PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY ›› 2014, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (12): 1704-1716.doi: 10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.12.014
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles
Yuting WANG1,2(), Shengyan DING1,2(
), Guofu LIANG1,2
Online:
2014-12-19
Published:
2014-12-19
CLC Number:
Yuting WANG, Shengyan DING, Guofu LIANG. Multi-scale effects analysis for landscape structure and biodiversity of semi-natural habitats and cropland in a typical agricultural landscape[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2014, 33(12): 1704-1716.
Table. 1
Mean values and standard deviation of landscape descriptors variables selected for the study"
景观描述变量 | 每个缓冲区变量的平均值(标准偏差) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
100 m | 250 m | 400 m | 550 m | |
土地利用丰富度(LUR) | 4.27(1.14) | 5.71(0.91) | 6.23(0.83) | 6.71(0.78) |
香农多样性指数(SHDI) | 0.85(0.25) | 0.96(0.26) | 1.01(0.24) | 1.02(0.25) |
欧几里得最近距离(ENN_MN) | 18.27(8.8) | 24.67(7.94) | 26.68(10.85) | 25.35(8.61) |
边缘密度(ED) | 328.7(123.3) | 278.1(73.5) | 266.8(58.95) | 260.1(51.43) |
周长面积比(PARAMD) | 2707(1664) | 4019.8(1050) | 4198.2(1049) | 4541.2(607) |
散布与并列指数(IJI)/% | 69.33(14.47) | 64.19(8.43) | 64.27(7.72) | 63.52(6.69) |
聚集度指数(AI) | 92.94(2.84) | 93.64(1.74) | 93.74(1.45) | 93.81(1.29) |
Table. 2
Mean values and standard deviation of response variables selected for the study"
响应变量 | 树篱(SL) | 人工林(LD) | 沟渠(GQ) | 农田(NT) |
---|---|---|---|---|
植物丰富度(Sveg) | 12.6(3.28) | 15.3(4.68) | 12.7(4.34) | |
植物多样性指数(Hveg) | 1.78(0.36) | 2.017(0.49) | 1.786(0.35) | |
植物均匀度指数(Eveg) | 0.71(0.11) | 0.748(0.14) | 0.714(0.09) | |
物种多度(Abun) | 15.92(10.83) | 13.23(12.99) | 21.04(11.81) | 13.08(9.49) |
物种丰富度(S) | 11.13(3.03) | 11.53(3.6) | 12.22(4.57) | 10.39(4.45) |
物种多样性指数(H) | 1.69(0.35) | 1.79(0.36) | 1.75(0.43) | 1.66(0.41) |
物种均匀度指数(E) | 0.71(0.14) | 0.75(0.14) | 0.73(0.13) | 0.75(0.11) |
Tab. 3
Spatial autocorrelation of vegetation diversity indices replicates and ground arthropods indices replicates"
植物/地表节肢动物多样性 | 林地 | 树篱 | 沟渠 | 农田 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moran' I | p | Moran's I | p | Moran's I | p | Moran's I | p | ||||
550 m | |||||||||||
Sveg | 0.350 | 0.217 | -0.207 | 0.590 | 0.022 | 0.889 | |||||
Eveg | 0.124 | 0.617 | 0.107 | 0.707 | 0.086 | 0.724 | |||||
Hveg | 0.224 | 0.407 | 0.132 | 0.659 | 0.068 | 0.770 | |||||
400 m | |||||||||||
Sveg | 0.364 | 0.388 | 0.152 | 0.759 | 0.127 | 0.738 | |||||
Eveg | -0.053 | 0.937 | 0.029 | 0.928 | 0.241 | 0.558 | |||||
Hveg | 0.307 | 0.452 | 0.136 | 0.779 | 0.196 | 0.627 | |||||
250 m | |||||||||||
Sveg | -0.134 | 0.906 | -0.060 | 0.967 | -0.801 | 0.417 | |||||
Eveg | -0.872 | 0.360 | 0.179 | 0.835 | -0.814 | 0.416 | |||||
Hveg | -0.435 | 0.663 | 0.304 | 0.737 | -0.764 | 0.445 | |||||
S | 0.012 | 0.733 | -0.047 | 0.819 | 0.257 | 0.125 | 0.157 | 0.108 | |||
E | -0.098 | 0.424 | -0.144 | 0.268 | -0.009 | 0.932 | 0.025 | 0.672 | |||
H | -0.110 | 0.344 | -0.235 | 0.053 | -0.026 | 0.997 | 0.145 | 0.126 | |||
