Biodiversity assessment at landscape level - tropecol.com · Biodiversity assessment at landscape...

ROY & BEHERA 151

Tropical Ecology 43(1): 151-171, 2002 ISSN 0564-3295 © International Society for Tropical Ecology

Biodiversity assessment at landscape level

P.S. ROY & M.D. BEHERA

Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (NRSA), Dehradun 248001, India

Abstract: Biodiversity is dynamic in nature; species and their populations are in a con-stant state of evolutionary change. The changes, as well as human-induced modifications of biodiversity, must be thought against the background of its 3.5 billion years history. The dis-crepancy between field knowledge and predictions; the applicability of the model to continual situations, where ecosystem fragmentation and consequent area loss is the important consid-eration and various methods for predicting biodiversity distribution have been discussed here. The utility of landscape ecological principles for biodiversity characterization has been de-scribed. Use of satellite remote sensing, geographic information system (GIS) and global posi-tioning system (GPS) techniques for assessing the disturbed and biologically-rich sites by many researchers have been highlighted. Satellite-derived vegetation map and various landscape ecological parameters (viz., patch shape, patch size, number of patches, porosity, fragmenta-tion, interspersion and juxtaposition) were analyzed by various authors to characterize various habitat ecosystems. The present approach of prioritizing the biodiversity rich sites has the ad-vantage of integrating spatial and non-spatial information with horizontal relationships and thus provides clue for conservation prioritization. Under the behest of Department of Biotech-nology and Department of Space, Government of India, landscape ecological approach is being used to characterize the biologically-rich areas in six regions of the country i.e., north-east In-dia, western Himalaya, western Ghats, Andaman and Nicobar islands, eastern and central In-dia. A case study for the state of Arunachal Pradesh has been discussed in detail. The potential applications of the database prepared as a result of the inventory have been described. This method of biodiversity characterization has the following advantages over the traditional method of inventory e.g. (i) has an ecological basis since many ecological components are con-sidered (ii) all the components have precise positional (locational) representation on earth sur-face. In the days of pilferage of bioresources and in the backdrop of intellectual property right issues, a quick and effective geospatial technique for characterizing biodiversity at landscape level will go a long way in conservation and judicious management of bioresources.

Resumen: La biodiversidad tiene una naturaleza dinámica; las especies y sus poblaciones

están en un estado constante de cambio evolutivo. Se debe pensar en los cambios y las modifi-caciones de la biodiversidad inducidas por los seres humanos a la luz de sus 3,500 millones de años de historia. Se discuten la discrepancia entre el conocimiento de campo y las predicciones, la aplicabilidad del modelo a situaciones continuas, donde la fragmentación de los ecosistemas y la consecuente pérdida de área es la consideración importante, así como varios métodos para la predicción de la biodiversidad. Se describe la utilidad de los principios de la ecología del paisaje en la caracterización de la biodiversidad. Se enfatiza el uso de técnicas de percepción remota satelital, sistemas de información geográfica (SIG) y sistemas de posicionamiento global (GPS) en la evaluación hecha por numerosos investigadores de los sitios perturbados y los biológicamente ricos. Varios autores analizaron un mapa de vegetación obtenido de información satelital, así como varios parámetros ecológicos del paisaje (p.ej., forma del fragmento, tamaño

Address of Correspondence: P.S. Roy, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (NRSA), 4, Kalidas Road, P.O. Box – 135,Dehradun UA 248001, India. Tel: +91-135-744583, 744518; Fax: +91-135-741987; Email: [email protected]

152 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT

del fragmento, número de fragmentos, porosidad, fragmentación, entremezclado y yuxtaposi-ción) con el fin de caracterizar varios ecosistemas de hábitat. El presente enfoque para asignar prioridades a los sitios ricos en biodiversidad tiene la ventaja de integrar información espacial y no espacial con relaciones horizontales, y por lo tanto ofrece claves para la asignación de es-tas prioridades en la conservación. Por disposición de los Departamentos de Biotecnología y de Espacio, Gobierno de la India, el enfoque de la ecología de paisaje está siendo utilizado para caracterizar áreas biológicamente ricas en seis regiones del país, i.e., el noreste de la India, el Himalaya occidental, los Ghats occidentales, las islas Andaman y Nicobar, y la India oriental y central. Se discute en detalle un estudio de caso para el estado de Arunachal Pradesh. Se de-scriben las aplicaciones potenciales de la base de datos obtenida como resultado del inventario. Este método para caracterizar la biodiversidad tiene las siguientes ventajas sobre los métodos de inventario tradicionales: (i) tiene una base ecológica ya que se consideran muchos compo-nentes ecológicos, y (ii) todos los componentes tienen una representación de posición (localidad) en la superficie de la tierra. En los días de saqueo de recursos bióticos y teniendo como telón de fondo la cuestión del derecho de propiedad intelectual, una técnica geoespacial rápida y efectiva para caracterizar la biodiversidad a nivel de paisaje llegará muy lejos en la conservación y el manejo sensato de los recursos bióticos.

Resumo: Na natureza a biodiversidade é dinâmica; as espécies e as suas populações estão

em constante mudança evolutiva. As mudanças na biodiversidade, e incluindo as induzidas pelo homem, devem ser consideradas em relação ao pano de fundo dos seus 3,5 milhões de anos de história. A discrepância entre o conhecimento de campo e as predições; a aplicabilidade do modelo de situações de continuidade, onde a fragmentação do ecossistema e perdas conse-quentes de área são considerações importantes, e os vários métodos para predição da biodiver-sidade são discutidos. A utilidade dos princípios da ecologia da paisagem para a caracterização da biodiversidade é descrita. O uso, por muitos investigadores, da detecção remota por satélite, do sistema de informação geográfica (SIG) e das técnicas do sistema de posicionamento global (GPS) para avaliação dos distúrbios em estação biologicamente ricas têm sido evidenciadas. Mapas de vegetação baseados na informação de satélite bem como de vários parâmetros ecológicos da paisagem (configuração e tamanho das manchas, número das manchas, porosi-dade e fragmentação, intercepção e justaposição) foram analisados por vários autores para caracterizar os vários habitats dos ecossistemas. A abordagem da priorização presente da bio-diversidade de estações ricas tem a vantagem de integrar informação espacial e não espacial, com relações horizontais, e providenciar, dessa maneira, chaves para priorização da conserva-ção. Sob comando do Departamento de Biotecnologia e Departamento do Espaço do Governo da Índia, foi usada uma abordagem com base na ecologia da paisagem para caracterizar as áreas biologicamente ricas em seis regiões do país, i.e., noroeste da Índia, Himalaias ocidentais e Ghates ocidentais e das ilhas de Andaman e Nicobar, Índia oriental e central. Um estudo de caso para o Estado de Arunachal Pradesh é discutido em detalhe. As aplicações detalhadas da base de dados preparada em resultado do inventário é descrita. Este método de caracterização da biodiversidade apresenta as seguintes vantagens sobre o método tradicional: (i) tem uma base ecológica, dado que muitas componentes ecológicas são consideradas; (ii) todas as compo-nentes estão georeferenciadas. Nos dias em que os biorecursos são rapinados e a propriedade intelectual é sonegação, uma rápida e efectiva técnica geoespacial para caracterização da biodi-versidade ao nível da paisagem tem uma larga aplicação na conservação e gestão judiciosa dos biorecursos.

