Using effective mesh size (m - CCEA · 59 3 Pressures on Biodiversit y St at us: In 2011, t he effect ive mesh size in sout hern Ont ario ranged from a low of 0.03 km2 in t he Toront

0

Using effective mesh size (meff)

in conservation planning

Dr. Jochen Jaeger

Concordia University, Montréal

Department of Geography, Planning and Environment

2018 CCEA National Workshop

Toronto, 1-5 October 2018

1969

Brugger (1992)

Landscape

fragmentation

1988

1969

Brugger (1992)

Landscape

fragmentation

1988

1969

Brugger (1992)

Landscape

fragmentation

a threat to the sustainability of

human land use, to biodiversity,

and to many ecosystem

functions and services.

4

Length of major roads:

7,133 km

Southern Ontario

Fenech et al. (2004)

Ottawa

Toronto

5


7,133 km


6


7,133 km

35,637 km

fivefold increase!


7

Need for indicators for environmental reporting

on the state of ecosystems

Add Env. Signals here + regulation.:

Why monitor landscape fragmentation?

to document the changes pace of landscape change, changes in trends

e.g., as an indicator of environmental quality or sustainability

to assist in the planing of new roads and railways





to reveal relationships with the presence andabundance of species and discover thresholds






to compare and balance new construction projectsand mitigation measures and compare scenarios






to compare and balance new construction projectsand mitigation measures and compare scenarios

to introduce quantitative environmental quality standards objectives and limits

12

Outline How can we monitor

landscape fragmentation?

Effective mesh size

Applications: Some examples

Switzerland

Europe

Ontario

Canadian prairies

California

City Biodiversity Index

Conclusions

13

Switzerland

Landscape fragmentation

in Switzerland (Jaeger et al. 2007, etc.)


in Europe (EEA & FOEN 2011)

14

Switzerland

15

1885Patch size

Bertiller et al. (2007)

16

1935


Patch size

17

1960


Patch size

18

1980


Patch size

19

2002


Patch size

20

Definition of

Landscape Fragmentation

Dictionary: “breaking apart into pieces”

Wide functional definition: disruption of

ecological interrelations between spatially

connected parts of the landscape.

Structural definition: obstacles (lines and areas)

against the movement of animals (separating

patches of habitat); often including emissions,

collisions, and aesthetic impacts.

21

How to measure the degree of


Serious problems with earlier methods

New method: effective mesh size, meff

Probability that two randomly chosen points in the landscape will be in the same patch:

meff is included in the programm FRAGSTATS

(available online)

Jaeger (2000),

Landscape Ecology

22

Effective Mesh Size (meff)

Interpretation: possibility that two individuals

can encounter each other (e.g., gene flow)

Multiplication with Atotal to convert this

probability into an area (= effective mesh size)

pAm ×= totaleff

23

An example

A1

A3A2

Atotal = 4 km2

Landscape with two

roads (three patches)

A1 = 2 km2,

A2 and A3 are 1 km2.

24

An example

A1

A3A2

Atotal = 4 km2

2

total

1

2

totaleff

321

32

2

total

11

km5.1

375.08

3

16

1

4

1

4

1

2

1

2

1

==*=

==++=

==×=

÷÷ø

öççè

æ=×=

å=

A

A

pAm

pppp

pp

A

Ap

n

i

i

25

An example

A1

A3A2

Atotal = 4 km2

2

total

1

2

totaleff

321

32

2

total

11

km5.1

375.08

3

16

1

4

1

4

1

2

1

2

1

==*=

==++=

==×=

÷÷ø

öççè

æ=×=

å=

A

A

pAm

pppp

pp

A

Ap

n

i

i

26

An example

A1

A3A2

Atotal = 4 km2

2

total

1

2

totaleff

321

32

2

total

11

km5.1

375.08

3

16

1

4

1

4

1

2

1

2

1

==*=

==++=

==×=

÷÷ø

öççè

æ=×=

å=

A

A

pAm

pppp

pp

A

Ap

n

i

i

27

An example

A1

A3A2

Atotal = 4 km2

2

total

1

2

totaleff

321

32

2

total

11

km5.1

375.08

3

16

1

4

1

4

1

2

1

2

1

==*=

==++=

==×=

÷÷ø

öççè

æ=×=

å=

A

A

pAm

pppp

pp

A

Ap

n

i

i

28

The formula of the

effective mesh size:

( )222

2

2

1

total

eff......