Abun | 0.041 | 0.336 | 0.020 | 0.693 | 0.210 | 0.196 | 0.065 | 0.404 |
Tab. 4
Results of the GLM regression on plant species composition and landscape variables at different buffer radii"
景观 变量 | GLM | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
零偏差(df) | 残差偏差(df) | 偏差解释量/% | AIC | 尺度/m | |
人工林 | |||||
Sveg | 138.16(48) | 123.96(41) | 10 | 371.82 | 100 |
Hveg | 19.52(48) | 16.05(41) | 18 | 110.43 | |
Eveg | 1.97(48) | 1.6(41) | 19 | -9.47 | |
Sveg | 138.16(48) | 110.45(43) | 20 | 360.31 | 250 |
Hveg | 19.52(48) | 12.42(40) | 36 | 99.10 | |
Eveg | 1.97(48) | 1.27(40) | 36 | -16.63 | |
Sveg | 138.16(48) | 110.72(47) | 20 | 346.58 | 400 |
Hveg | 19.52(48) | 15.5(40) | 21 | 110.62 | |
Eveg | 1.97(48) | 1.55(40) | 22 | -9.27 | |
Sveg | 138.16(48) | 104.69(43) | 24 | 342.55 | 550 |
Hveg | 19.52(48) | 14.51(41) | 26 | 107.18 | |
Eveg | 1.97(48) | 1.61(41) | 18 | -7.06 | |
树篱 | |||||
Sveg | 160.72(46) | 153.36(41) | 5 | 379.68 | 100 |
Hveg | 20.34(46) | 18.83(41) | 7 | 118.74 | |
Eveg | 2.83(46) | 2.59(41) | 8 | 15.67 | |
Sveg | 160.72(46) | 122.17(40) | 24 | 350.49 | 250 |
Hveg | 20.34(46) | 14.38(40) | 29 | 106.74 | |
Eveg | 2.83(46) | 2.06(40) | 27 | 5.67 | |
Sveg | 160.72(46) | 138.3(40) | 14 | 366.63 | 400 |
Hveg | 20.34(46) | 16.44(40) | 19 | 113.67 | |
Eveg | 2.83(46) | 2.11(40) | 26 | 6.88 | |
Sveg | 160.72(46) | 139.95(41) | 13 | 366.27 | 550 |
Hveg | 20.34(46) | 17.31(41) | 15 | 114.37 | |
Eveg | 2.83(46) | 2.29(41) | 19 | 9.17 | |
沟渠 | |||||
Sveg | 313.21(43) | 297.78(41) | 5 | 498.43 | 100 |
Hveg | 34.06(543) | 31.79(41) | 7 | 145.97 | |
Eveg | 4.99(43) | 4.53(41) | 9 | 44.66 | |
Sveg | 313.21(543) | 252.13(40) | 20 | 454.78 | 250 |
Hveg | 34.06(43) | 25.86(40) | 24 | 137.24 | |
Eveg | 4.99(43) | 3.65(40) | 27 | 35.44 | |
Sveg | 313.21(543) | 266.56(40) | 15 | 469.21 | 400 |
Hveg | 34.06(43) | 25.63(40) | 25 | 136.78 | |
Eveg | 4.99(43) | 3.72(40) | 25 | 36.51 | |
Sveg | 313.21(43) | 273.74(41) | 13 | 474.39 | 550 |
Hveg | 34.06(43) | 25.71(41) | 25 | 134.94 | |
Eveg | 4.99(43) | 3.66(41) | 27 | 33.59 |
Tab. 5
Results of the GLM regression on ground arthropods species composition and landscape variables at different buffer radii"
GLM | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
零偏差(df) | 残差偏差(df) | 偏差解释量/% | AIC | 尺度/m | |
人工林 | |||||
Abun | 436.38(48) | 254.62(43) | 42 | Inf | 250 |
S | 120.68(48) | 75.31(43) | 38 | 301.56 | |
E | 2.5(48) | 1.37(43) | 45 | -21.36 | |
H | 15.28(48) | 9.03(43) | 41 | 76.5 | |
Abun | 436.38(48) | 299.77(43) | 31 | Inf | 400 |
S | 120.68(48) | 92.95(43) | 23 | 319.2 | |
E | 2.5(48) | 1.57(43) | 37 | 21.7 | |
H | 15.28(48) | 8.33(43) | 45 | 72.3 | |
Abun | 436.38(48) | 305.01(43) | 30 | Inf | 550 |
S | 120.68(48) | 113.2(43) | 6 | 339.45 | |
E | 2.5(48) | 1.83(43) | 27 | -6.5 | |
H | 15.28(48) | 12.2(43) | 20 | 92.157 | |
树篱 | |||||
Abun | 439.7(46) | 363.68(43) | 17 | Inf | 250 |
S | 142.34(46) | 98.74(43) | 31 | 315.5 | |
E | 3.22(46) | 2.09(43) | 35 | 0.61 | |
H | 18.43(46) | 12.5(43) | 32 | 93.46 | |
Abun | 439.7(46) | 300.19(43) | 32 | Inf | 400 |
S | 142.34(46) | 81.59(43) | 43 | 298.34 | |
