarily referred the connectivity to
landscape functions. Functional landscape connectivity can be measured with the combination of landscape
structure and ecological processes (animal migration, pollination, etc.). Many ES are affected by animal
migration and material transportation, and animal migration and material transportation are closely related to
landscape connectivity, therefore landscape connectivity will affect ES to some extent.
Biodiversity that underpins most ES, is also an important ES (With et al., 1997). In the classification of ES
conducted by different ecological researchers, ESB are important types of ES (Mace et al., 2012). In this
study, biodiversity is regarded as ES. Biodiversity refers to a kind of ES that provided by habitats about
conservation of species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity. ESB that relate to animal
migration and the spread of pollen are more vulnerable to landscape structure, therefore ESB are selected as
representative ES in this article.
We used both conventional method and a PC-based method (Ng et al., 2013) to evaluate ESB value of Miyun,
and we also corrected ESB value unit area in Miyun County. Then we made further efforts to integrate three
kinds of ES value into two categories. According to the ESB value of each patch of two categories, we
identified key patches for biodiversity conservation. The results can provide reference to ecological restoration
and urban planning in regional management.
2. Methods and study area
2.1 Landscape connectivity index
When evaluating the biodiversity value that based on landscape patterns, appropriate biological indices will be
the key component that affects the accuracy of the results. Some of the studies have proposed various indices
to assess the landscape connectivity (Bunn et al., 2000). After qualitative and quantitative comparison by
some analysis (Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007), index of probability of connectivity (PC) has been chosen to
analyze the landscape connectivity of ecosystem, which is an area-based functional connectivity approach
that can incorporate two important elements in habitat size and connectivity in a single measure (Ng et al.,
2013). Both landscape connectivity and important value of key patches can be reflected in PC index (Pascual-
Hortal & Saura, 2006).
The range of PC index is from 0 to 1, 0 indicates no connectivity, and 1 indicates the patches are completely
connective or they are the same patch. The equation is as follows (Saura & Pascual-Hortal, 2007): = ∑ ∑ × × ∗ (1)
Where n is the total number of habitat nodes in a landscape, ai and aj are areas of the habitat patches i and j,
respectively, and AL is the total area of the landscape. P*ij indicates the maximum product probability of all
possible paths between patches i and j.
Based on the concept of PC index, the method that considered both habitat size and spatial connectivity are
used to calculate the biodiversity value, as follows (Ng et al., 2013). ( ) = ∑ (2) ( ) = ∑ [ × ( ) × ] (3)
= × 100 (4)
Where ESVB(PC) is the estimated biodiversity value of all land use types, ESVB(PC)k is the estimated
biodiversity value of land use k, and VCk is the value of coefficient for land use k. Ak-max refers to the largest
patches among the land use k. dPC indicates the importance of each patch in terms of its contribution to the
maintenance of overall connectivity by comparing the overall connectivity difference before and after moving
the patch. dPCki indicates the connectivity importance of patch i in land use k. It is able to identify the
important patches of landscape structure. dPCk-max indicates the maximum value of dPC among land use k. = × (5)
Where VCk is the value of coefficient we’ve used for land use k, is the size of land use k of a habitat, is
total area of the habitat. As for VCk
’, the values of coefficient of Tang et al. (2010) for Beijing have been
adopted in our case study, which is highlighted in Errore. L'origine riferimento non è stata trovata..
I represents cropland, II represents forest land, III represents grazing land, IV represents water area, V
represents unused land, VI represents built-up land. The unit of Area is 104 hm2, the unit of VCk is Yuan/ hm
2.
602
Table 1: Value of coefficient of Beijing
Land use Sub-type VC' k Area VC'k
I
dry 628.2 38.15
621.4
paddy 314.1 0.84
II
woodland 2884.6 19.81
2271.2
shrubland 2307.7 35.38
open forest 1730.8 14.40
others 1442.3 6.83
III
High coverage 964.5 0.90
768.1 Medium coverage 771.6 10.86
Low coverage 482.3 0.75
IV 2203.3 6.49 2203.3
V 300.8 0.18 300.8
VI 0 29.24 0
In conventional method, the biodiversity value is to be evaluated as follows (Costanza et al., 1997): = ∑ ∑ × (6)
Where ESVB is biodiversity value, VCk is the value of the coefficient for land use category k, and Ak-i is the
area size of patch i of land use k.