1niFFFF

Fm +++++= ( )222

2

2

1

total

eff......

1niFFFF

Fm +++++=

( )

å=

=

+++++=

n

i

i

ni

AA

AAAAA

m

1

2

total

222

2

2

1

total

eff

1

......1

29

Implications

If the landscape becomes more fragmented encountering probability p is lower & effective mesh size is lower

Fragmenting large patches has a big effect on

the effective mesh size

Fragmenting small patches also has an effect on the

effective mesh size, but the effect is less strong

30

meff corresponds to

the definition of landscape connectivity as „the

degree to which a landscape facilitates of impedes

animal movement“ (Taylor et al. 1993)

31

meff corresponds to

the definition of landscape connectivity as „the

degree to which a landscape facilitates of impedes

animal movement“ (Taylor et al. 1993)

and to the suggestion by Taylor et al. (1993) to

measure landscape connectivity “for a given

organism using the probability of movement between

all points or resource patches in a landscape”.

32

33

Effective mesh density: seff = 1/meff

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Jahr

Eff. mesh size (km2)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Jahr

Eff. mesh density (no of

meshes per 1000 km2)

Hypothetical example where the trend is constant.

Linear increase in the eff. mesh density corresponds to a 1/x-curve in

eff. mesh size.

Year Year

34

Effective mesh density: seff = 1/meff

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Jahr

Eff. mesh size (km2)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Jahr

Eff. mesh density (no of

meshes per 1000 km2)

Landscape connectivity = „the

degree to which a landscape

facilitates of impedes animal

movement“ (Taylor et al. 1993)

Year Year


35

Outline How can we monitor


Effective mesh size

Applications: Some examples

Switzerland

Europe

Ontario

Canadian prairies

California


Conclusions

36

Schweiz

1. Zerschneidungskarte

Jura: 19.02 km2

Lowlands: 10.8 km2

Northern Alps:

367.5 km2

Southern Alps:

381.7 km2

Central Alps: 249.8 km2

meff

Jaeger et al. (2008)

37

1885Patch size


38

1935


Patch size

39

1960


Patch size

40

1980


Patch size

41

2002


Patch size

42

Switzerland 1885 to 2002 and trends

Switzerland, FG 4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

Year

s (

1/1

000

km

2)

+ 229% + 370%

+ 320%

- 76%

- 79%

- 70%

Effective mesh size Effective mesh density

FG 4: Land areas below 2100 m


43


also in French and German

Online:

www.gpe.concordia.ca/jaeger

44


also in French and German

Online:

www.gpe.concordia.ca/jaeger


Results 1935-2002 are used in „Swiss Environmental

Statistics – Brief Guide 2006“

100

0

1935 1960 1980 2002

- 60%

- 43%

- 37%

100

0

1935 1960 1980 2002

- 47%

- 47%

- 52%

- 47%

- 60%

- 43%

- 37%

49

Swiss Federal Statistical

Office (2007)

50

Swiss Federal Statistical Office (2007, p. 17)

51

Swiss Federal Statistical Office (2007, p. 18)

52

53

Also used in

LABES:

Monitoring of

landscape quality

in Switzerland

54

Kienast et al.

(2015)

55

2. Landscape Fragmentation

in Europe

What is the extent of

landscape fragmentation in

Europe?

To what degree can the

differences between the

regions in Europe be

explained by socio-economic

factors?

population density, GDP, volume

of freight transportation, etc.


56Jaeger et al. (2011)

57

3 immediate priorities:

Immediate protection of large unfragmented

areas and wildlife corridors

Monitoring of landscape fragmentation

Application of fragmentation analysis as a

tool in transportation planning and regional

planning

Online: www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscape-fragmentation-in-europe

3. Ontario

58

59

3

Pressures on Biodiversity

Status:

In 2011, the effective mesh size in southern Ontario ranged from a low of 0.03 km2 in the Toronto

Ecodistrict to a high of 144 km2 in the Charleston Lake Ecodistrict.