Key words: Biological richness, conservation prioritization, disturbance regimes, fragmentation, Geo-

graphic Information System, remote sensing.

ROY & BEHERA 153

Introduction

Biodiversity refers to the quality, range or ex-tent of differences between the biological entities in a given set. Thus it would be the diversity of all life and is a characteristic or property of nature, not an entity or a resource. This covers the total range of variation in and variability among sys-tems and organisms, at the regional, landscape, ecosystem and habitat levels, at the various organ-ism levels, down to species, populations and indi-viduals. It also covers the complex shades of struc-tural and functional relationships within and be-tween these different levels of organisations (Fig. 1), including human action, and their origin and evolution in space and time domain. Darwin’s (1859) theory of evolution by descent made sense of the natural patterns observed in the variation be-tween organisms. Through natural selection, these heritable changes may spread throughout the population and over time can lead to the produc-tion of new linkages closely similar to their rela-tives. Such lineage diversification produces strictly hierarchical pattern. Roughly 4.5 billion years of biotic evolution has led to an enormous diversity of living forms on earth.

Biodiversity often decreases with distance from source populations, and is most constrained by dispersal in areas that are surrounded by dis-

similar habitats (Colinvaux 1993). It is becoming evident that patterns of diversity in natural set-tings showing strong ecological correlation may reflect history rather than the product of ecological equilibrium of species diversity determined by the outcome of species interactions. The decrease in diversity by decrease in distance may in part re-flect the relative edge, geographical extent and different historical patterns of barrier formation and consequent biotic disruptions. Distributional studies of biodiversity patterns show that each re-gion has had a unique phylogenetic, geographic and ecological history that has set contemporary biodiversity.

Biodiversity Assessment: Indian Initiatives Botanical Survey of India (BSI) and Zoological

Survey of India (ZSI) have been involved in survey and exploration of flora and fauna present in the country (1983). The Red Data Book enlists the IUCN categories of plants and animals occurring in various parts of the nation (Nayar & Shastri 1987). Government of India has been involved in launching various projects from time to time for inventorying and preserving the biological data-base viz., Project on Study, Survey and Conserva-tion of Endangered Plants (POSSCEP), National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).

Biosphere

Biome

Landscape

Ecosystem

Community

Population

Species

Fig. 1. A structurally distinct geographical space, which is kilometers wide is called a landscape. Bio-sphere is the limited zone of life on earth.


However, a lot of database has been developed out of these studies. But the important components lacked in these studies are (a) lack of proper documentation and database retrieval system (b) lack of spatial (locational) information on IUCN plant categories (c) absence of time-period study to assess the change etc. In a most recent attempt to map bio-geographical regions, Rodgers & Panwar (1988) attempted to define the bio-geographical regions of India and mapped ten bio-geographical zones. The Wildlife Institute of India has con-verted these regions on to Survey of India (SOI) digital database. An established method of biodi-versity conservation is the protected area concept, which lacks many integral components. It was ob-served that the process of selecting protected areas and determining a protection category was arbi-trary, unsystematic and inconsistent. Protected areas were also not placed in any rational system of regional land use planning. As a result, even densely settled areas were designated as national parks and many important biodiversity areas were not included in the network (Kothari et al. 1989). Most obvious causes of biodiversity loss in India have been habitat loss, over-exploitation, and in-troduction of invasive species and lack of national land use policy.

Characterizing biodiversity Biodiversity characterization involves two dif-

ferent processes, the observational and characteri-zation of the main units of variation (genes, spe-cies and ecosystems) and the quantification of variation within and between them. In reality, they are part of the same process; the analysis of pattern defines the unit and characterization of their variation. Characterization of biodiversity depends critically on the work of three scientific disciplines i.e., taxonomy, ecology and genetics. Or-ganisms occur in an intricate spatial mosaic classi-fied on a world scale into biogeographic zones, bi-omes, ecoregions and oceanic realms, and at a va-riety of smaller scales within landscape into eco-systems and communities. The biodiversity at landscape level can be characterized by measures of species richness, species diversity, taxic diver-sity and functional diversity (Roy & Behera 2000). Hence, assessment of characterization units and techniques leave rather a dissected view of biodi-versity at different levels of description. The re-mote predictors or surrogates often play very sig-

nificant role to measure richness. The habitat sur-rogates including classification of vegetation, de-tails on the physical environment, factors deter-mining the biodiversity loss in a spatial context may be of practical information value and could reduce sampling intensity. This information base could also guide detailed sampling on the ground. These larger scale surrogates include entire func-tional system and are more likely to promote popu-lation viability in the ecosystem. In conservation, this is likely to differ with earlier measures of eco-logical diversity formulated with the narrower aim of representing differences in abundance among species, exploring distribution of resources within community. If the value of biodiversity to a conser-vationist is associated with its use to people then this ought to be separated carefully from issues of rarity, viability and threat. If the biodiversity value is associated with richness in a currency of characters of organism then the higher level of bio-logical organization (or environmental factors af-fecting its distribution) will have to be used in sur-rogate measures. Choosing a surrogate level from this scale is a compromise between the precision of the measure on the one hand, and the availability of the data and the cost of data compilation on the other. Higher-level surrogates should have the ad-ditional advantage of implicitly integrating more of the functional processes that favour viability. The taxonomic inventories in the past have only been able to reach partial level of understanding the richness. Hence this should be a top down and bottom up approach together (Fig. 2).

Landscape ecology A landscape addresses a number of technical

issues e.g., managing large datasets, scaling proc-esses among different spatial and temporal scales and the whole concept of ‘ecosystem management’ include many of the tenants of landscape ecology. Ecological systems do not exist as discrete units but represent different parts of a natural continum in the form of landscape. It can also be considered as higher level of biological complexity and im-mensely useful for understanding various complex processes. Landscape ecology allows studying these processes on different scales and time. The relatively new discipline of landscape ecology pro-vides insight into both landscape diversity and species diversity and suggests a theoretical and practical basis for conservation planning. The

ROY & BEHERA 155

management should thus focus on the ecosystems that contain these species and on the landscapes in which ecosystems are found.

