et et
41 41
of of
be be
et et
ha ha
a a
rela
(Gre
Nine Nine
struc
com
(Reed (Reed
geomor
as as
Natural Natural
must must
400 400
to to
Project Project
any any
by by
shapes, shapes,
and and
evaluate evaluate
practices practices
regimes regimes
or or and and
ofvegeta
of of
generally, generally,
influencing influencing
silvicultural silvicultural
human
Department Department
zones zones
To To
accurately accurately
1993). 1993).
roads roads
management management
landscapes. landscapes.
ecosystem ecosystem
patch-corrtdor
(Brookshire (Brookshire
sizes, sizes,
1989). 1989).
1988) 1988)
1993) 1993)
as as
change change
More More
landscape landscape
defined defined
designed designed
functions functions
Traditionally, Traditionally,
averaging averaging
but but
managers managers
al. al.
charactertzation charactertzation
GIS GIS
versus versus
the the
Ozarks Ozarks
of of
al. al.
amounts amounts
(i.e., (i.e.,
Ecosystem Ecosystem
assess assess study. study.
level level
forest forest
rtpartan rtpartan
et et
Missourt Missourt
Hauser Hauser
landscape) landscape)
such such
1997). 1997).
was was
et et
99 99
by by
structures structures
been been
alternative alternative
management management
and and
management management
and and (Turner (Turner
but but
managed managed
1995). 1995).
and and
slope slope
and and
allow allow
patches patches
into into
the the
al. al.
the the
defining defining
1995). 1995).
and and
Iiparian Iiparian
configurations configurations
for for
1 1
incorporate incorporate
in in
has has
ecological ecological
Forest Forest
natural natural
of of
than than
percent percent
et et
in in
1990, 1990,
in in
by by
landscape. landscape.
MOFEP MOFEP
patches patches
data data
landscape landscape
can can
and and
Missouri Missouri
to to
of of
crttical crttical
types types
defined defined
streams, streams,
Naiman Naiman
and and
features features
1994) 1994)
within within
of of
92 92
in in
landscape landscape
distrtbuted distrtbuted
(Swanson (Swanson
Chen Chen
the the
Quantitative Quantitative
the the
different different
TM TM
differtng differtng
Forman Forman
be be
as as
within within
More More
be be
compartments compartments Ozark Ozark
theortes theortes
Jordan Jordan
the the
al. al.
found found
landscape landscape
of of
selected selected
the the
roles roles
of of
percent percent
for for
(Larsen (Larsen
et et
components components
1991, 1991,
project project
structure structure
pattern pattern
processes processes
initiated initiated
types, types,
about about
can can
at at
was was
Brookshire Brookshire
may may
affecting affecting
and and
evenly evenly
elevation elevation the the
such such
attrtbutes attrtbutes
(i.e., (i.e.,
broad-scale broad-scale
Jiquan Jiquan
>80 >80
al. al.
model; model;
were were
structure structure
Landsat Landsat
by by
buffers. buffers.
of of
et et
landforms landforms
and and
was was
Missourt Missourt
patches patches
relative relative
impacts impacts
distrtbution distrtbution
dominated dominated
impacts impacts
1997, 1997,
1996) 1996)
and and
Southeastern Southeastern
size size
Conservation Conservation
within within
percent; percent;
2 2
al. al.
the the
expertmental expertmental treatments treatments
(MOFEP), (MOFEP),
practices practices
management management
in in
long-term long-term
of of
ture ture
al. al.
considered considered
using using
induced induced
ecological ecological
The The human-induced human-induced
phic phic
gory gory
features features
structure structure
The The
landscape landscape
tion tion
(Baskent (Baskent matrix matrix
tive tive numbers, numbers,
(Hunsaker (Hunsaker
position position
landscape landscape
the the
landscape landscape
consideration. consideration. monitor monitor
landscape landscape
the the
Land Land
forest forest stream stream
<40 <40 average average
in in
landscape landscape
the the
m. m.
be be
sites sites
distrtbuted distrtbuted
the the
An An
km/km
of of
Saunders, Saunders,
that that
the the
40-m 40-m
slope slope
in in
time. time.
Assis
ecosys
Upland Upland
under under C. C.
<300 <300
1.4 1.4
must must
of of
a a
land
struc
gene gene study study
within within
influ
processes processes
microcli
distur
on on
Tradi
spatial spatial
respec
interdisci
ecological ecological
and and
influence influence
and and
(Gustafson (Gustafson
activity activity
Structure Structure
aspect. aspect.
Products, Products,
Sart Sart
Houghton, Houghton,
had had
within within
percent percent
was was
and and of of
inadequate. inadequate.
processes processes
2 2
for for
ecological ecological
entire entire
distrtbution distrtbution
the the
structure structure
by by
ecology ecology
31 31
1996) 1996) be be
new, new,
differentially differentially
Advances Advances
Xu, Xu,
MOFEP MOFEP
elevation elevation
space space
role role
of of
on on
an an
1993). 1993).
habitat. habitat.
scientists scientists
natural natural
to to
Wood Wood
management management
to to
characterized characterized
categortes. categortes.
landscape landscape region region
patterns patterns
Ecology, Ecology,
1995), 1995),
phenomena phenomena
of of
ecological ecological
an an
density density
the the
interacting interacting
al. al.
boundartes boundartes
dispersal dispersal development development
the the
km/km
were were
Up Up
of of
Ming Ming
and and
and and
Candidate, Candidate,
al. al.
edge edge
the the
of of
et et
Landscape Landscape
ecological ecological
1995). 1995).