Median effective mesh size for ecodistricts in the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone was 1.3 km2. The

effective mesh size for all seven ecodistricts in the southwestern portion of the ecozone was less

than the median value.

Analysis of effective mesh size in Ontario is ongoing (Ontario Shield and Hudson Bay Lowlands

ecozones as well as an examination of trends in the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone).

Links:

Related Targets: N/A

Related Themes: N/A

References:

Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat. Oikos 71:355-366.

Fahrig, L. 2003. The effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487-515.

Jaeger, J.A.G. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 15:115-130.

McIntosh, T.E., and A. J. Dextrase. 2015. Terrestrial landscape fragmentation in Ontario. State of Ontario’s Biodiversity Technical Report Series, Report #SOBTR-04, Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

Moser, B., and J.A.G. Jaeger. 2007. Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landscape Ecology 22:447-459.

Ontario Biodiversity Council (OBC). 2010. State of Ontario’s biodiversity 2010. A report of the Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2014.Onatrio population projections: fall 2014 based on the 2011 Census. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). 2015. Southern Ontario land resource information system (SOLRIS) – data specifications version 2.0. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, ON.

Varrin, R., J. Bowman, and P.A. Gray. 2007. The known and potential effects of climate change on biodiversity in Ontario’s terrestrial ecosystems: case studies and recommendations for adaptation. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Applied Research and Development Section, Sault Ste. Marie, ON. Climate Change Research Report CCRR-09.

Citation Ontario Biodiversity Council. 2015. State of Ontario's Biodiversity [web application]. Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, Ontario. [Available at: http://ontariobiodiversitycouncil.ca/sobr (Date Accessed: May 19, 2015)].

60

3


Status:

In 2011, the effective mesh size in southern Ontario ranged from a low of 0.03 km2 in the Toronto

Ecodistrict to a high of 144 km2 in the Charleston Lake Ecodistrict.

Median effective mesh size for ecodistricts in the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone was 1.3 km2. The

effective mesh size for all seven ecodistricts in the southwestern portion of the ecozone was less

than the median value.

Analysis of effective mesh size in Ontario is ongoing (Ontario Shield and Hudson Bay Lowlands

ecozones as well as an examination of trends in the Mixedwood Plains Ecozone).

Links:

Related Targets: N/A

Related Themes: N/A

References:

Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat. Oikos 71:355-366.

Fahrig, L. 2003. The effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34:487-515.

Jaeger, J.A.G. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 15:115-130.

McIntosh, T.E., and A. J. Dextrase. 2015. Terrestrial landscape fragmentation in Ontario. State of Ontario’s Biodiversity Technical Report Series, Report #SOBTR-04, Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

Moser, B., and J.A.G. Jaeger. 2007. Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landscape Ecology 22:447-459.

Ontario Biodiversity Council (OBC). 2010. State of Ontario’s biodiversity 2010. A report of the Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

Ontario Ministry of Finance. 2014.Onatrio population projections: fall 2014 based on the 2011 Census. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). 2015. Southern Ontario land resource information system (SOLRIS) – data specifications version 2.0. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, ON.

Varrin, R., J. Bowman, and P.A. Gray. 2007. The known and potential effects of climate change on biodiversity in Ontario’s terrestrial ecosystems: case studies and recommendations for adaptation. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Applied Research and Development Section, Sault Ste. Marie, ON. Climate Change Research Report CCRR-09.

Citation Ontario Biodiversity Council. 2015. State of Ontario's Biodiversity [web application]. Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, Ontario. [Available at: http://ontariobiodiversitycouncil.ca/sobr (Date Accessed: May 19, 2015)].

Still missing:

- Changes in time

- Comparison of

potential future

scenarios

61

Roch and Jaeger (2014)

4. Fragmentation of Grasslands

in the Canadian Prairies

62

Results


63


64

Monitor ing an ecosystem at r isk: What is the degreeof grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prair ies?

