Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative ecological network pattern analysis: a case of Nanchang
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative ecological network pattern analysis: a case of Nanchang
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative ecological network pattern analysis: a case of Nanchang
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative ecological network pattern analysis: a case of Nanchang
2022
Overview
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.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