University, University,
hydrological hydrological
across across
had had
found found
2.0 2.0
these these
provided provided
et et
vegetation vegetation
of of aspects aspects
pattern pattern
The The
landscape landscape
as as
Road Road
of of
aspect aspect
scales scales
distrtbuted distrtbuted
as as
emphasized emphasized
types types
of of
explanations explanations
of of
Schumaker Schumaker
reflects reflects
processes, processes,
species species
Ph.D. Ph.D.
explore explore
ecosystem ecosystem
has has
area area
ecological ecological
been been
(Wiens (Wiens
Landscape Landscape
controlling controlling
has has
Forestry Forestry
to to
those those
of of
(Chen (Chen
1988), 1988),
1986). 1986).
spatial spatial
of of
structure structure
and and
influence influence
evenly evenly
existed existed
Patch Patch
the the among among percent percent
databases. databases. reached reached
surrounding surrounding
zones. zones.
Abstract.-We Abstract.-We
the the
of of
in in
1996, 1996,
effects effects
diverse diverse
Cadenasso Cadenasso
at at multiple multiple
in in
have have
1976), 1976),
Analysis Analysis
to to
pattern pattern
understanding understanding
the the
ecology ecology
scales scales
1997). 1997).
et et
as as
Technological Technological
the the
prtnciples prtnciples
heterogeneity heterogeneity
al. al.
human-induced human-induced
and and
an an
over over
avenues avenues
Candidate, Candidate,
quantify quantify
research research
within-patch within-patch
School School
et et
of of
and and
gradients gradients
the the
Professor Professor
to to
and and
(Futuyma (Futuyma
functions functions
Gardner Gardner
49931. 49931.
central central
landscape landscape
study study
vartous vartous
dynamics dynamics
Ph.D. Ph.D.
1 1
tant tant
MI MI
Michigan Michigan
tively, tively,
tem tem able able
(Franklin (Franklin
are are
ences ences
Landscape Landscape
(Pickett (Pickett bances bances
implementation implementation
ture ture scape scape
Both Both phenomena phenomena
the the require require
To To
heterogeneity heterogeneity
at at (Zobel (Zobel
tional, tional,
landscape landscape
plinary plinary matic matic
flow flow
(Swanson (Swanson
and and
of of Recent Recent processes processes
Figure Figure
which which
The The
ranging ranging Shannon Shannon
Ozarks Ozarks
landforms landforms
42 42
We We
assessing assessing
as as
when when
region region
distribution distribution
area area
composition, composition,
scape scape
provide provide
distributions distributions
study study
determine determine
a a
Ecosystem Ecosystem
study study
M©W~~------
assessed assessed
MOFEP MOFEP
whole. whole.
and and
applied applied
features features
sites sites
are are
I.-Location I.-Location
of of
(91.01' (91.01'
information information
in in
the the
region, region,
(b) (b)
Counties Counties
the the
located located
in in
size size
landscape landscape
and and
Specifically, Specifically,
is is
of of
compare compare
landscape landscape
nine nine
creating creating
such such
of of
importance importance
at at
Project Project
made made
these these
to to
within within
from from
roads roads
across across
the the
southeastern southeastern
91.13' 91.13'
in in
MOFEP MOFEP
Study Study
METHODS METHODS
as as
in in
of of
260 260
on on
landscape landscape
Carter, Carter,
up up
same same
(MOFEP) (MOFEP)
structure structure
the the
the the
the the
patch patch
the the
landscape landscape
and and
the the
structure, structure,
structure structure
of of
Wand Wand
we we
to to
Missouri Missouri
Site Site
southeastern southeastern
distribution distribution
study study
0 0
of of
study study
nine nine
streams, streams,
features features
Ozark Ozark
527 527
were were
types, types,
Reynolds, Reynolds,
streams, streams,
Missouri. Missouri.
sites sites
level, level,
37.00' 37.00'
both both
compartments, compartments,
ha ha
sites sites
sites sites
structure. structure.
landscape. landscape.
interested interested
within within
such such
Ozark Ozark
Skm Skm
across across
(fig. (fig.
in in
within within
and and
within within
VanBuren VanBuren
it it
to to
roads, roads,
to: to:
the the
of of
to to
and and
is is
Missouri Missouri
1). 1).
as as
the the
on on
land
the the
Forest Forest
vital vital
this this
(a) (a)
region region
the the
the the
lOkm lOkm
the the
::J ::J
in in
and and
t t
N N
to to
estimates estimates We We
and and
in in were were
Buren Buren
91.14'W 91.14'W
We We
Department Department
37.15'N, 37.15'N,
The The 37"15'N, 37"15'N,
cal cal
Buren Buren
databases databases
and and
elevation) elevation)
features features
up up features features
Ecological Ecological
east-facing east-facing
and and
tation tation Mean Mean
Midco, Midco,
residuum. residuum.
MOFEP MOFEP
mantle mantle
Clarksville Clarksville
include include
Cambrian Cambrian
dolomite dolomite
Precambrian Precambrian
The The
and and
region region
Engelm.), Engelm.),
(Meinert (Meinert
Muenchh.), Muenchh.),
Muenchh.). Muenchh.).