Laura Roch & Jochen A. G. Jaeger

Received: 18 June 2013 /Accepted: 19 November 2013 /Published online: 4 January 2014# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Increasing fragmentation of grassland habi-

tatsby human activities isamajor threat to biodiversity

and landscape quality. Monitoring their degree of frag-

mentation has been identified as an urgent need. This

study quantifies for the first time the current degree of

grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies using

four fragmentation geometries(FGs) of increasing spec-

ificity (i.e. more restrictivegrassland classification) and

five types of reporting units (7 ecoregions, 50 census

divisions, 1,166 municipalities, 17 sub-basins, and 108

watersheds). We evaluated the suitability of 11 datasets

based on 8 suitability criteria and applied the effective

mesh size (meff) method to quantify fragmentation. We

recommend the combination of the Crop Inventory

Mapping of the Prairies and the CanVec datasets as the

most suitable for monitoring grassland fragmentation.

The grassl and area remai ni ng amounts to

87,570.45 km2 in FG4 (strict grassland definition) and

183,242.042 km2 in FG1 (broad grassland definition),

out of 461,503.97 km2 (entire Prairie Ecozone area).

The very low values of meff of 14.23 km2 in FG4 and

25.44 km2 in FG1 indicate an extremely high level of

grassland fragmentation. The meff method is supported

in this study as highly suitable and recommended for

long-term monitoring of grasslands in the Canadian

Prairies; it can help set measurable targets and/or limits

for regionsto guidemanagement effortsandasatool for

performance review of protection efforts, for increasing

awareness, and for guidingeffortstominimizegrassland

fragmentation. This approach can also be applied in

other parts of the world and to other ecosystems.

Keywords Effectivemeshsize. Ecological indicators.

Grasslandconservation . Landscapefragmentation .

Fragmentationper se. Protectedareas. Prairieecozone.

Roads. Urbansprawl

Abbreviations used

CBI City Biodiversity Index

FG Fragmentation geometry

CESI Canadian Environmental Sustainability

Indicators

FSDS Federal Sustainable Development

Strategy

meff Effective mesh size

seff Effective mesh density

AAFC Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

SpATS Spatial and Temporal Variation in

Nesting Success of Prairie Ducks Study

CUT

procedure

Cutting-out procedure

CBC

procedure

Cross-boundary connections procedure

CD Censusdivision

WS Watershed

Environ Monit Assess (2014) 186:2505–2534

DOI 10.1007/s10661-013-3557-9

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this

article (doi:10.1007/s10661-013-3557-9) containssupplementary

material, which is available to authorized users.

L. Roch: J. A. G. Jaeger (* )

Department of Geography, Planning and Environment,

Concordia University Montreal,

1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite H1255, Montreal,

QC H3G 1M8, Canada

e-mail: [email protected]

L. Roch

e-mail: [email protected]

Author's personal copy

Roch and

Jaeger (2014)

5. California

+ lakes, major rivers, high elevations4

+ agricultural fields3

+ minor roads2

Highways, major roads, railroads,

urbanized areas1

Elements IncludedFragmentation

Geometry

Girvetz/Thorne/Berry/Jaeger (2008)

Girvetz/Jaeger/Thorne/Berry (2008)

FG 4

FG 3FG 1

FG 2

68

Girvetz et al. (2008)

6. Use of meff in the City biodiversity Index (CBI)

69

THE SINGAPORE

BIODIVERSITY

Introduction

Figure 1: In a study conducted by Corporate Knights on good sustainable development practices in Canadian cities,

Montreal (left) and Edmonton (right) both attributed their perfect score for biodiversity monitoring to their application of the

Singapore Index.

Global Partnership on Local and

Sub-national Action for Biodiversity

Cities occupy only 2% of the surface, yet

consume about 75% of its natural resources and

has an ecological impact on an exponentially vast

area. The projected global human population by

2050 is 9.2 billion, with 6.4 billion residing in urban

areas. As such, cities will play an increasingly

crucial role in biodiversity conservation.