E | 3.22(46) | 1.57(43) | 51 | -14.54 | |
H | 18.43(46) | 8.58(43) | 53 | 73.88 | |
Abun | 439.7(46) | 347.12(43) | 21 | Inf | 550 |
S | 142.03(46) | 106.75(43) | 25 | 323.49 | |
E | 3.22(46) | 2.03(43) | 37 | -0.94 | |
H | 18.43(46) | 11.57(43) | 37 | 89.43 | |
沟渠 | |||||
Abun | 671.84(43) | 536.21(41) | 20 | Inf | 250 |
S | 313.58(43) | 262.2(41) | 16 | 455.03 | |
E | 5.34(43) | 3.56(41) | 33 | 28.18 | |
H | 34.02(43) | 25.23(41) | 33 | 129.97 | |
Abun | 671.84(43) | 274.26(41) | 59 | Inf | 400 |
S | 313.58(43) | 111(41) | 65 | 303.86 | |
E | 5.34(43) | 1.7(41) | 68 | -10.35 | |
H | 34.(43) | 13.8(41) | 59 | 98.57 | |
Abun | 671.8(43) | 470.57(41) | 30 | Inf | 550 |
S | 313.58(43) | 254.31(41) | 19 | 447.17 | |
E | 5.34(43) | 3.54(41) | 34 | 27.91 | |
H | 34.02(43) | 23.85(41) | 30 | 127.04 | |
农田 | |||||
Abun | 345.91(48) | 223.57(43) | 35 | Inf | 250 |
S | 159.49(48) | 99.15(43) | 38 | 317.18 | |
E | 2.18(48) | 0.77(43) | 65 | -51.45 | |
H | 15.71(48) | 8.87(43) | 44 | 75.61 | |
Abun | 345.91(48) | 249.95(43) | 28 | Inf | 400 |
S | 159.49(48) | 126.3(43) | 21 | 344.32 | |
E | 2.18(48) | 0.94(43) | 57 | -41.15 | |
H | 15.7(48) | 9.04(43) | 42 | 76.57 | |
Abun | 345.91(48) | 249.54(43) | 28 | Inf | 550 |
S | 159.49(48) | 127.82(43) | 20 | 345.85 | |
E | 2.18(48) | 1.63(43) | 25 | -12.3 | |
H | 15.7(48) | 12.1(43) | 23 | 91.7 |
Tab. 6
Results of the best GLM regression on plant diversity and landscape variables"
250 m | 零偏差 | 残差偏差 | 偏差解释量/% | 系数估计 | 标准差 | z值/t值 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人工林 | ||||||||
Sveg | 138.16 | 110.45 | 20 | |||||
Intercept | 3.595 | 0.278 | 12.936 | <2E-16 | *** | |||
IJI | -0.020 | 0.005 | -4.192 | 2.76E-05 | *** | |||
SHDI | 0.658 | 0.316 | 2.084 | 0.0371 | * | |||
Hveg | 19.52 | 12.42 | 36 | |||||
Intercept | 4.66E+00 | 7.80E-01 | 5.977 | 2.72E-07 | *** | |||
PARA_MD | -1.37E-04 | 7.62E-05 | -1.801 | 0.078 | . | |||
IJI | -1.99E-02 | 9.49E-03 | -2.091 | 0.0418 | * | |||
Eveg | 1.97 | 1.27 | 36 | |||||
Intercept | 1.53E+00 | 2.50E-01 | 6.116 | 1.67E-07 | *** | |||
PARA_MD | -4.89E-05 | 2.44E-05 | -2.000 | 0.0511 | . | |||
IJI | -5.43E-03 | 3.04E-03 | -1.785 | 0.0806 | . | |||
树篱 | ||||||||
Sveg | 160.72 | 122.17 | 24 | |||||
Intercept | 4.87E+01 | 2.41E+01 | 2.021 | 0.0433 | * | |||
ED | -1.05E-02 | 5.70E-03 | -1.843 | 0.0654 | . | |||
PARA_MD | -7.80E-05 | 4.22E-05 | -1.848 | 0.0647 | . | |||
IJI | -1.68E-02 | 5.31E-03 | -3.171 | 0.0015 | ** | |||
AI | -4.38E-01 | 2.40E-01 | -1.827 | 0.0676 | . | |||
Hveg | 20.34 | 14.38 | 29 | |||||
Intercept | 110.225 | 45.608 | 2.417 | 0.0197 | * | |||
ED | -0.025 | 0.011 | -2.314 | 0.0252 | * | |||
AI | -1.071 | 0.456 | -2.349 | 0.0231 | * | |||
Eveg | 2.83 | 2.06 | 27 | |||||
Intercept | 3.64E+01 | 1.85E+01 | 1.968 | 0.0553 | . | |||
ED | -8.43E-03 | 4.36E-03 | -1.934 | 0.0595 | . | |||
PARA_MD | 5.72E-05 | 4.20E-05 | 1.361 | 0.1804 | ||||
ENN_MN | 1.37E-02 | 6.01E-03 | 2.283 | 0.0272 | * | |||
AI | -3.57E-01 | 1.84E-01 | -1.946 | 0.0579 | . | |||
沟渠 | ||||||||
Sveg | 313.21 | 252.13 | 20 | |||||
Intercept | 141.556 | 902.905 | 0.157 | 0.8754 | ns | |||