(Nyssa (Nyssa
bottomland bottomland oak oak
Dominant Dominant 1997). 1997).
hickory hickory
ties ties
(Quercus (Quercus
ous ous
1979). 1979).
37" 37"
(Brookshire (Brookshire
1992). 1992).
the the
90 90
limited limited
maps: maps:
investigated investigated
12'N) 12'N)
south south
west-facing west-facing
roads, roads,
MOFEP MOFEP
are are
blocks blocks
(Q. (Q.
hickory hickory
study study
based based
annual annual
southeast. southeast.
percent percent
are are
from from
North, North,
is is
Gepp, Gepp,
Weathering Weathering
of of
Soils Soils
sylvatica sylvatica
Agricultural Agricultural
stellata stellata
dogwood dogwood
study study 84 84
and and
in in
(vegetation (vegetation
(roads (roads
91·oow 91·oow
91.15W 91.15W
et et
with with
underlain underlain
(Brookshire (Brookshire
alba alba
of of
relative relative
leached, leached,
shortleaf shortleaf
were were
13.3 13.3
to to
Land Land
age age
Powder Powder
our our
area area
tree tree
geographic geographic
the the
(Brookshire (Brookshire
percent percent
The The slopes), slopes),
a1. a1.
on on
separated separated
37.2'N, 37.2'N,
blac~ack blac~ack
chinkapin chinkapin
road road
corridors corridors
of of
and and
study study
(Carya (Carya
oak-pine oak-pine
on on
37.0'N 37.0'N
igneous igneous
Stegall Stegall
Eardley, Eardley,
temperature temperature
areas areas
sites sites
L.), L.),
of of
dolomites dolomites
five five
1997, 1997,
Conservation Conservation
analysis analysis
southwest southwest
species species
°C °C
and and
Wang.). Wang.).
available available
consists consists
common common
the the
Types Types
this this
slopes). slopes).
Data Data
Marsh). Marsh).
Hauser Hauser
the the
density density
(Comus (Comus
iii iii
at at
We We
to to
and and
black black
Mill Mill
sites sites
USGS USGS
very very
and and
forested forested
of of
pine pine
91.3W 91.3W mainly mainly
(Gott (Gott
distribution distribution
streams) streams)
type, type,
spp.). spp.).
the the
the the
(fig. (fig.
of of
activities activities
each each
area area
total total
Missouri Missouri
Mountain, Mountain,
excluded excluded
et et
rocks rocks
along along
only only
the the
forest forest
Analysis Analysis
oak oak
information information
Viraton, Viraton,
(ELT's); (ELT's);
Cambrian Cambrian
oak oak
1,120 1,120
Ferry, Ferry,
include include
and and
cherty cherty
to to
scarlet scarlet
ELT ELT
cover cover
a1. a1.
northeast, northeast,
northwest northwest
oak oak
ELT ELT
(Pinus (Pinus
of of
1) 1)
has has
1993, 1993,
series series
from from
and and
1975, 1975,
slope, slope,
were were
1:24,000 1:24,000
other. other.
spp.) spp.)
Geologically, Geologically,
and and
Ordovician Ordovician
area. area.
the the
(Q. (Q.
Understory Understory
and and
by by
by by
mature mature
(Q. (Q.
to to
1997). 1997).
to to
Hauser Hauser
primary primary
are are
with with
communities. communities.
(Q. (Q.
(MDC). (MDC).
11 11
mm, mm,
resulted resulted
and and
18 18
Exchange, Exchange,
37.2'N, 37.2'N,
patch patch
roads roads
are are
13 13
mmilandica mmilandica
Ordovician Ordovician
area area
minimize minimize Geological Geological
36.15'N, 36.15'N,
the the
residuum residuum
muehlenbergii muehlenbergii
ELT ELT
formed formed
white white
the the
oak oak
Spencer Spencer
echinata echinata
annual annual
and and
Poynor, Poynor,
are are
Meinert Meinert
also also
(ridge (ridge
and and
aspect, aspect,
velutina velutina
of of
(north-
For For
different different
large large
age age
four four
limited limited
respectively. respectively.
Missouri Missouri
These These
corner corner
two two
area area
upland upland topographi
36.15'N, 36.15'N,
system system
covered covered
Viburnum, Viburnum,
(Q. (Q.
17 17
blackgum blackgum
1993). 1993).
metrics. metrics.
and and
present present
Fremont. Fremont.
streams. streams.
These These
streams streams
oak oak
and and
dolomite. dolomite.
91·ow 91·ow
in in
top) top)
patch patch
species species
mostly mostly
contigu
(south
linear linear
coccinea coccinea
precipi
this this
91.7W 91.7W
and and
and and
and and
ofVan ofVan
bias bias
et et
et et
Mill.). Mill.).
L.}, L.},
Van Van
a a
streams streams
on on
Survey Survey
coun
to to
age age
to to
deep deep al. al.
al. al.
make make
oak
(GIS) (GIS)
data data
from from
the the
post post
in in in in
43 43
87.0 87.0
72.2 72.2
75.0 75.0
a a 92.9 92.9
66.7 66.7 80.0 80.0
83.3 83.3
of of
100.0 100.0
Percent Percent
User's User's
and and
accuracy accuracy
as as
m m
100 100
10 10
of of
Con
the the
each each
5 5
6 6
6 6
eleva
16 16
18 18
12 12
98 98
seven seven
We We
161 161
to to
Row Row
using using
eight eight
Buren Buren
intersection intersection
gener
All All
total total
coded coded
and and
in in
the the
into into
buffer, buffer,
30x30 30x30
for for
scale. scale.
sheets sheets
for for
with with
of of
80, 80,
into into
GIS. GIS.