2.2 Identification of key patches
The identification of the key patches has been divided into two procedures: the reclassification of the key
patches and the identification of the key patches.
Key patches are patches with higher biodiversity value in our study. In general, because of agglomeration
effect, larger patches have higher value of unit area. In addition, patches located in the critical connectivity
position are also more important. Therefore, we would start from the importance of connectivity of certain
patch to identify the key patches. Usually, there are three kinds of values of one patch: (1) internal value; (2)
value of the patch which acts as a starting or ending patch in the migration path; (3) value of the patch that
acts as stepping stone in the path with maximum product probability. It will be illustrated as follows:
Where VCk is the value of the coefficient for land use category k, and Ak-i is the area of patch i of land use k. = + + (7) ( ) = ( ) + ( ) + ( ) (8)
Where dPCintraki indicates the contribution of the internal area of patch i to the overall connectivity of land use
category k. dPCfluxki indicates the contribution of patch i that act as a starting or ending patch to the overall
connectivity. dPCconnectorki indicates the contribution of patch i that act as stepping stone in the path with
maximum product probability to the overall connectivity. dPCintraki dPCfluxki, dPCconnectorki can be
calculated by software Confor2.6. ESVB(PC)ki is the ESB value of patch i of land use k. ESVB(PC)intraki is the
ESB value that provide by the internal area of patch i. ESVB(PC)fluxki is the ESB value of patch i which act as
a starting or ending patch in the migration path. ESVB(PC)connectorki is the ESB value of patch i that act as
stepping stone in the path with maximum product probability.
In order to explore the internal and external effects that a patch has contributed, we will reclassify the
biodiversity value to provide reference for identification of key patches. In the reclassification of biodiversity
value, we’ve divided ESVB(PC)fluxki into two parts as it has been calculated twice which is regarded as the
starting and ending point of a patch. A patch will have internal value when it is regarded as the ending point of
migration. At the meantime, a patch will have the external as it has the affected the rest of the patches for its
biodiversity output. Therefore, ESVB(PC)fluxki is divided into two parts: half of ESVB(PC)fluxki is the internal
value that it contributed to itself; the other half of it is the external value that the patch contributed to the rest of
the patches. The formula will be seen as follows: ( ) = ( )1 + ( )2 (9) ( )1 = ( ) + ( ) /2 (10) ( )2 = ( ) /2 + ( ) (11)
Where ESVB(PC)1ki represents the ecosystem value that patch i contribute to itself, ESVB(PC)2ki represents
the ES value that provided by patch i to other patches.After the reclassification, we will identify the key
603
patches according to the value of ESVB(PC)1ki and ESVB(PC)2ki. Higher value of ESVB(PC)1ki and
ESVB(PC)2ki are regarded as key patches. In this article, we defined the key patches are those whose unit
value of ESVB(PC)1ki and ESVB(PC)2ki are thrice or more than thrice than the average unit value of
ESVB(PC)1ki and ESVB(PC)2ki are key patches, which is seen as follows:
( ) ≥ 3 ∗ ∑ ( ) (12)
( ) ≥ 3 ∗ ∑ ( ) (13)
However, for further study, the standard for the identification of key patches will be adjusted to a more
appropriate value if necessary, such as twice or five times than the average unit value. The change of the
standard will not change our identification system.
3. Results and discussions
3.1 The estimation results of ES value
Conventional method and new method were both used to calculate the ESB value in Miyun County, the result
of conventional method was 174.13×106 yuan, while the result of new method was 160.77×106 yuan, the
calculation results of five types of land use were shown in Table 2.
Table 2: The ES values from two methods (106Yuan·ha-1·year-1)
Land use ESVB(PC) ESVB ESVB(PC)/ESVB
Water 18.94 18.43 1.03
Forest 132.39 140.02 0.95
Unused 0.11 0.12 0.91
Grazing 3.69 5.36 0.69
Cropland 5.65 10.19 0.55
Largely because of the different measurement of the area, those two results that showed in table 2 were
different. The conventional method used the real area of the land use types, while the new method used the
equivalent area, namely, × , where represents area unit dPC of the patch largest sizes
and the patch with largest dPC. The product of and dPCk-i means the equivalent area. ESVB(PC) is
higher than ESVB when equivalent area higher than the real area.