Cities are increasingly forming alliances to share

best practices, notably the Global Partnership on

Local and Sub-national Action for Biodiversity.

However, there was no single index which

meaningfully measured biodiversity conservation

efforts at the city level.

At the High-Level Segment of the 9th Meeting of

the Conference of Parties to the Convention on

Biological Diversity (COP-9) in 2008, Mr Mah Bow

Tan, then Minister for National

Development, proposed the development of an

index for cities to benchmark conservation efforts

and evaluate progress in reducing the rate of

biodiversity loss, led by the Secretariat of the

Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD).

At COP-10 in 2010, Parties endorsed the Plan of

Action on Sub-national Governments, Cities and

Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (Decision

X/22) which encourages Parties to actively

engage cities and local authorities in

implementing the CBD. The Plan of Action

highlights the City Biodiversity Index (CBI), also

known as the Singapore Index on

Biodiversity (Singapore Index), as a monitoring

tool to assist local authorities to evaluate their

progress in urban biodiversity conservation.

© C

laud

e D

uch

aîn

e,

Air

Im

ex

11. Regulation of Quantity of Water: 4 points

12. Climate Regulation: Carbon Storage and Cooling Effect of Vegetation: 4 points

13. Recreation and Education: Area of Parks with Natural Areas: 4 points

14. Recreation and Education: Number of Formal Education Visits per Child Below 16 Years to Parks with Natural Areas per Year: 4 points

Ecosys

tem

S

erv

ices (

16 p

oin

ts)

Table 1: Indicators of the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity

Nativ

e B

iodiv

ers

ity

in th

e C

ity (

40 p

oin

ts)

Gove

rnance a

nd M

anagem

ent

of

Bio

div

ers

ity (

36 p

oin

ts)

1. Proportion of Natural Areas in the City: 4 points

2. Connectivity Measures: 4 points

3. Native Biodiversity in Built-up Areas (Bird Species): 4 points

4. Change in Number of Vascular Plant Species: 4 points

5. Change in Number of Bird Species: 4 points

6. Change in Number of Butterfly Species: 4 points

7. Change in Number of Species (any other taxonomic group selected by the city):

4 points

8. Change in Number of Species ( any other taxonomic group selected by the city):

9. Proportion of Protected Natural Areas: 4 points

10. Proportion of Invasive Alien Species: 4 points

15. Budget Allocated to Biodiversity: 4 points

16. Number of Biodiversity Projects Implemented by the City Annually: 4 points

17. Existence of Local Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan: 4 points

18. Institutional Capacity: Number of Biodiversity-related Functions: 4 points

19. Institutional Capacity: Number of City or Local Government Agencies Involved in Inter-agency Cooperation Pertaining to Biodiversity Matters: 4 points

20. Participation and Partnership: Existence of Formal or Informal Public Consultation Process: 4 points

21. Participation and Partnership: Number of Agencies/ Private Companies/ NGOs/ Academic Institutions/ International Organisations with which the City is Partnering in Biodiversity Activities, Projects and Programmes: 4 points

22. Education and Awareness: Is Biodiversity or Nature Awareness Included in the School Curriculum: 4 points

23. Education and Awareness: Number of Outreach or Public Awareness Events Held in the City per Year: 4 points

Maxim

um

Tota

l: 9

2 p

oin

ts

Octo

be

r 2

012

For more information, please contact:

Muslim Anshari and Wendy Yap

National Parks Board, Singapore

[email protected]

[email protected]

Global Partnership on Local and

Sub-national Action for Biodiversity

4 points

The 23 indicators of the CBI (Singapore Index)

1: Proportion of natural area in the city

2: Connectivity of natural areas

3: Native biodiversity in built-up areas

4-8: Change in number of native species

9: Proportion of protected natural areas

10: Proportion of invasive species

11: Regulation of quantity of water

12: Carbon storage and cooling effect of vegetation

13-14: Recreational and educational services

15: Budget allocated to biodiversity

16: Number of biodiversity projects implemented by the city annually

17: Existence of local biodiversity strategy and action plan

18-19: Biodiversity-related institutions

20-21: Participation and partnership in biodiversity projects

22-23: Education and awareness projects

City Biodiversity Index (CBI):

Heritage Laurentien (2009)

Areas to be preserved/restored

Existing areas

Areas for potential enhancement

Heritage Laurentien (2009)

Areas to be preserved/restored

Existing areas

Areas for potential enhancement

Research Questions

1. What is the current level connectivity in the

network?