ED | -0.032 | 0.012 | -2.654 | 0.0080 | ** | |||
SHDI | 2.409 | 0.801 | 3.009 | 0.0026 | ** | |||
AI | -1.213 | 0.485 | -2.504 | 0.0123 | * | |||
LUR | 0.083 | 0.048 | 1.727 | 0.0843 | . | |||
Hveg | 34.06 | 25.86 | 24 | |||||
Intercept | 2.285 | 1.041 | 2.194 | 0.0331 | * | |||
ED | -0.002 | 0.002 | -1.523 | 0.1343 | ns | |||
IJI | 0.023 | 0.013 | 1.722 | 0.0915 | . | |||
Eveg | 4.99 | 3.65 | 27 | |||||
Intercept | 0.735 | 0.389 | 1.892 | 0.0645 | . | |||
ED | -0.001 | 0.001 | -1.500 | 0.1402 | ns | |||
IJI | 0.011 | 0.005 | 2.314 | 0.0250 | * |
Tab. 7
Results of the best GLM regression on ground arthropods diversity and landscape variables"
零偏差 | 残差偏差 | 残差解释量/% | 系数估计 | 标准差 | z值/t值 | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
人工林 | 250 m | |||||||
Abun | 436.38 | 254.621 | 42 | |||||
SHDI | -8.93E-01 | 4.75E-01 | -1.880 | 0.0602 | . | |||
LUR | -3.29E-01 | 4.17E-02 | -7.884 | 3.17E-15 | *** | |||
S | 120.68 | 75.31 | 38 | 无回归 | ||||
E | 2.50 | 1.37 | 45 | 无回归 | ||||
H | 15.28 | 9.03 | 41 | 无回归 | ||||
农田 | 250 m | |||||||
Abun | 345.91 | 223.57 | 35 | |||||
ED | 3.33E-02 | 1.53E-02 | 2.183 | 0.0290 | * | |||
PARA_MD | 1.75E-04 | 6.28E-05 | 2.778 | 0.0055 | ** | |||
SHDI | -1.93E+00 | 4.97E-01 | -3.876 | 0.0001 | *** | |||
AI | 1.34E+00 | 6.17E-01 | 2.168 | 0.0301 | * | |||
LUR | 1.34E-01 | 4.78E-02 | 2.793 | 0.0052 | ** | |||
S | 159.49 | 99.15 | 38 | |||||
PARA_MD | 1.39E-04 | 6.99E-05 | 1.989 | 0.0467 | * | |||
LUR | 1.24E-01 | 5.09E-02 | 2.434 | 0.0149 | * | |||
E | 2.18 | 0.77 | 65 | |||||
PARA_MD | 5.34E-05 | 2.63E-05 | 2.030 | 0.0486 | * | |||
LUR | -5.50E-02 | 2.13E-02 | -2.586 | 0.0132 | * | |||
H | 15.70 | 8.87 | 44 | |||||
PARA_MD | 1.51E-04 | 8.92E-05 | 1.689 | 0.0985 | . | |||
树篱 | 400 m | |||||||
Abun | 439.70 | 300.19 | 32 | |||||
IJI | 2.66E-02 | 6.09E-03 | 4.372 | 0.0000 | *** | |||
LUR | 9.08E-02 | 4.77E-02 | 1.905 | 0.0567 | . | |||
S | 142.34 | 81.59 | 43 | |||||
IJI | 1.74E-02 | 7.19E-03 | 2.426 | 0.0153 | * | |||
E | 3.22 | 1.57 | 51 | 无回归 | ||||
H | 18.43 | 8.58 | 53 | 无回归 | ||||
沟渠 | 400 m | |||||||
Abun | 671.84 | 274.26 | 59 | |||||
IJI | -1.35E-02 | 5.35E-03 | -2.520 | 0.0117 | * | |||
SHDI | 1.14E+00 | 2.99E-01 | 3.817 | 0.0001 | *** | |||
LUR | -1.58E-01 | 4.29E-02 | -3.688 | 0.0002 | *** | |||
S | 313.58 | 111.00 | 65 | 无回归 | ||||
E | 5.34 | 1.70 | 68 | 无回归 | ||||
H | 34.00 | 13.80 | 59 | 无回归 |
[1] | 傅博杰, 陈利顶, 马克明, 等. 2011. 景观生态学原理及应用: 二版. 北京: 科学出版社: 44-45. |
[Fu B J, Chen L D, Ma K M, et al.2011. Jingguan shengtaixue yuanli ji yingyong. 2nd ed. Beijing, China: Science Press: 44-45.] | |
[2] | 高俊峰, 马克明, 冯宗炜. 2006. 景观组成、结构和梯度格局对植物多样性的影响. 生态学杂志, 25(9): 1087-1094. |
[Gao J F, Ma K M, Feng Z W.Effects of landscape composition, structure and gradient pattern on plant diversity. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 25(9): 1087-1094.] | |
[3] | 卢训令, 梁国付, 汤茜, 等. 2014. 黄河下游平原农业景观中非农生境植物多样性. 生态学报, 34(4): 789-797. |
[Lu X L, Liang G F, Tang Q, et al.2014. Plant species of the non-agricultural habitats in the lower reaches of the Yellow River Plain agro-landscape. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(4): 789-797.] | |