Water area was the only land use type that ESVB(PC) higher than ESVB. The descending order of
ESVB(PC)/ESVB of 5 land use types is water area, forest land, unused land, grass land and agricultural land.
The reason for those results was that patches with the same ratio of area have different ratio of importance in
maintaining landscape connectivity. We took water area and agricultural land as representative land use to
illustrate the results. Water area occupied 92% of the total water area sizes provided 90% connectivity
(Represented by dPC%, which is the normalization of dPC), while the remaining 10% connectivity was
provided by 8% area, connectivity was evenly distributed with area. Whereas, in agricultural land, 59%
agricultural land provided 90% connectivity, the remaining 10% connectivity was provided by 41% area. Most
of the patch area had hardly played a role in maintaining the connectivity. Those patches had low ES values
and had even pulled down the total value of agricultural land. Therefore, the degree of uniformity in the
distribution of connectivity determined the different results of two methods. The more evenly the connectivity
had been distributed with area, the larger the ratio of ESVB(PC) and ESVB would be. It can be fully reflected
by the new method.
3.2 Identification of key patches
In our study, the factor of landscape pattern was included to evaluate the value of biodiversity of Miyun to
attempt to provide scientific basis for payments for ecosystem services of biodiversity, which could avoid the
inappropriate policy guidance that caused by only paying attention to the habitat size. If the factors of
landscape pattern were missing, it would have negative influence for urban planning of China. Based on
conventional method, the improvement of PC-based method is to add landscape pattern into evaluation of
biodiversity value.
604
In the identification of key patches, we had reclassified the biodiversity value. We found that key patches were
not only the patches with larger size, but also the patches located in the dominant position or located in the
connectivity position. The loss of those key patches may lower down the landscape connectivity, which meant
the biodiversity value were not evenly distributed caused by the difference of connectivity. Sometimes smaller
patches would have higher value if they were in the connective position. After the identification of the patches
with higher value or in the stepping stone position, we are able to provide reference for the important reserve
to protect the biodiversity.
Figure 1: Patches with high ESVB(PC)1 of Figure 2: The patches with high ESVB(PC)2 grass
land (grazing land) and forest land in grazing land and forest land
In Fig.1, forest land with high ESVB(PC)1 is located from east bank of Chao River to the west bank of Bai
River in northern Miyun, which accounted for 44.6% of the total forest land, but provided 53.9% ESVB(PC)1.
Grass land with high ESVB(PC)1 is located in southern Miyun, which accounted for 64.8% of the total grass
land, but provided 95.4% ESVB(PC)1. That region of forest land with high ESVB(PC)1 mainly developes
tourism and ecological agriculture, but grass land with high ESVB(PC)1 is mainly industry and tourism. We
should prevent the reduction of grassland area caused by the expansion of industrial zone and tourism sector.
In Fig.2, forest land, which is located in the east bank of Chao River, has high ESVB(PC)2 area that
accounted for 4.3% of the total forest land, but provided 15.1% ESVB(PC)2. Grass land with high ESVB(PC)2
accounted for 17.5% of the total grass land ,but provided 34.4% ESVB(PC)2. Those area belong to the Chao
River Industrial Belt where mainly focused on leisure tourism and modern agriculture. We should prevent
fragmentation of forest land and further expansion of grass land. We should delimit protected areas to prevent
the expansion of the industrial zone from occupying the grass land.
4. Conclusions
Index of probability of connectivity has been used with the habitat size to assess the biodiversity value of
Miyun County of 2010. The land use were divided into six types: forest land, grazing land, cropland, built-up
land, water area, and unused land. After the calculation of biodiversity value by PC-based method and
conventional method, we got different results which were 160.78×106 Yuan·ha-1·year-1 and 174.12×106
Yuan·ha-1·year-1 respectively. The reason for the difference of the results was the difference of the habitat
size in the calculation. If the equivalence area was larger than the actual area, the results of PC-based method
would higher than that of the conventional method, and vice versa. Except water area, all of the other land use
types of Miyun had lower landscape connectivity because of the change of landscape pattern.