There are three basic characteristics of land-scapes that affect their diversity: structure, func-tion and dynamics (Forman & Godron 1986). The patch is the basic unit of the landscape structure; the characteristics of patches and the spatial rela-tionships among patches are important compo-nents of the landscape (Lidicker 1995). The distri-bution of energy, material and species among patches differing in size, shape, abundance and configuration are particularly important to pat-terns in diversity at the landscape scale. Land-scape dynamics include characteristics of structure and function both in order to examine changes in pattern and processes over time. The conservation of biodiversity requires understanding of all three elements, including the effects of human activities on the system. Landscape composition can be measured in ways analogous to measurements of species composition (Romme 1982). The most

straight forward approach is landscape richness i.e. the number of different patch types in a land-scape. Another approach includes the relative abundance or dominance of different patch types along with richness. Measurements of landscape diversity are analogous to common measurements of species diversity (Whittaker 1977, 1995). Differ-ent patch types provide different habitats and spe-cies composition, thus one might expect that the total number of species in a landscape would in-crease as landscape richness increases (Burnett et al. 1998). Landscape level approach also addresses the changes that might be expected in biodiversity as a result of anthropogenic activity and also the complementary issue of how changes in biodiver-sity will affect the functioning of biological systems (Franklin 2001).

Patch description A patch is relatively homogenous nonlinear

area that differs from its surroundings. The defini-tion and identification of individual patches and

Genes

Species

Population

Community

Ecosystem

Landscape

Approach 2

Approach 1

Hierarchy of Biological Organisation

Approach (Existing) 1 : Time ConsumingHigh extinction rate ? Overtaking inventory process

Approach (Proposed) 2 : Stratified approachExtrapolation on large landscapesSystematic MonitoringSpatial Environmental Database

Fig. 2. Hierarchy of biological organization.


their boundaries are important steps in character-izing the structure of a landscape. Most methods of patch identification combine qualitative and quan-titative approaches. Turner et al. (1993) provided quantitative techniques to group similar cells into homogenous patches or to identify repeating pat-terns across landscape. These methods include moving window analysis and satellite image to characterize landscapes with sharp transitions. Once the patches in a landscape have been identi-fied, there are many ways to describe and quantify them (Peter et al. 2001; Ritters et al. 1995). The patch size and shape are the most understood landscape characteristics with species diversity. The relationship between patch size and species richness goes well beyond the familiar species-area curve (Fig. 3).

Fragmentation Fragmentation of landscape results in geo-

graphical isolation and the probability of recoloni-sation strongly depends on the distance of frag-ments from the main core and on the quality of the surrounding habitat. Fragmentation study takes into account connectivity (corridors), presence of ecotones, the meta population structure etc. It in-

creases the vulnerability of these patches to exter-nal disturbance with threat on the survival of these patches and on the supporting biodiversity (Nilson & Grelsson 1995). Fragmentation is one of the most severe processes to depress biodiversity (Farina 1998). Large fragments have more species, are less distributed and have lower road access than smaller fragments. Severity of tropical forests fragmentation has been studied with respect to distance effects, fragment size, edge effects and biotic changes (Bierregaard et al. 1992; Ravan & Roy 1997). The corridors are physical and func-tional connectivity to allow the movement of plant species and fauna. They are severely affected due to fragmentation (Villard & Taylor 1994; Villard et al. 1995). It is also observed that habitat require-ment for sensitive species are specific to area size and surrounding characters (Bancroft et al. 1995). Fragments having edges of dense shrubby vegeta-tion that prevent alien species from entering, al-though at the same time these warm edges are attractive to alien species (Brothers & Spingarn 1992). Despite these negative effects, fragments are better than nothing (Turner & Corlett 1996). Fragmentation of the terrestrial habitats is wide-

Patch Area

No.

of S

p eci

e s

Fig. 3. Species Area Curve showing the increase in species number with increasing patch size tending towards aregional limit (Peter et al. 2001).

ROY & BEHERA 157

spread in most parts of the world, and its negative effects have been well-documented (Saunders & Ingram 1987). Matrix is the most connected ele-ment and structural attribute. Hence in landscape perspective, matrix and patches are the elements that are used while considering fragmentation in a landscape (Baudry 1984; Wien 1994). Using the neighborhood concept, it is possible to measure the relative size and isolation of the patches. Envi-ronmental patchiness can reflect a mosaic of soil types, topographic conditions, microclimate and successful stages after recovery from disturbance (Lambeck & Saunders 1993). The functional rela-tionships of patchiness with species diversity are due to (a) dependence of species diversity on physi-cal substrate; (b) interspecies dependence; (c) spe-cies interactions within communities; (d) inciden-tal species relations; and (e) dynamics of a land-scape.

The landscape way – world goes? The structured, spatially explicit approach for

describing, analysing and evaluating the distribu-tion of vegetation, species composition of heath and mire in Northern Ireland was based on multi-variate land classification and field sampling (Millsopp et al. 1997). Forman & Godron (1986) observed three landscape characteristics i.e., struc-ture, function and change. Several studies have suggested that the landscape have critical thresh-old at which ecological processes will show dra-matic qualitative changes (Gardner et al. 1989; O’ Neill et al. 1989; Turner 1989). Godron (1991) has documented that remote sensing gives a perspec-tive horizontal view and helps in delineating dif-ferent landscape elements and their spatial char-acteristics. McGarigal & Marks (1995) have docu-mented that the patch density and mean patch size serve as fragmentation indices for comparison between two time periods. The role of patch con-nectiveness on the dispersal and spatio-temporal distribution of a small tree dwelling bird and also revealing the presence of birds being significantly related to the length of suitable patches has been dealt by Farina (1998). Patch size can influence floral and faunal composition and richness. Small patches of forest tend to have a greater proportion of edge to interior than large patches and thus are more likely to harbour exotic or weedy species (Levenson 1981). Fuller et al. (1998) combined field surveys of plants and animals with satellite re-

mote sensing of broad vegetation types to map bio-diversity and thereby helped plan conservation in Sango Bay area in Uganda. Debinski et al. (1999) had used remotely sensed data and GIS to catego-rize habitats, and then determined the relation-ship between remotely sensed habitat categoriza-tions and species distribution patterns. Many workers had studied on the patterns of species richness in biogeographical, ecological or habitat space biology (Pinaka 1966; Richerson & Lum 1980; Rohde 1992). Relationships between richness patterns and various ecological, geographical or other factors have been dealt in by many workers (Currie 1993). The accuracy and validity of model-ing geographical patterns of species richness are critical factors in distinguishing and understand-ing the so called hotspots of biodiversity (Roy et al. 1993).