[4] | 吕一河, 陈利顶, 傅伯杰. 2007. 景观格局与生态过程的耦合途径分析. 地理科学进展, 26(3): 1-10. |
[Lv Y H, Chen L D, Fu B J.2007. Analysis of integrating approach on landscape pattern and ecological processes. Progress in Geography, 26(3): 1-10.] | |
[5] | 尹文英, 等. 1998. 中国土壤动物检索图鉴. 北京: 科学出版社. |
[Yin W Y, et al.1998. Pictorical keys to soil animals of China. Beijing, China: Science Press.] | |
[6] | 郑乐怡, 归鸿. 2010. 昆虫分类. 南京: 南京师范大学出版社. |
[Zheng Y Y, Gui H.2010. Insect classification. Nanjing, China: Nanjing Normal University Press.] | |
[7] | 朱珠. 2012. 黄河中下游平原地区景观异质性动态分析: 以河南省封丘县为例//河南大学环境与规划学院. 第七届全国地理学研究生学术年会论文摘要集. 开封:河南大学出版社. |
[Zhu Z.2012. Analysis of dynamic changes of agricultural landscape Heterogeneity in the lower Yellow River plains: a case study in Fengqiu County//College of Environment and Planning, Henan University. The paper sets of the 7th national geography graduate academic conference. Kaifeng,China: Henan University Press.] | |
[8] | Alain B, Gilles P, Yannick D.2006. Factors driving small rodents assemblages from field boundaries in agricultural landscapes of western France. Landscape Ecology, 21(3): 449-461. |
[9] | Allouche O, Kalyuzhny M, Moreno-Rueda G, et al.2012. Area-heterogeneity tradeoff and the diversity of ecological communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(43): 17495-17500. |
[10] | Auffret A G, Cousins S A O.2011. Past and present management influences the seed bank and seed rain in a rural landscape mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(5): 1278-1285. |
[11] | Benton T G, Vickery J A, Wilson J D.2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(4): 182-188. |
[12] | Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, et al.2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1): 141-150. |
[13] | Butet A, Michel N, Rantier Y, et al.2010. Responses of common buzzard (Buteo buteo) and Eurasian kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) to land use changes in agricultural landscapes of western France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 138(3-4): 152-159. |
[14] | Collinge S K.2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology, 81(8): 2211-2226. |
[15] | Cook W M, Lane K T, Foster B L, et al.2002. Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecology Letters, 5(5): 619-623. |
[16] | Corbit M, Marks P L, Gardescu S.1999. Hedgerows as habitat corridors for forest herbs in central New York, USA. Journal of Ecology, 87(2): 220-232. |
[17] | Cousins S A O.2006. Plant species richness in midfield islets and road verges-the effect of landscape fragmentation. Biological conservation, 127(4): 500-509. |
[18] | Cousins S A O, Lindborg R.2008. Remnant grassland habitats as source communities for plant diversification in agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation, 141(1): 233-240. |
[19] | Debinski D M.2006. Forest fragmentation and matrix effects: the matrix does matter. Journal of Biogeography, 33(10): 1791-1792. |