In addition, we found that the key patches that with higher values were divided into three types: 1) patches
with larger size; 2) satellite patches that surrounded a larger patch; 3) patches located in connective position.
According to the reclassification of the biodiversity value, we have identified the key patches. Different from
the conventional classification, we reclassified the biodiversity value into two parts: the internal value and the
external value.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on a workshop funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
71173013) and China Scholarship Council (No. 201506465029). We thank all experts that have been
consulted as part of the research conducted.
605
Reference
Bunn A.G., Urban D.L., Keitt T.H., 2000, Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory,
Environmental Management, 59, 265-278, DOI: 10.1006/jema.2000.0373
Costanza R., d’Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Llmburg K.E., Naeem S., R.V. O’Nell, Paruelo
J.M., Raskln R., Sutton P., Van den Belt M., 1997, The value of the world's ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260, DOI: 10.1038/387253a0
Feng J.F., Li Y., Zhu L., 2009, Discrimination of concepts of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services.
Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 18(4), 1599-1603. (in Chinese)
Frank S., Fürst C., Koschke L., Makeschin F., 2012, A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem
service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 30-38, DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.027
Kreuter U.P., Harris H.G., Matlock M.D., Lacey R.E., 2001, Change in ecosystem service values in the San
Antonio area, Texas, Ecological Economics, 39(3), 333-346, DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00250-6
Lazarus E., Lin D., Martindill J., Hardiman J., Pitney L., Galli A., Pagnotta M.A., 2015, Biodiversity Loss and
the Ecological Footprint of Trade. Diversity, 7, 170-191, DOI: 10.3390/d7020170
Jiang L., Yue D.P., Cao R., Ren H.J., 2012, Research on distance thresholds of landscape connectivity in
Chaoyang District of Beijing, Forest Inventory and Planning, 37, 18-32.
Liu C.F., Zhou B., He X.Y., Wei C., 2010, Selection of distance thresholds of urban forest landscape
connectivity in Shenyang City, Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 2508-2516.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute. Washington, DC.
Mace G.M., Norris K., Fitter A.H., 2012, Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship,
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27(1), 19-26, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Mitchell M. G. E., Bennett E.M., Gonzalez A., 2013, Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service
provision current knowledge and research gaps, Ecosystems, 16, 894-908, DOI: 10.1007/s10021-013-
9647-2
Ng C.N., Xie Y.J., Yu X.J., 2013, Integrating landscape connectivity into the evaluation of ecosystem services
for biodiversity conservation and its implications for landscape planning. Applied Geography, 42, 1-12,
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.04.015
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, Landscape Ecology, 21,
7, 959-967, DOI: 10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z
Pelorossoa R., Gobattonia F., Gerib F., Monacoc R., Leone A., 2016, Evaluation of ecosystem services
related to bio-energy landscape connectivity (BELC) for land use decision making across different planning
scales. Ecological Indicators, 61, 114-129, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.016
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, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 83, 2-3, 91-103, DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005
Saura S., Torné J., 2009, Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat
patches for landscape connectivity, Environmental Modelling & Software, 24, 135-139.
Tang X. M., Chen B.M., Lu Q. B., Han F., 2010, The ecological location correction of ecosystem service value:
a case study of Beijing City, Journal of Applied Ecology, 30, 13, 3526-3535
Taylor P. D., Fahrig L., Henein K., 1993, Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure, Oikos, 68, 571-
573, DOI: 10.2307/3544927
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2015, United Nations Environment Programme Annual
Report 2015. http://web.unep.org/annualreport/2015/en/index.html.
With K.A., Gardner R. H., Turner M. G., 1997, Landscape connectivity and population distributions in
heterogeneous environments, Oikos, 78, 1, 151-169, DOI: 10.2307/3545811
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), 2011, WWF-INT Annual Review 2011,
http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/annual_report_2011.pdf.
WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), 2015, WWF-INT Annual Review 2015.
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/.
Xie G.D., Xiao Y., Lu C.X., 2006, Study on ecosystem services: Progress, limitation, and basic paradigm.
Journal of Plant Ecology, 30, 2, 191-199, in Chinese.
606