Van Van
was was
digital digital
4 4
3 3
area area
were were
landscape landscape
SF SF
13 13
61.9 61.9
21 21
m m
each each
meters meters
coded coded
used used
maps. maps.
of of
60, 60,
map map
and and
the the
20 20
to to
using using
roads roads
data data
coded coded
GIS. GIS.
was was
in in
50, 50,
MDC's MDC's
I I
codes codes
the the
3 3
1:24,000 1:24,000
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
LF LF
4 4
2 2 3 3
18 18
12 12
66.7 66.7
corresponded corresponded
within within
Arc/Info Arc/Info
4). 4).
was was
elevation elevation
and and
resolution resolution
a a
was was
imagery imagery
40, 40,
for for
and and
the the
amount amount
Fremont Fremont
a a
Category Category
at at
ft ft
TM TM
!reference} !reference}
and and
aspect aspect
Arc/Info Arc/Info
20, 20,
using using
Exchange, Exchange,
elevation elevation
2 2 I
converted converted
(table (table
the the
which which
97.8 97.8
93 93
91 91
and and
in in
20 20
Slope Slope
densities densities
density density
UF UF
with with
2), 2),
3), 3),
using using
interval interval
truth truth
streams streams
10, 10,
maps maps
Landsat Landsat
and and
categories categories
were were
was was
types types
zones zones
all all
Ferry, Ferry,
::;85 ::;85
::;70 ::;70
::;55 ::;55
::;25 ::;25 road road
::;40 ::;40
road road
::;100 ::;100
GIS. GIS.
::;10 ::;10
range range
4 4
4 4
(DEM), (DEM),
from from
w w
(table (table
(table (table
Ground Ground
100 100
>100 >100
data data
Percent Percent
categories categories
Mill Mill
calculated calculated
:2:0-
and and
patch patch
Contour Contour
Mountain Mountain Arc/Info Arc/Info
>70-
>55-
>40-
>10-
>25-
>85-
coverages coverages
aspect, aspect,
widths: widths:
contour contour
Slope Slope
buffer buffer
5 5
4 4
F/G F/G
2.--Slope 2.--Slope
80.0 80.0
in in
interval interval
classified classified
six six
model model
with with
buffered buffered
and and
Arc/Info Arc/Info
were were
stream stream
Table Table
determined determined
these these
m, m,
into into buffer buffer
categories categories
categories categories
in in
lattice lattice North. North.
contour contour
Powder Powder We We
tour tour
USGS USGS Stegall Stegall
tion tion
ated ated
Slope, Slope,
12 12
10 10
83.3 83.3
types types
1 1
S/EF S/EF
of of
of of
7 7
of of
< <
Cover Cover
8 8
2 2
6 6
types types
was was
75 75
and and
in in
KHAT KHAT
into into
cat
site site
date date
U/NV U/NV
classi
types types
sun sun
seven seven
dry dry
data data
each each
(GPS) (GPS)
(U/NV), (U/NV),
each each
(area (area
types. types.
Kieffer Kieffer
chance chance
correct correct
classifi
2). 2).
the the
compo
the the
area area
eight eight
in in
patch patch
(version (version
of of
chosen chosen
areas areas
1996 1996
1991, 1991,
of of
of of
the the
cover cover
and and
patch patch
difference difference
figure figure
before before
category category
subsequent subsequent
of of
MOFEP MOFEP
(S/EF) (S/EF)
1,2,3,4,5, 1,2,3,4,5,
completely completely
combination combination
area area
systematic systematic
al. al.
merged merged
system system
truthed truthed
10, 10,
located located
(~ee (~ee
were were
a a and and
a a
resulting resulting
the the
all all
on on
polygons polygons
et et
among among
topographic topographic
correction, correction,
urban urban
each each
(SF) (SF)
Forest Forest
(LF) (LF)
We We
Initially, Initially,
principal principal
classification classification
major major
We We
and and
Therefore, Therefore,
supervised supervised
/Imagine /Imagine
for for
amount amount
the the
July July
(band (band
applied applied
in in
(U/NV)' (U/NV)'
(F/G) (F/G)
Cuts Cuts
Even Even
and and
percentage percentage
non-vegetated non-vegetated
limited limited
2) 2) and and
(Lillesand (Lillesand
classification classification
the the
points points
and and
ground ground
small small
the the
importance importance
pixels pixels
GIS. GIS.
the the
of of
(percent) (percent)
Wetlands Wetlands
through through
size size
(Russin (Russin
used used
data data
measure measure
the the
were were
fig. fig.
1994). 1994).
Partial Partial
of of
and and
positioning positioning
ERDASI!magine ERDASI!magine
type type
the the
classify classify
161 161
agreement agreement
ERDAS ERDAS
Successional Successional
the the
and and
matrix. matrix.
relative relative
to to
in in
1, 1,
treatments treatments
to to
(UF) (UF)
sampling sampling
Grasslands Grasslands
and and
We We
using using
to to
certain certain
identified. identified.