[20] | Dorrough J, Moll J, Crosthwaite J.2007. Can intensification of temperate Australian livestock production systems save land for native biodiversity? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121(3): 222-232. |
[21] | Ekroos J, Kuussaari M, Tiainen J, et al.2013. Correlations in species richness between taxa depend on habitat, scale and landscape context. Ecological Indicators, 34: 528-535. |
[22] | Endels P, Adriaens D, Verheyen K, et al.2004. Population structure and adult plant performance of forest herbs in three contrasting habitats. Ecography, 27(2): 225-241. |
[23] | Ernoult A, Vialatte A, Butet A, et al.2013. Grassy strips in their landscape context, their role as new habitat for biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 166: 15-27. |
[24] | Ewers R M, Didham R K.2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews, 81(1): 117-142. |
[25] | Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, et al.2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology letters, 14(2): 101-112. |
[26] | Forman R T T.1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology, 10(3): 133-142. |
[27] | Gurr G M, Wratten S D, Luna J M.2003. Multifunction agricultural biodiversity: pest management and other benefits. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4(2): 107-116. |
[28] | Hovd H, Skogen A.2005. Plant species in arable field margins and road verges of central Norway. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 110(3-4): 257-265. |
[29] | Kleijn D, Baldi A.2005. Effects of set-aside land on farmland biodiversity: comments on Van Buskirk and Willi. Conservation Biology, 19(3): 963-966. |
[30] | Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen R K, et al.2009. Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(10): 564-571. |
[31] | Ma M.2008. Multi-scale responses of plant species diversity in semi-natural buffer strips to agricultural landscapes. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(2): 269-278. |
[32] | Macdonald D W, Tattersall F H, Service K M, et al.2007. Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside-what are the putative benefits? Mammal Review, 37(4): 259-277. |
[33] | McCullagh P, Nelder J A.1989. Generalized linear models. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Science. |
[34] | Morelli F, Pruscini F, Santolini R, et al.2013. Landscape heterogeneity metrics as indicators of bird diversity: determining the optimal spatial scales in different landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 34: 372-379. |
[35] | Öckinger E, Lindborg R, Sjödin N E, et al.2012. Landscape matrix modifies richness of plants and insects in grassland fragments. Ecography, 35(3): 259-267. |
[36] | Ozinga W A, Bekker R M, Schaminee J H J, et al.2004. Dispersal potential in plant communities depends on environmental conditions. Journal of Ecology, 92(5): 767-777. |
[37] | Ricketts T H.2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist, 158(1): 87-99. |
[38] | Rosenberg M S, Anderson C D.2011. PASSaGE: pattern analysis, spatial statistics and geographic exegesis. Version 2. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2(3): 229-232. |