2. What is the potential future level of connectivity in

the network?

3. What is Meadowbrook’s contribution to connectivity?

Megan Deslauriers

Future Scenario

Baseline Situation

semi-natural areas

semi-natural areas

11.2 8.99

2.2

97.3

34.9

62.4

10.6 8.97

1.6

55.9

33.0

22.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Meadowbrookpreserved

Meadowbrookdeveloped

Total Total Within-patch Between-patch

Baseline Potential for the futureC

onnectivity v

alu

es f

or

natu

ral are

as (

ha)

- 63%

Deslauriers et al. (2018)

11.2 8.99

2.2

97.3

34.9

62.4

10.6 8.97

1.6

55.9

33.0

22.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120



Total Within-patch Between-patch Total Within-patch Between-patch


onnectivity v

alu

es f

or

natu

ral are

as (

ha)

- 28%

- 63%


11.2 8.99

2.2

97.3

34.9

62.4

10.6 8.97

1.6

55.9

33.0

22.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120



Total Within-patch Between-patch Total


onnectivity v

alu

es f

or

natu

ral are

as (

ha)

- 28%


11.2 8.99

2.2

97.3

34.9

62.4

10.6 8.97

1.6

55.9

33.0

22.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120



Total Within-patch Between-patch Total Within-patch Between-patch


onnectivity v

alu

es f

or

natu

ral are

as (

ha)

- 28%

- 63%


Conclusions

With Meadowbrook developed, we would loose

Meadowbrook’s significant contribution to connectivity for

wildlife (and people)

and in particular it’s large potential for increased

connectivity in the area in the future

80

Deslauriers

et al. (2018)

81

Conclusions

Examples

Switzerland

Europe

Ontario

Canadian prairies

California


meff is easy to use & can be applied in various ways

Monitoring

environmental, biodiversity, landscape quality, ...

compare between-patch connectivity and within-patch connectivity

Comparison of scenarios

Setting of targets and limits

Thank you!

Christian Schwick, René Bertiller

Felix Kienast

Megan Deslauriers, Adrienne

Asgary, Naghmeh Nazarnia

For funding:

German Research Foundation (DFG)

Swiss Federal Office for the

Environment (FOEN)

Environment Canada

et al.

Any Questions?

83

Potential slides for the discussion


to describe the changes pace of landscape change, changes in trends




to compare and balance new construction projectsand mitigation measures compare scenarios

to introduce quantitative environmental quality standards objectives and limits

85

Wildlife populations

are increasingly

enmeshed by roads

and urban

development.

86

1


INDICATOR: TERRESTRIAL LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Reduce Threats

TARGET: N/A

THEME: Pressures on Ontario’s Biodiversity – Habitat Loss

Background Information:

Landscape fragmentation is the process by which habitat loss results in the division of large, continuous habitats into smaller, more isolated remnants. Recent scientific evidence shows that landscape fragmentation has negative effects on biodiversity (Fahrig 2003), largely resulting from the loss of the original habitat, reduction in habitat patch size and increasing isolation of habitat patches (Andrén 1994). More specifically, landscape fragmentation causes a reduction in habitat area, with associated declines in population density and species richness, and significant alterations to community composition, species interactions and ecosystem functioning (Fahrig 2003). Species occupying fragmented landscapes are also less able to shift their distributions to compensate for altered habitat quality resulting from changing climatic conditions. Thus, there is an important synergy between climate change and landscape fragmentation that may lead to increased loss of biodiversity (Varrin et al. 2008).