TM TM
of of
in in
area area
accuracy accuracy
accuracy accuracy
ground, ground,
before before
Non-Vegetated Non-Vegetated
Atmospheric Atmospheric
Early Early
a a
and and
and and
the the
(PCA) (PCA)
Forest Forest
classifier classifier
total total
Kiefer Kiefer
due due
Forest Forest
patch patch
global global
for for
Sample Sample
urban urban
determine determine
error error
Arc/Info Arc/Info
objectives. objectives.
Forest Forest
used used
and and
(W) (W)
and and
actual actual
eliminated eliminated
correction, correction,
area area
(table (table
total total
by by
were were a a
Classification Classification
1996) 1996)
beds. beds.
between between
bare bare
study study
To To
type type
a a
the the
the the
techniques techniques
and and
random random
classification classification
our our
matrix matrix
We We
the the
Producer's Producer's
Lowland Lowland Landsat Landsat
Farmland Farmland
Upland Upland
Water Water
Column Column Urban Urban
Sparse Sparse
was was
Shrub Shrub
assignment assignment
river river
study study
10, 10,
in in
the the
produce produce
technique technique
random random
capture. capture.
study study
types types
types types
analysis analysis
for for
categories. categories.
using using
Silvicultural Silvicultural
dry dry
completed completed
beds, beds,
a a
recorded recorded
category, category,
patch patch
using using
this this
used used
I.-Error I.-Error
the the
July July
supervt:~ed supervt:~ed
I I
6 6
5 5
3 3
7 7
4 4
2 2
1994). 1994).
and and
agreement agreement
statistic statistic
random random
between between
the the
egory egory
would would
determined determined point point
information. information.
and and
values values
sampling sampling
stratified stratified
Lillesand Lillesand accuracy, accuracy,
patch patch
analyses. analyses. these these
for for
one one
ha) ha)
within within
fication. fication. river river patch patch
illumination illumination 8.2). 8.2).
image image
nents nents
cation cation
in in
7; 7;
were were
We We
'Includes 'Includes
Category Category Table Table /~ • l¥[(Q)JFJEIP
D U/NV
D S/EF
D F/G w
~ UF
II LF
D SF
N
0 Skm 10km I I I
Figure 2.- Patch types within the MOFEP study region: Urban and Non-vegetated (U/NV}, Shrub and Early Successional Forest (S/EF}, Fannland and Grasslands (FIG), Water (W), Upland Forest (UF), Lowland Forest and Wetlands {LF), Sparse Forest and Partial Cuts (SF).
44 Table 3.-Aspect categories and codes used for intersec overall stream and road densities of 1. 7 km/ 2 2 tion with patch types in Arc/Info GIS. km and 1.4 km/km , respectively. Land area within stream and road buffers increased Aspect range Category linearly with increasing buffer width (fig. 3), though at a slower rate for road buffers than Degrees stream buffers. Area in road and stream buff flat 1 flat ers was 1, 711 ha (2.8 percent of landscape) and
0.0- ~22.5 N 2,061 ha (3.4 percent of landscape), respec
>22.5 - ~67.5 NE tively, for a buffer width of 10 m, and 15,884 ha
>67.5- ~112.5 E (26.1 percent oflandscape) and 19,115 ha (31.4
> 112.5- ~157.5 SE percent of landscape), respectively, for a buffer
> 157.5- ~202.5 s width of 100 m. > 202.5- ~247.5 sw > 24 7.5 - ~292.5 w
> 292.5- ~337.5 NW
> 337.5- ~360.0 N
1slope <1 percent whole. We calculated the area of each patch type within all stream buffers, road buffers, the nine MOFEP study sites, and within the entire landscape. We also examined the distribution 0 20 40 60 80 100 of patch types by classes of aspect, slope, and Buffer Width (m) elevation. For each patch type, we determined mean patch area, maximum patch area, mean Figure 3.-Change in buffer area around roads fractal dimension, mean core area index (using and streams with increasing buffer width. a buffer of 40 m), total edge length, and edge density. Patch metrics and distributions were compared between the MOFEP study sites and Total road length in stream buffer zones was the regional landscape. All manipulations of 21.8 km in 10-m buffers and 36.0 km in 100-m final coverages and statistical summaries were buffers (fig. 4A) corresponding to densities of 2 2 done in Arc/Info GIS Unix version 7.0.4 and 1.1 km/km and 1.9 km/km , respectively (fig. SAS Unix version. All patch metrics were 4B). Road density reached a maximum of 2.0 calculated using FRAGSTATS version 2.0 km/km 2 in 40-m buffers, as compared to 1.4 (McGarigal and Marks 1995). km/km 2 in the study region as a whole.