Few studies have been done in India to estab-lish relationship between the disturbance and the biological richness of the landscape elements. (Pandey & Shukla 1999; Roy et al. 1997; Roy & Tomar 2000). Menon & Bawa (1997) have also found the role of remote sensing, geographic in-formation system and landscape analysis for biodi-versity conservation in western Ghats using geo-spatial modeling approach. The study, however, only considered habitat fragmentation and did not include many other important landscape parame-ters. A horizontal relationship between the various spatial units at different spatial scale to study the homogeneity, heterogeneity and causative mecha-nisms have been established by Ravan & Roy (1995) during their landscape dynamics study of Madhav National Park in India. Ramesh et al. (1997) have attempted a vegetation-based ap-proach for biodiversity gap analysis. This approach takes into account the extent of deforestation, dis-tribution of forest/vegetation types, patchiness, and species diversity for each forest/vegetation type and uniqueness of the habitats. The study, however, did not take into account human induced disturbance sources. Nagendra & Gadgil (1999) attempted to investigate relationship of various landscape elements on the basis of field observa-tion. They found that the landscape elements sig-nificantly support distinctive sets of species of flowering plants. However, the study did not ana-lyze landscape based ecological parameters in a spatial context. They also could not integrate field data with satellite derived vegetation maps. Roy & Tomar (2000) used geospatial techniques to char-


acterize biodiversity at landscape level in Megha-laya. The pioneering attempt took into account environmental complexity, habitat and its attrib-utes and disturbance regimes to model the spatial variation in biological richness. The importance of the study lied in the fact that it can help in priori-tizing sites in conservation and also facilitate monitoring the perturbations of the richness of the landscape as a function of space and time. Behera (2000a) mapped the biologically-rich areas in Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh and ob-served that much of the biologically-rich areas were lying in the sub-tropical zone. Behera et al. (unpublished) attempted to validate the findings and observed that fragmentation has got signifi-cant impact on species diversity.

Community analysis Inventorying and analyzing vegetation cover is

the most practical way of tracking biodiversity. Information on species is crucial before they are lost forever. Article 7 of the United Nations Con-vention on Environment and Development re-quires signatory parties to ‘identify components of biodiversity importance conservation and sustain-able use and monitor, through sampling and other techniques, the components of biological units identified. Chapter 15.6 calls for the development of ‘methodologies with a view to undertake sys-tematic sampling and evaluation on a national ba-sis of the components of biological diversity identi-fied by means of country studies’ and to initiate or further develop methodologies and begin or con-tinue work on surveys at the appropriate level on the status of ecosystems and establish baseline information on biological resources. Studies of specimens collected during inventories yield data useful for resolving the phylogenetic relationships of species, which in turn, are essential for building predictive classification systems and permit the estimation of character diversity for comparison of biota (Williams et al. 1995). These relationships can be used to help prioritise areas for conserva-tion or other land management decisions. Species inventories provide the foundation for future in-dustrial applications, particularly those associated with bioprospecting (Behera et al. 2000b; Reid et al. 1993).

Is biodiversity related to disturbance? Disturbance is a common and widespread phe-

nomenon in nature and may be defined as a dis-crete event along the passage of time that modifies landscape, ecosystem, community and population structure (Pickett & White 1985). Fragmentation has a strong influence on the dynamics and fate of the material and energy moving across a land-scape. Disturbance regimes and their impact on communities and landscape can be well understood by analyzing spatial and temporal architecture of disturbance (Moloney & Levin 1996). Severe dis-turbance or even a prolonged absence of distur-bance generally has depressing effect on biodiver-sity, but intermediate disturbance seems to en-hance diversity in a system (Pickett & White 1985). The capacity of the landscape to incorporate human disturbance is overwhelmed and the dis-turbance process is transformed into a stress proc-ess, which reduces biodiversity. The disturbance regimes can be measured by using different indices i.e., degree of fragmentation, fractal dimension, contagion, juxtaposition, evenness and patchiness (Li & Reynolds 1994).

Biodiversity conservation planning at the landscape level – why?

To preserve species diversity most effectively, management plans must preserve the habitats and landscape structure needed by the target species, rather than simply preserving the species in isola-tion from the larger, potentially changing envi-ronment. Management practices aimed directly at a particular species run the risk of losing ecosys-tem functions that might actually be crucial for the target species, but that were unknown when the management plan was created. Furthermore, maximizing benefits for one species may threaten others. The ideal is to preserve overall ecosystem health, including species diversity. Given the large number of species on the planet, it is impossible, or at best impractical, to manage for every one of them. Instead, conservation biologists are now try-ing to identify ways to simplify the task of land-scape level management. The primary require-ments to evolve such an approach would be:

• Determination of disturbance regimes; • Knowledge on spatial distribution of bio-

logical richness;

ROY & BEHERA 159

• Determination of the optimum size of con-servation areas; and

• Identification of set of focal species, sensi-tive to particular landscape structure and function.

Geospatial tool – how does it help? Landscape ecology has evolved as an opera-

tional tool with the availability of geospatial mod-eling techniques. Space may be considered as ‘the final frontier for ecological theory’ (Karieva 1994) spacing or spatial arrangement is a scaled prop-erty of living organisms, from individuals to popu-lations, communities and meta-communities. It is the ecological replay of an organism to non-uniform distribution of resources (habitat suitabil-ity) and to inter and intra-specific competition in space and time. This is the central dogma of land-scape ecology. Spacing depends mainly on resource availability. Plants react to resource availability by arranging themselves in a finite and predictable pattern.

Satellite remote sensing Acquisition of images of earth from space has

opened new frontiers in mapping. The multispectral satellite images provide definitions of vegetation patches, which are related to phenological types, gregarious formations and communities occurring in unique environmental setup (Behera 1999). The temporal images help in monitoring all back proc-esses a landscape has experienced (Delcourt & Del-court 1988). Such an approach allows monitoring the forest condition and degradation processes (Roy & Behera 2000). The images also provide digital mosaic of the spatial arrangement of land cover and vegetation types amenable to computer processing (Coulson et al. 1990 ; Chuvieco 1999). The other ap-proach to analyze the landscape pattern properties is based on nominal scale classified maps. These maps can also be analyzed using various indices quantitatively, which measure the heterogeneity of landscape within a specific radius. Diversity and dominance are well known examples of those indi-ces (Baker & Cai 1992). They are ordinarily com-puted from samples of relatively homogenous cover types, named patches. Size, shapes, perimeter, con-nectivity, orientation, presence of corridors, visibil-ity or diversity of patches are critical variables for describing the landscape mosaic. Not much work has been done towards analysis of these variables

from satellite images. Analysis of landscape frag-mentation (Turner et al. 1993) has been common goals in the use of satellite data for landscape pat-tern analysis. It has recently been shown that these clumps (also known as ‘geographic windows’) are more suitable to describe spatial patterns than the standard moving windows of fixed sizes (Dillworth et al. 1994). In Indian context, Menon & Bawa (1997) have used remote sensing and GIS technolo-gies for biodiversity conservation following land-scape ecology and spatial analysis approach. In 1996, Kasturirangan et al. 1996 have forecasted that applications to biodiversity conservation is one of the areas in which remote sensing will play a role in the future.

Geographic information system (GIS) GIS provides the way to overlay different ‘lay-

ers’ of data: the ecological conditions, the actual vegetation physiognomy and human pressure indi-ces (e.g., as deduced from the density of population or road network). It helps to assess disturbance levels; the spatial distribution of several species in order to determine biodiversity hotspots; past and present maps for monitoring land cover and land use changes. It provides possibilities to extrapolate observations e.g., to automatically define and map the potential area of a given species and to com-pare it with the locations where, it has been actu-ally observed; or to combine different data sets for defining the potential list of species for a given for-est type. GIS provides a database structure for ef-ficiently storing and managing ecosystem-related data over large regions. It enables aggregation and dis-aggregation of data between regional, land-scape and plot scales. It also assists in location of study plots and/or ecologically sensitive areas. GIS supports spatial statistical analysis of ecological distributions. It improves remote sensing informa-tion extraction capabilities, and provides input data/parameters for ecosystem modelling. The data generated through ground truthing and inte-gration of related attributes when used in GIS ap-plication result into significant features of biodi-versity and genetic resources.