[39] | Salamolard M, Butet A, Leroux A, et al.2000. Responses of an avian predator to variations in prey density at a temperate latitude. Ecology, 81(9): 2428-2441. |
[40] | Shannon C E, Weaver W.1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press: 5. |
[41] | Steckel J, Westphal C, Peters M K, et al.2014. Landscape composition and configuration differently affect trap-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists. Biological Conservation, 172: 56-64. |
[42] | Tang Q, Liang G F, Lu X L, et al.2014. Effects of corridor networks on plant species composition and diversity in an intensive agriculture landscape. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(1): 93-103. |
[43] | Tattersall F H, Macdonald D W, Hart B J, et al.2002. Is habitat linearity important for small mammal communities on farmland? Journal of applied ecology, 39(4): 643-652. |
[44] | The R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing[DB/OL]. 2014-04-11[2014-07]. . |
[45] | Tscharntke T, Klein A M, Kruess A, et al.2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology letters, 8(8): 857-874. |
[46] | Tscharntke T, Tylianakis J M, Rand T A, et al.2012. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biological Reviews, 87(3): 661-685. |
[47] | Woodcock B A, Westbury D B, Tscheulin T, et al.2008. Effects of seed mixture and management on beetle assemblages of arable field margins. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 125(1-4): 246-254. |
[48] | Zelený D, Li C F, Chytrý M.2010. Pattern of local plant species richness along a gradient of landscape topographical heterogeneity: result of spatial mass effect or environmental shift? Ecography, 33(3): 578-589. |
[1] | HU Tian, WU Jiansheng, PENG Jian, LI Weifeng. Development and prospect of the land-sparing versus land-sharing framework [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(5): 880-888. |
[2] | Hsiaofei CHANG, Jian PENG, Yanglin WANG, Wenbin WU, Peng YANG, Yanxu LIU, Zhiqing SONG, Ichen HSUEH. Characteristics of landscape system in the context of global change [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 36(9): 1167-1175. |
[3] | Zhe FENG, Xuegong XU, Jian ZHOU, Yang GAO. Land sparing versus sharing framework from ecosystem service perspective [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2016, 35(9): 1100-1108. |
[4] | LIANG Guofu1,2, TIAN Li2, DING Shengyan1,2 . Analysis of Suburban Agricultural Landscape Dynamics of Kaifeng City during the Urbanization Process [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2010, 29(1): 117-122. |
[5] | LI ZhengGuo, ZHOU QingBo, WANG YangLin, CHANG HsiaoFei. Preliminary Theory of Adaptation Mechanisms of Soil Erosion in Agr icultur al Landscape [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2008, 27(3): 29-37. |
[6] | LIU Jiping, LV Xianguo, YIN Shubai. GAP Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protect Biological Diversity [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2005, 24(1): 41-51. |
|