RESULTS The overall classification accuracy for the landscape was 87 percent (table 1). The KHAT Total land area within the boundary designated statistic was 79 percent, indicating that the for this study was 60,727 ha (607.3 km 2). Total classification was 79 percent better than a stream length within this region was 1,036.9 random assignment of pixels to patch types. km and road length totaled 861.3 km, giving The majority of the landscape was covered with upland forest (UF; 73 percent). Sparse or partially cut forest (SF) and shrub or early Table 4.-Elevation categories and codes used for successional forest (S/EF) covered about 10 intersection with cover types in Arc/Info GIS. percent of the landscape each. Lowland forest and wetlands (LF) covered 5 percent and farm Elevation range Category land or grassland (F /G) covered 2 percent. All other patch types each represented ~2 percent Meters of the land area (fig. 5). MOFEP study sites, :::::o-~150 except for site 7, were also dominated by upland >150- ~200 2 forest. Shrub and early successional forest was >200- ~250 3 underrepresented in the MOFEP sites (average = >250- ~300 4 3 percent) relative to the landscape (9 percent). >300- ~350 5 Farmland, urban/non-vegetated areas, and >350 6 water were not detected in any MOFEP study 45
Land Land
than than
among among
became became
farmland farmland
dominated dominated
found found
percent) percent)
amount amount on on
cent. cent.
categories categories
about about
Most Most >40 >40
area area
cent cent
and and
>100 >100
<40 <40
Figure Figure
as as study study
sites sites
46 46
-g -g
6 6
_J _J
a: a:
E E
.r:: .r::
0, 0,
~ ~
; ;
"0 "0
~ ~
~ ~
D D "iii "iii
C\J C\J
0 0
~ ~
ell ell
c c
CD CD
E E
a a
flat flat
OO@W~W------
400·~------, 400·~------, 200 200
300 300
100 100
eastern eastern
roads roads
widths widths
0.5 0.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
percent; percent;
percent. percent.
25 25
whole. whole.
of of
was was
at at
other other
0 0
2 2
of of
area area
percent percent
o+-~~----~----r---~----
Patch Patch
sites sites
on on
1 1
ground ground
4.-Totallength 4.-Totallength
+-----,_----~----~-----+----~ +-----,_----~----~-----+----~
aspect aspect
.------, .------,
lowland lowland
0 0
0 0
percent percent
this this
the the
more more
percent percent
(16 (16
were were
<10 <10
slopes slopes
(83 (83
within. within.
B) B)
was was
and and
A) A)
in in
categories categories
within. within.
were were
land land
Missouri. Missouri.
percent) percent)
scale scale
types types
about about
percent) percent)
all all
Upland Upland
common. common.
(table (table
percent percent
also also
categories, categories,
20 20
20 20
where where
was was
relatively relatively
forest forest
slope, slope,
of of
< <
less less
stream stream
area area
aspect aspect
10 10
of of
the the
were were
located located
the the
the the
Stream Stream
50 50
Stream Stream
5, 5,
analysis. analysis.
percent. percent.
of of
diverse diverse
shrub shrub
study study
forest forest
(table (table
(99.1 (99.1
and and
slope slope
40 40
and and
and and
40 40
fig. fig.
landscape landscape
percent percent
(A) (A)
flat flat
only only
more more
categories categories
buffers buffers
evenly evenly
with with
Buffer Buffer
6A). 6A).
Buffer Buffer
on on
and and
sparse sparse
37 37 urban urban
land land
percent) percent)
landscape, landscape,
(table (table
6). 6).
dominated dominated
and and
patch patch
than than
evenly evenly
slopes slopes
60 60
percent percent
60 60
The The
In In
a a
was was
density density
About About
of of
distributed distributed
(m) (m)
Upland Upland
(m) (m)
(no (no
slightly slightly
farmland farmland
general, general,
was was
areas areas
forest forest
different different
5). 5).
the the
type type
(table (table
majority majority
between between
aspect) aspect)
distributed distributed
had had
<10 <10
80 80
80 80
Only Only
on on
landscape landscape of of
48 48
{B) {B)
south
all all
in in
(86 (86
forest forest
was was
larger larger
the the
6, 6,
a a
per
slopes slopes
per
the the
slopes slopes
of of
slope slope
slope slope
fig. fig.
of of
10 10
100 100
100 100
widths, widths,
buffers buffers
types types
in in
road road
roads. roads.
and and
lent lent
similar similar scale scale
partially partially
more more
less less Only Only
fig. fig.
the the
farmland farmland a a
scape. scape.
except except
ated ated
slightly slightly
sparse sparse
slightly slightly Patch Patch
on on stream stream
between between
The The
farmland farmland
m. m. categories categories
shrub shrub
became became
96 96
(compare (compare Eighty-six Eighty-six
forest forest
elevations elevations
The The
areas areas
erly erly
area area common common
elevation elevation
Farmland Farmland
other other
categories. categories.
occurred occurred
aspect, aspect,
6B). 6B).
patches patches
mon mon
random random
10-m 10-m
land land
percent percent
5). 5).
landscape. landscape.