Global positioning system A GPS is a satellite-based positioning system

operated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). GPS allows the collection of information about the geographical position of any location us-ing a network of satellites. It has a great potential


in landscape ecology, as well as in many other re-lated disciplines requiring geographic locations of the objects in the landscape (Farina 1998). Cou-pled with GIS, it acts as a powerful tool to describe the geographical characteristics of ecological sys-tems. A practical use of GPS has been in locating the sample plots and this information was used for mapping and spatio-statistical analysis (Behera et al. 2000c).

Biodiversity conservation priority – setting the right criteria?

The complexity priority setting varies consid-erably due to complexity of biodiversity and the number of ways of valuing it. Among the biological criteria are richness (the number of species or eco-systems in given area), rarity, threat (degree of harm or danger), distinctiveness (how much a spe-cies differs from its nearest relative), representive-ness (how closely an area represents a defined eco-system) and function (the degree to which a species or ecosystem affects the ability of other species or ecosystems to persist). Some priority setting ap-proaches use social, policy and institutional crite-ria as well. Utility, the most common non-biological criteria, points to biodiversity elements of known or potential use to humankind. Feasibil-ity, often paramount in deciding how to allocate conservation resources, may be political, economic, logistical or institutional terms. Considering the biological criteria, areas can be identified where the actions are most likely to succeed. However, with increased recognition the social, policy and institutional factors are crucial for conserving bio-diversity. Ecological approaches for setting priori-ties for biodiversity conservation generally seek to protect most of the species within conservation areas that are representative of a region’s natural habitat. Ecosystem approaches for identifying con-servation priorities use multiple criteria such as species richness, endemism, abundance, unique-ness and representativeness, as well as considera-tions of the physical environment, ecological proc-esses and disturbance regimes that help to define the ecosystem.

Baseline data on biodiversity at landscape level

The goals and scales of inventorying and moni-toring programs may change with time. Hence, the

baseline data at landscape level should be suffi-ciently robust to accommodate changes. It should be based on robust samples enabling calibration for future rapid biodiversity assessment. Land-scapes contain all levels of the biological hierarchy, from ecosystem to species and genes that are tar-geted for biodiversity inventories and conserva-tion. The present effort to characterize vegetation cover, fragmentation, disturbance and biological richness across the landscape is organized in the form of Biodiversity Information System (BIS) (Fig. 4). The field samples of key ecological charac-ters have been used for geospatial extrapolation. The species database has been linked with above spatial details. The BIS allows to identify gap ar-eas, species / habitat relationship and helps in bio-diversity conservation planning by setting priority areas. Such database coupled with detailed site-specific field inventories helps in identifying areas for bioprospecting.

The assessment of biological rich areas brings out distinctiveness of the landscapes as driven by pattern of richness, endemism, biological corridors, community composition and diversity. The analy-sis made also presents full range of distinct natu-ral communities and ecological status at landscape level. The landscape capable of maintaining the viable population species, sustain important eco-logical processes and services that maintain biodi-versity are also mapped. This information is of valued importance in rugged, inhospitable region throughout northeastern region. Such areas re-main by and large under explored. The results presented here could form the basic guideline to plan flora and faunal future inventories. The focus should be to cover varied landscapes differing based on vegetation types, disturbance regimes and BR. Such an approach allows to build habitat factors like biophysical environment, landscape indices and disturbance regimes which allow moni-toring changes taking place over a time in biodi-versity regimes. Understanding of species habitat relationships, inventorying patterns, multivariate modeling of long-term datasets allows to formulate and test the hypothesis. The dataset could also allow monitoring and forecasting changes through extinction models using multi-temporal data. Such modeling can help in impact of global change in different landscapes. Finally the approach can be extended to study species diversity and genetic variability in biologically rich sites for prioritizing focus on bioprospecting.

ROY & BEHERA 161

Biodiversity characterization at landscape level in Arunachal Pradesh – fulfills the in-

formation need? The rich species diversity which characterizes

the flora of north-eastern region of India is largely attributable to the diverse geographical area, var-ied topography, climate and soil variability, immi-gration and colonization of plant species from widely different territories and is a transitional zone between India, Indo-Malayan and Indo-Chinese biogeographical zones as well as the con-fluence of the Himalayan region with peninsular India (Rao 1994). Forest of Arunachal Pradesh in northeastern region of India with such rich biodi-versity is disappearing at an alarming rate mainly due to anthropogenic activities. Irreversible changes and deterioration of ecosystems are caused not only by the extensive destruction of natural habitats but also by direct extermination of many important species of fauna and flora meet-ing various human needs and greeds. Jhum or shifting cultivation, which is widely practiced in hills of Arunachal, is also a causing factor in the depletion of biodiversity. Application of recent ad-

vances of space technology and their integration with biodiveristy studies to different levels and data generation for setting criteria and priorities are provided below.

Methods

Mapping at macro level The satellite data of IRS-1C/1D have been used

to extract the vegetation types, considering forest phenology and optimal season. Regional level mapping was carried out for the preparation of ecological zone map using IRS-WiFS data (Wide Field Sensor) with a capability of covering large area in single instantaneous field of view (IFOV). It has a potential for monitoring the phenological fluxes of largely forested landscape at regional level. Integration of maximum NDVI was evalu-ated for monitoring the seasonal changes in vege-tation. This was found as an excellent source of data for understanding the land dynamic processes and human interventions in the region, which was taken as one of the inputs in mapping disturbance regimes.

Satellite Remote Sensing &Geo-spatial Modeling

Availability Distributed Spatial Data

Species Database

Identification of Biological Gap AreaSpecies + Habitat RelationashipsBiodiversity Conservation Planning Bioprospecting Zonation

Biological RichnessDisturbance Index

Vegetation TypeFragmentation

PRIMARY OUTPUTS

Digital Elevation ModelDrainage

Digital Chart World

Settlement+ Roads (DCW)

Wildlife Institute Of India(Biogeographical zones of India)

FSI (Forest Cover Map)

ANCILLARY INFORMATION

NON SPATIAL INFORMATION

Red Data Book (BSI)

Field DatabasePublished Flora

Endemic Species

French Institute Database

Fig. 4. Biological Information System (BIS).