Landscape fragmentation not only deprives plants and animals of habitat, but also has indirect impacts, generating noise, light and air pollution or changing microclimates. Some species avoid human structures, which reduces their potential habitats even more. As a result, areas in which animals feel undisturbed become ever more scarce due to landscape fragmentation (Jaeger 2000). Further, landscape fragmentation results in an abundance of edge habitat, where edge-sensitive species or those that require large, undisturbed habitat are excluded (Fahrig 2003).

Landscape fragmentation is most evident in intensively used regions, where the habitat is divided by urbanization, agriculture, roads or other human developments (Fahrig 2003). Fragmentation has been rapidly increasing in Ontario, particularly in the south where human development is greatest (OBC 2010). This trend is likely to continue as Ontario’s population is projected to grow by 31% over the next 28 years, from an estimated 13.5 million in 2013 to almost 17.8 million by 2041, resulting in greater fragmentation of the remaining ecological network (Ontario Ministry of Finance 2014).

This indicator assesses terrestrial landscape fragmentation in Ontario using effective mesh size, an unbiased measure of the sizes of habitat patches within regions.

Data Analysis:

Terrestrial landscape fragmentation in southern Ontario was assessed based on natural and anthropogenic land cover types in 2011 aggregated from the Southern Ontario Land Resource and Information System (SOLRIS v 2.0; OMNRF 2015). Landscape fragmentation was measured using effective mesh size (Jaeger 2000). Effective mesh size (meff) is a method to quantify fragmentation based on the probability that two points chosen at random in a region will be connected (i.e., found in the same habitat patch; Jaeger 2000). It is measured in units of area (i.e., ha or km2)

The 26 cantons in

2002

(FG 4)


88

Canton Aargau 1885 and 2002 (FG 4)

1885 2002

89

Canton Aargau

90

Tunnels

8 km

meff = 26 km2 meff = 50 km2

4 km

Applications:

91

Bundling of transportation infrastructure

8 km

meff = 16 km2 meff = 37,7 km2

2 km 2 km

each 0,1 km

5,8 km

Applications:

92

Detour roads:

keep them as close to the town as possible

8 km

meff = 14,6 km2 meff = 12,4 km2

4 km

Applications:

Raskop, 2005, unpubl.

94

Review of 38 EIAs in Europe(Gontier et al. 2006)

95

Review of 38 EIAs in Europe(Gontier et al. 2006)

● biodiversity assessment was confined to local scales

did not allow assessment of effects of habitat loss

and fragmentation

● lack of quantifications and methods for impact

predictions

● development and implementation of new methods

appear necessary

96

Declaration of the

German Federal Government in 1985

Goal to „reverse the trend in land consumption and landscape fragmentation“(Bundesminister des Innern 1985)

Intention to preserve large, un-fragmented spaces with little traffic as a central principle of regional planning and landscape planning

97

Proposal of the German Environmental Agency

to establish

limits to landscape fragmentation

UBA (2003), Penn-Bressel (2005)

Situation in 2002

Value of meff

Target until 2015:

Reduction in meff should be less

than

98

Lesson 9:

(9) There is a need to care about the

quality of the entire landscape, not

just about protected areas or wildlife

corridors.

99

Lesson 10:

(10) Protecting enough habitat is

important; wildlife corridors alone will

not be enough.

100

Permeability of transportation infrastructure

Jaeger (2007)

101


Jaeger (2007)

102


Jaeger (2007)

103

( )212211

)1(21

AABAAAAA

m ××-×+×+×=total


Jaeger (2007)

104

( )212211

)1(21

AABAAAAA

m ××-×+×+×=total

Barrier strength


Barrier strength: B

Jaeger (2007)

105

Crossing structures

( )212211

21

AANDAAAAA

m ××××+×+×=total

Jaeger (2007)

106

( )212211

21

AANDAAAAA

m ××××+×+×=total

Permeability

Crossing structures

Jaeger (2007)

107

( )212211

21

AANDAAAAA

m ××××+×+×=total

Probability of use

Permeability

Crossing structures

Jaeger (2007)

Documents

Using effective mesh size (m - CCEA · 59 3 Pressures on Biodiversit y St at us: In 2011, t he effect ive mesh size in sout hern Ont ario ranged from a low of 0.03 km2 in t he Toront