Larger Larger
in in
farmland farmland
common common
slopes. slopes.
majority majority
area area
with with
between between
buffers buffers
four four
in in
in in
Lowland Lowland
common common
were were
patch patch
<150m <150m
types types
dominated dominated
or or
urban urban
stream stream
forest forest
The The
Shrub Shrub
among among
Shrub Shrub
buffers buffers
between between
less less
except except
more more
flat flat
though though
the the
>350 >350
relatively relatively
buffers buffers
was was
cut cut
200 200
early early
on on
of of
was was
on on
(92 (92
fig. fig.
was was
sparse sparse
patch patch
road road
and and
<250 <250
(fig. (fig.
percent percent
proportions proportions
similarly similarly
of of
distribution distribution
areas areas
MOFEP MOFEP
sparse sparse
Shrub Shrub
had had
common common
types types
flat flat
areas areas
flat flat
than than
evenly evenly
and and
and and
of of
percent), percent),
7A 7A
common common
in in
water water areas areas
m m
250 250
than than
more more
located located
where where
and and
areas areas
buffers buffers
forest forest
in in
stream stream
for for
successional successional
6C). 6C).
urban urban
and and
distribution distribution
the the
Roads Roads
the the
road road
than than
types types
m, m,
ground ground
20 20
than than
ground ground
a a
to to
forest forest
narrower narrower
all all
250 250
farmland farmland
and and
more more
in in
water, water,
on on
and and
similar similar
appeared appeared
early early
of of
area area
forest forest
fig. fig.
would would
with with
majority majority
and and
the the landscape landscape
(and (and was was
common. common.
distributed distributed
sites. sites.
distributed distributed
were were
elevation elevation
stream stream
was was
water water
buffers buffers
urban urban
in in
in in
slopes slopes
within within
areas areas
at at
were were
than than
m. m.
buffers buffers on on
were were
in in
with with
300m 300m
5). 5).
of of
and and
landscape landscape
common common
was was
wider wider
stream stream
and and
of of
100 100
successional successional
found found
and and
about about
water), water),
elevations elevations
which which
the the
relatively relatively
west-facing west-facing slopes.
and and
sparse sparse
relatively relatively
be be
prevalence prevalence
Ninety-nine Ninety-nine
All All
patch patch
Upland Upland
stream stream
and and
detected detected
were were
road road
partially partially
were were
40 40
(compare (compare more more
forest forest
areas areas
with with
buffers. buffers.
of of
m m
more more
north north
more more
other other
west-facing west-facing slopes.
than than
expected expected
stream stream
(table (table
partially partially
four four
buffers buffers
of of
categories categories
was was
Sparse Sparse
shrub shrub
at at
60 60
wide. wide.
percent percent
was was
buffers buffers
urban urban among among
within within
which which
different different
buffers buffers
forest forest
more more
(fig. (fig.
types types
relatively relatively
an an
closely closely
elevation elevation
were were
percent percent
common common
as as
in in
common common
were were
elevation elevation
buffers. buffers.
had had forest forest
to to
<300 <300
more more
<300 <300
more more
7). 7).
relatively relatively
easterly easterly
at at
cut cut
buffers buffers
the the
a a
6C). 6C).
Patch Patch
within within
northeast
area area fig. fig.
However, However,
forest forest
forest forest
along along
percent percent
based based
land land
common common
was was
were were
cut cut
whole, whole,
road road
aspect aspect
this this
and and
of of
Upland Upland
similar similar
than than
at at
found found
where where
m m
areas areas
com
land
except except
associ
was was
m m
preva
7B 7B
the the
more more
in in
<200 <200
than than
in in
and and
was was
and and
in in
to to
on on of of
47 47
types types
patch patch
MOFEP MOFEP
for for
1 1
patch patch
and and
of of
table table
See See
landscape landscape
the the
sites. sites.
5.-Distribution 5.-Distribution
types. types.
within within
study study
Figure Figure
8 8
9 9
6 6
7 7
Sites Sites
Site Site
Site Site
Site Site
Site Site
All All
UF UF
94% 94%
UF UF
81% 81%
65% 65%
LF LF
12% 12%
10% 10%
S/EF S/EF
S/EF S/EF
SF SF
1% 1%
2% 2%
3% 3%
S/EF S/EF
S/EF S/EF
LF LF
3% 3%
Landscape Landscape
LF LF
5% 5%
(S/EF) (S/EF)
SF SF
SF SF
u90% u90%
~UF ~UF
C)UF C)UF
SF SF
w w
1% 1%
18% 18%
UF UF
73% 73%
0 0
.~~en,~~ .~~en,~~
(SF) (SF)
2Yo 2Yo
F/G F/G
Forest Forest
(LF) (LF)
(U/NV) (U/NV)
Cuts Cuts
S/EF S/EF
(FIG) (FIG)
0.4% 0.4%
(UF) (UF)
UINV UINV
Successional Successional
SF SF
5 5
10% 10%
3 3
1 1
2 2
Forest/Wetlands Forest/Wetlands
ForesUPartial ForesUPartial
Forest Forest
(W) (W)
Site Site
Site Site
Site Site
Site Site
Site4 Site4
Farm/Grassland Farm/Grassland
Urban/Non-vegetated Urban/Non-vegetated
Shrub/Early Shrub/Early
93% 93%
• • 1111 1111 DSparse DSparse
DUpland DUpland Elllowland Elllowland
DWater DWater
Ill Ill
, ,
/0 /0
% %
50
0 0
3
% %
S/EF S/EF
0.4% 0.4%
S/EF S/EF
S/EF S/EF
/0 /0
1
0/ 0/
S/EF S/EF
SFS/EF SFS/EF
5
SF SF
7% 7%
3% 3%
SF SF
SF SF
SF SF
6% 6%
0.5% 0.5%
~UF ~UF
085% 085%
LF LF
u99.1 u99.1
5% 5%
rT'\, rT'\,
u86% u86%
~UF ~UF
LF LF
C!)UF C!)UF
LF LF
~.~~ ~.~~
4% 4%
LF LF 5% 5% Table 5.-Area ofeach patch type within slope categories for the study landscape, southeastern Missouri. *"'CXl +~ @ Patch type Slope (percent) ~ >0- ~10 >10- ~5 >25- ~0 >40-~5 >55- <70 >70 - ~5 >85-
Urban and non-vegetated 185 28 3 <1 0 0 0 0 215 0.4 Shrub and early successional forest 3,348 1,885 295 34 4 2 <1 0 5,566 9.2 Farmland and grasslands 1,037 207 8 3 0 0 0 0 1,254 2.1 Water 320 85 42 16 2
Total 22,665 30,562 7,014 432 43 9 2 2 60,728 Percent 37.3 50.3 11.5 0.7 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 100
Table 6.-Area ofeach patch type within aspect categories for the study landscape, southeastern Missouri.