Mapping at meso level IRS – 1C/1D LISS-III digital data were used

for classification. The entire state of Arunachal Pradesh is covered in 21 scenes. The scenes were geometrically corrected (Root Mean Square Error < 0.002 – 0.007) and then mosaiced. With the help of Survey of India (SOI) digital boundary the state area was extracted. Pre-processing (radiometric and atmospheric correction) of data was done prior to classification. Digital classification was carried out through hybrid classification (supervised and unsupervised techniques) approach using ERDAS Imagine software. Finally classified map of the study area was prepared on 1:250 000 scale. Inten-sive ground truth data was collected prior to classi-fication by repetitive field visits. Various vegeta-tion classes mapped are as follows: tropical ever-green, tropical semi-evergreen, moist mixed de-ciduous, sub-tropical evergreen, temperate broad-leaved, conifers, sub-alpine and alpine scrub, bam-

boo mixed, abandoned jhum, degraded, Diptero-carpus, Hollock, Pine, fir, Rhododendron, Riverain and grass land. Various non-forest classes mapped are dry river bed/sand, agriculture, fallow/barren land, river/water body, settlement/habitation, shadow, snow and cloud. This classified informa-tion has been used to delineate the spatial extent of forest (Fig. 5).

Field data generation Stratified random sampling and nested quad-

rat approach was followed for carrying out com-munity analysis after a reconnaissance survey in various districts of the state (Anon. 1998). Size of the quadrat was determined through species-area-curve. Phytosociological data viz. relative fre-quency, relative density and relative dominance have been calculated to compute the importance value index (IVI) for each stratum. The IVI has been utilized to calculate species richness using

High Low

‘Ecosystem richness’ ?

Climate class richness

Terrain class richness

Substrate class richness

Landscape class richness

Habitat class richness

‘Community class richness’

Vegetation class richness

Higher taxon richness

Species/subspecies richness

Taxonomic/phylogenetic subtree length

Expressed gene richness

Environmental surrogates

Environmental /Assemblage surrogates

Assemblage surrogates

Taxonomic surrogates

Molecular surrogates

Low

Advantage:Precision as a measureof character diversity

A scale of surrogacy for a value currency of character diversity

Advantage:Inexpensivesurvey & units more inclusiveof viability enhancing process

High

Source: Paul Williams, 2000

Fig. 5. Vegetation Type/ Land use Map of Arunachal Pradesh.

ROY & BEHERA 163

the Shannon-Wiener index. The field data was col-lected to derive biodiversity value on the basis of importance index, forest density and economic value. These parameters have ultimately been used to ordinate the vegetation types (Behera 2000a; Roy & Tomar 2000).

Landscape characterization Satellite images were used to generate the

vegetation type map. Digitally classified product with different landscape parameters (porosity, fragmentation, interspersion, juxtaposition, patch characteristics) were generated and analysed. Us-ing these different characters along with proximity inputs (roads and settlements) were used to derive disturbance index (DI) map. To fulfill the require-ment of landscape analysis, Bio_CAP that is a Geospatial Semi-Expert package was developed using GIS package (Arc/Info), Image Processing (ERDAS) and C/C++(Anon. 1999).

Disturbance Index

= ∫ fragmentation, patchiness, interspersion, porosity, biotic disturbance buffer, juxtaposition

Biodiversity characterization The biological richness at landscape is deter-

mined as a function of ecosystem uniqueness, spe-cies diversity, biodiversity value, terrain complex-ity and disturbance. The main parameters like EU, H, BD etc., come from ground based observations in various vegetation types specially ecosystem uniqueness is derived with the help of species da-tabase query shell which is based on IUCN catego-rization scheme. Terrain complexity is derived from the terrain through DEM. The biological richness values have been used for scaling the re-gion or area for potential biodiversity prospect zones (Fig. 6).

Biological richness index

= ∫ ecosystem uniqueness, species diversity, biodiversity value, terrain complexity and disturbance index

Result and discussion

Vegetation mapping The entire state of Arunachal Pradesh was

covered in 21 LISS-III scenes of IRS-1C/1D satel-

lites. Due to the radiometric variation between individual scenes, they were classified separately and then mosaiced using the previously stored ground control points (GCPs) to obtain the final classified map for the entire state. The vegetation cover type map was prepared by using digital clas-sification following hybrid approach.

Community analysis Highest Shannon-Weiner diversity was ob-

served in subtropical evergreen forest followed by temperate broadleaved and tropical evergreen for-est. Total number of families, genera and species of plants were found to be highest in tropical semi-evergreen forest.

Disturbance index The landscape parameters were finally inte-

grated to derive disturbance index map of the state (Fig. 7). Assigning different intra-class weights to various indices has simulated disturbance index after performing normalization. Disturbance index image obtained gives a clear picture of both an-thropogenic and natural disturbances and their spatial extent in various levels. The map shall be useful for managers and decision makers for vari-ous planning and enforcing conservation meas-ures.

Biological richness mapping The mapping of biological richness carried out

in Subansiri district of Arunachal Pradesh (Behera 2000) revealed that sub-tropical evergreen forest zone is highly rich biologically followed by tropical semi-evergreen forest environment (Fig. 8). The biological richness map shows a clear pattern, which cannot be judged without a critical under-standing of the whole spectrum of phenomenon responsible for it.

The results of the present study characterize biodiversity at landscape level for bioprospecting and conservation. This work aims at developing reversal process of deforestation and degradation in north-eastern region by setting conservation priorities. The information system evolved through multicriteria analysis in GIS facilitates the following:

• Rapid assessment for monitoring biodiver-sity loss and/or gain

• Assess nature of habitat and disturbance regimes;

ROY & BEHERA 165

ROY & BEHERA 167

• Evolve species – habitat relationship; • Mapping biological richness and gap

analysis; and • Prioritizing conservation and bioprospect-

ing sites. Following are the areas where the database

would have direct use.

Highlights of the work The status of information and ongoing practi-

cal aspects of the integrated studies using recent techniques of remote sensing, GIS and GPS pro-vided following features:

• Biodiversity is generally greatest in the oldest ecosystems. It changes across envi-ronmental gradients like, latitude, alti-tude, depth, aridity etc. The habitat defini-tions in the form of vegetation cover types

will allow ‘what to look where’. The distur-bance regimes assessed across the land-scape will allow focusing on the ecosys-tems, which are under ‘stress’. Hence if the field survey indicates that the region is important habitat for a species for bio-prospecting, the ‘stress’ factor needs to be removed/reduced.

• Biological Richness Index (BR) asserts the areas, which should be treated as priority in decision-making and management level for conservation of biodiversity. The Gap Analysis carried out on maps will guide mangement and decision making for bio-prospecting.

• All plant species have a basic requirement of its ecological optima in particular habi-tat or niche within range of tolerance and requirement. Habitat identification and

Fig. 9. Genetic diversity vs. Species diversity.


economic importance of the species can be useful input for bioprospecting and biodi-versity conservation.

• Biological rich areas are those habitats where landscape ecological conditions are favorable for natural speciation and evolu-tionary process. These areas can be ex-pected to be in equilibrium where species can occur, grow and evolve in natural con-ditions.

• Each species requires a specific ecological niche (minimum/optimum area for its sur-vival, evolution, gene exchange). Analysis of landscape parameters like habitat frag-mentation, patchiness, interspersion and juxtaposition have shown impact on the definition of the limits in different habi-tats. Greater the variety of types of habi-tat, the greater is diversity of the species. Diversity also increases with expanding architectural complexity of the physical habitat.

• Management of contaguous (large), intact and juxtaposed patches of high diversity in any landscape should draw first attention for conservation. The ground inventories on species/ genetic diversity should further decide on priorities. The patches having higher biological diversity at landscape level will be subject for more intensive ground inventories for assessing spe-cies/genetic diversity. The patches with genetic and species diversity should draw first attention followed by patches of high species and/or genetic diversity.

• Most of the species growing in the natural conditions have some sociological associa-tion with the species – environment com-plex and in general have fairly well defined niches. Similar ecological conditions in dif-ferent geographical location bear similar biodiversity if not the same. But they will have differences at genetic level. The vege-tation cover types, their composition, asso-ciation, latitude, altitude, fragmentation levels, inferences on possible corridors and species database compliment the informa-tion needs.

• Based on the existing literature about the occurrence of the valuable threatened spe-cies (BSI Red Data Book and field data of the present and subsequent studies), its

habitat can be examined in terms of its landscape requirements of the species. Once the comprehensive species database is established, potential species distribu-tion and occurrence maps can be gener-ated. Integrated gene marking techniques can help in preparing the location - species – environment complexes. Such informa-tion base can be of immense value for bio-prospecting.

• It is expected that the maps will be strate-gically used for planning detailed ground level inventories of flora and fauna by premier institutions like Botanical Survey of India, Zoological Survey of India, State forest departments and Wildlife Institute of India. The region wise maps can also be used for redefining ecological zones re-quired for biodiversity conservation.

Hence, it may be concluded that not ‘either-or’ but a hybrid approach (both ground sampling and satellite tool) play a major role in assessing biodi-versity at landscape level.

References

Anonymous. 1998. Biodiversity Characterization at Landscape Level using Geographic Information Sys-tem. Project Manual, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing. Dehradun.

Anonymous. 1999. Bio_CAP User Manual for Landscape Analysis and Modeling Biological Richness. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing. Dehradun

Baker, W.L. & Y. Cai. 1992. The role programs for mul-tiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographic information system. Landscape Ecology 7: 291-302.

Bancroft, G.T., A.M. Strong, M. Carrington. 1995. Defor-estation and its affects on foresting birds in the Florida Keys. Conservation Biology 9: 835-844.

Baudry, J. 1984. Effects of landscape structures on bio-logical communities: the case of hedgerow network landscapes. Proceedings of International Seminar. IALE Methodology in Landscape Ecological Re-search and Planning. Roskilde, Denmark, 15-19 October 1984. Vol. I: 55-65.

Behera, M.D. 1999. Remote sensing and environment. Employment News 24: 1-2.

Behera, M.D. 2000a. Biodiversity Characterization at Landscape Level in Subansiri District of Arunachal Pradesh (Eastern Himalaya) Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Ph.D. Thesis. Gurukul Kangri University, Hardwar.

ROY & BEHERA 169

Behera, M.D., S. Srivastava, S.P.S. Kushwaha & P.S. Roy. 2000b. Stratification and mapping of Taxus baccata L. bearing forests in Talle Valley using re-mote sensing and GIS. Current Science 78: 1008-1013.

Behera, M.D., C. Jeganathan, S. Srivastava, S.P.S. Kushwaha & P.S. Roy. 2000c. Utility of GPS in clas-sification accuracy assessment. Current Science 79: 1996-1700.

Bierregaard, R.O.J. 1992. The biological dynamics of tropical rainforest fragments. Bioscience 42:859-866.

Botanical Survey of India. 1983. Flora and Vegetation of India – An Outline. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah.

Brothers, T.S. & A. Spingarn. 1992. Forest fragmenta-tion and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old groth forests. Conservation Biology 6: 91-100.

Burnett, M.B., J. August, J. Brown & K.T. Killingbeck. 1998. The influence of geomorphological heterogene-ity on biodiversity: A patch-scale perspective. Con-servation Biology 12:363-370.

Chuvieco, E. 1999. Measuring changes in landscape pat-tern from satellite images: short-term effects of fire on spatial diversity. International Journal of Re-mote Sensing 20: 2331-2346.

Colinvaux, P. 1993. Ecology. 2nd Edition. John Wiley, New York.

Coulson, R.N., C.N. Lovelady, R.O. Flamm, S.L. Sprad-ling & M.C. Saunders. 1990. Intelligent geographic information systems for natural resource manage-ment. pp. 173-172. In: M.G. Turner & R.H. Gadner (eds.) Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. Ecological Studies-82 NewYork: Springler-Verlag.

Currie, D.J. 1993. Energy and large-scale patterns of animal and plant species richness. The American Naturalist 137: 27-49.

Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, London.

Debinski, D.M., M.E. Jakubauskas & K. Kindscher. 1999. A remote sensing and GIS based model of habitats and biodiversity in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. International Journal of Remote Sensing 20: 3281-3292.

Delcourt, H.R. & P.A. Delcourt. 1988. Quaternary land-scape ecology: relevant scales in space and time. Landscape Ecology 2: 23-44.

Dillworth, M.E., J.L. Whistler & J.W. Merchant. 1994. Measuring landscape structure using geographic and geometric windows. Photogrammetric Engineer-ing and Remote Sensing 60: 1215-1224.

Farina, A. 1998. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London.

Forman, R.T.T. & M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Franklin, J. F. 2001. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3: 202–205.

Fuller, R.M., G.B. Groom, S. Mugisha, P. Ipulet, D. Pomeror, A. Katende, R. Bailey & R. Ogutu-Ohwayo. 1998. The integration of field survey and remote sensing for biodiversity assessment: a case study in the tropical forests and wetlands of Sango Bay, Uganda. Biological Conservation 86: 379-391.

Gardner, R.H., R.V. O`Neill, M.G. Turner & V.H. Dale. 1989. Quantifying scale dependant effects of animal movements with simple percolation models. Land-scape Ecology 3: 217-227.

Gordon, B.B. 1991. Seasonal and annual carbon fluxes in a Boreal forest landscapes. Journal of Geophysi-cal Research 96: 17329-17338.

Hajra, P.K., D.M. Verma & G.S. Giri. 1996. Materials for the Flora of Arunachal Pradesh Vol-I. Botanical Sur-vey of India, P-8, Barbourne Road, Calcutta, India.

IIRS, 2001. Biodiversity Characterisation at Landscape Level, Project Report, IIRS, Dehradun.

Kareiva, P. 1994. Space: the final frontier for ecological theory. Ecology 95: 1

Kasturirangan, K., R. Aravamundan, B.L. Deekshatulu, G. Joshep & M.G. Chandrasekhar. 1996. Indian re-mote sensing satellite (IRS)-IC-The beginning of a new era. Current Science 70: 495-500.

Kothari. A., P. Pandey, S. Singh & D. Variava. 1989. Management of National Parks and Sanctuaries in India. A Status Report, Environmental Studies Di-vision, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi.

Lambeck, R.J. & D.A. Saunders. 1993. The role of patchiness in reconstructed Wheatbelt landscapes. pp. 153-161. In: D. Saunders, R. W.F. Loraunce, & P. Ehrlich, (eds.) Nature Conservation 3: Recon-struction of Fragmented Ecosystems. Sydney, Surrey Beeatty Sons.

Levenson, J.B. 1981. Woodlots as biogeographic islands in Southeastern Wisconsin. pp. 13-39. In: R.L. Bur-gess & D. M. Sharpe (eds.) Forest Islands in Man-Dominated Landscapes. New York, Springer-Verlag.

Li, H. & J.F. Reynolds. 1994. A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical map. Ecology 75: 36-55.

Lidicker, W.Z. Jr. 1995. The landscape concept: some-thing old, something new. pp. 3-19. In: W.Z. Lidicker Jr. (ed.) Landscape approaches in mam-malian ecology and conservation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

McGarigal, K. & B. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Struc-ture. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351.


Menon, S & K.S. Bawa. 1997. Application of geographic information systems, remote sensing and landscape ecology approach to biodiversity conservation in the Western ghats. Current Science 73: 134-145.

Millsopp, C.A., A. Cameron & J.H. McAdam. 1997. Landscape monitoring in environmentally sensitive areas in northern Irelands. pp. 321-324. In: A. Coo-per & J. Power (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth An-nual IALE (UK) Conference. University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.

Moloney, K.A. & S.A. Levin. 1996. The effect of distur-bance architecture on Landscape- level population dynamics. Ecology 77: 375-394.

Nagendra, H. & M. Gadgil. 1999. Biodiversity assess-ment at multiple scales: Linking remotely sensed data with field information, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 96: 9154-9158.

Nayar, N. P. & A.R.K. Sastry. 1987. Red Data Book of Indian Plants. Vol. I. Howrah: Botanical Survey of India.

Nilsson, C. & G. Grelsson. 1995. The fragility of ecosys-tems: a review. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 677-692.

O`Neill, R. V., A.R. Johnson & A.W. King. 1989. A hier-archical framework for the analysis of scale. Land-scape Ecology 3:193-205.

Pandey, S.K. & R.P. Shukla. 1999. Plant diversity and community patterns along the disturbance gradient in plantation forests of sal (Shorea robusta Garten.). Current Science 77: 814-818.

Peter, D.P., C. Sarah & C. Goslee. 2001. Landscape di-versity. pp. 645-658. In: S.A. Levin (ed.) Encyclope-dia of Biodiversity. Academic Press, New York.

Pickett, S.T.A. & P.S. White. 1985. The Ecology of Natu-ral Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, London.

Pinaka, E. R. 1966. Latitudinal gradients in space diver-sity: a review of concepts. The American Naturalist 100: 33-46.

Ramesh, B.R., S. Menon & K.S. Bawa. 1997. A vegeta-tion-based to approach to biodiversity gap analysis in the Agastymalai region. Western Ghats, India. Ambio 26: 529-536.

Rao, R.R. 1994. Biodiversity in India: Floristics Aspects. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun.

Ravan, S.A. & P.S. Roy. 1995. Landscape ecological analysis of a disturbance gradient using geo-graphic information system in the Madhav Na-tional Park, Madhya Pradesh. Current Science 68: 309-315.

Ravan, S.A. & P.S. Roy. 1997. Satellite remote sensing for ecological analysis of forested landscape. Plant Ecology. 131:129-141.

Reid, W., J. McNely, D. Tunstall, D. Bryant & M. Wino-grad. 1993. Biodiversity Indicators for Policy-Makers. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Richerson, P.J. & K.L. Lum. 1980. Patterns of plant spe-cies diversity in California: relation to weather and topography. The American Naturalist 116: 504-527.

Ritters, K.H., R.V. O`Neill, C.T. Hunsaker, J.D. Wick-ham, D.H. Yankee, S.P. Timmins, K.B. Jones & B.L. Jackson. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pat-tern and structure matrices. Landscape Ecology 10: 23-29.

Rodgers, W.A. & S.H. Panwar. 1988. Biogeographical classification of India. New Forest, Dehra Dun, In-dia.

Rohde, K. 1992. Latitudinal gradients in species diver-sity: the search for the primary cause. Oikos 65: 514-527.

Romme, W. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in sub alpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Eco-logical Monograph 52:199-221.

Roy, P.S. & M.D. Behera. 2000. Perspectives of biodiver-sity characterization from space, Employment News 25: 1-2.

Roy, P.S., S. Singh & M.C. Porwal. 1993. Characteriza-tion of ecological parameters in tropical forest com-munity– a remote sensing approach. Photonirva-chak 21: 127-149.

Roy, P.S. & S. Tomar. 2000. Biodiversity characteriza-tion at landscape level using geospatial modeling technique. Biological Conservation 95:95-109.

Roy, P.S., S. Tomar & C. Jegannathan. 1997. Biodiver-sity characterization at landscape level using re-mote sensing. NNRMS Bulletin B21: 12-18.

Saunders, D.A. & J.A. Ingram. 1987. Factors affecting survival of breeding populations of Carnaby,s cock-too Calyptorhyncus funereus latirostris in remnants of native vegetation. pp. 249-258. In: D.A. Saunders, G.W. Arnold, A.A. Burbidge & A.J.M. Hopkins, (eds.) Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants in Native Vegetation. Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

Turner, I. M. & R.T. Corlett. 1996. The conservation of small isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. TREE 11: 330-333.

Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pat-tern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Sys-tematics 20: 171-197.

Turner, M. G., R.H. Gardener, V.H. Dale & R.V. O`Neill. 1993. A revised concept of landscape equilibrium: disturbance and stability on scaled landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8: 213-227.

Villard, M.A. & P.D. Taylor. 1994. Tolerance to habitat fragmentation influences the colonization of new habitat by forest birds. Oecologia 98: 393-401.

ROY & BEHERA 171

Villard, M.A., G. Merriam & B.A. Maurer. 1995. Dynam-ics in subdivided populations of neurotropical mi-gratory birds in a fragmented temperate forest. Ecology 76: 27-40.

White, P.S. & T.A. Pickett. 1985. Natural disturabance and patch dynamics: an introduction. pp. In: T.A. Pickett, & P. White (eds.) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando.

Whittaker, R.H. 1977. Evolution of species diversity in land communities. Evolutionary Biology 10: 1-67.

Whittaker, R.H. 1995. Communities and Ecosystems. 2nd Edition. Mac-Millan Publishing Co., New York.

Wiens, J.A. 1994. Habitat fragmentation: island vs. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137: S97-S104.

Williams, P.H., K.J. Gaston & C.J. Humphries. 1995. Do conservationists and molecular biologists value the differences between organisms in the same way? Biodiversity Letters 2: 67-78.

Biodiversity assessment at landscape level - tropecol.com · Biodiversity assessment at landscape...

Documents

Transcript of Biodiversity assessment at landscape level - tropecol.com · Biodiversity assessment at landscape...