Patch type Aspect (degrees) Flat N NE E SE s SW w NW Total Percent - Hectares ------
Urban and non-vegetated 130 14 12 8 8 7 11 8 17 215 0.4 Shrub and early successional forest 1,555 416 628 745 748 467 333 294 380 5,566 9.2 Farmland and grasslands 544 87 129 116 106 79 49 59 86 1,254 2.1 Water 170 22 62 48 44 26 24 28 42 465 0.8 Upland forest 4,745 4,821 5,183 5,211 5,529 4,858 4,504 4,127 5,084 44,062 72.6 Lowland forest and wetlands 813 121 95 106 163 267 525 595 314 2,999 4.9 Sparse forest and partial cuts 1,501 443 434 470 644 752 804 585 533 6,166 10.2
Total 9,458 5,924 6,544 6,702 7,242 6,456 6,248 5,696 6,457 60,726 Percent 15.6 9.8 10.8 11.0 11.9 10.6 10.3 9.4 10.6 100
and and wetlands; wetlands; SF--sparse SF--sparse forest forest and and cuts. cuts. partial c.o c.o
.p. .p.
U!NV--urban U!NV--urban
and and non-vegetated; non-vegetated;
SIEF--shrub SIEF--shrub and and early early successional successional E:ij E:ij
forest; forest; FIG-farmland FIG-farmland and and grasslands; grasslands; W-water; W-water; UF--upland UF--upland forest; forest; LF-lowland LF-lowland forest forest 1 1 w w s s
= =
~ ~ SF SF 1068 1068
1.36 1.36 5.8 5.8
178.5 178.5 11.5 11.5 1,614.1 1,614.1 26.1 26.1
~ ~
LF LF 870 870 ~ ~ 1.37 1.37 3.5 3.5 136.4 136.4
6.2 6.2 1,011.8 1,011.8 33.7 33.7
a a
"'" "'"
UF UF
332 332 1.35 1.35 132.8 132.8 20,876.2 20,876.2 17.7 17.7 @ @ 2,435.8 2,435.8 5.5 5.5
w w
Landscape Landscape 838 838 1.38 1.38 ~ ~ 12.2 12.2 63.2 63.2 8.1 8.1 130.7 130.7 28.1 28.1
FIG FIG 159 159 1.35 1.35 ~ ~ 7.9 7.9 81.7 81.7 17.2 17.2
283.9 283.9 22.6 22.6
l2'.l l2'.l
SIEF SIEF 849 849 1.36 1.36 6.6 6.6
214.9 214.9 12.0 12.0 1,409.7 1,409.7 25.3 25.3 l".l l".l
U/NV U/NV 60 60 1.37 1.37 3.6 3.6 21.2 21.2 § § 5.5 5.5 74.6 74.6
34.7 34.7
~ ~
SF SF 58 58 1.35 1.35 6.6 6.6 48.4 48.4 14.6 14.6 91.7 91.7 24.1 24.1
Study Study sites sites LF LF 86 86 1.36 1.36 2.5 2.5 12.4 12.4 5.8 5.8 83.0 83.0 38.2 38.2
MOFEP MOFEP UF UF 38 38 1.33 1.33 80.8 80.8 479.1 479.1 30.7 30.7 196.9 196.9 6.4 6.4
SIEF SIEF 31 31 1.37 1.37 3.7 3.7 23.8 23.8 9.0 9.0 36.4 36.4 31.9 31.9
lla lla lla lla Percent Percent Km Km Km/km
2 2
tl:J.!e
dimension dimension size size size size
area area index index length length 1 1
Patch Patch N N Mean Mean fractal fractal Mean Mean patch patch Max Max patch patch Mean Mean core core Total Total edge edge Edge Edge density density
Table Table 8.-Landscape 8.-Landscape metrics metrics by by cover cover type type for for MOFEP MOFEP sites sites and and the the entire entire landscape, landscape, southeastern southeastern Missouri. Missouri.
Percent Percent 0.4 0.4 14.6 14.6 37.0 37.0 40.3 40.3 6.9 6.9 0.7 0.7 100 100
Total Total 268 268 8,872 8,872 22,491 22,491 24,450 24,450 4,189 4,189 428 428 60,698 60,698
Sparse Sparse forest forest and and partial partial cuts cuts 37 37 1,417 1,417 2,252 2,252 2,017 2,017 337 337 106 106 6,167 6,167 10.2 10.2
Lowland Lowland forest forest and and wetlands wetlands 15 15 409 409 744 744 1,536 1,536 271 271 26 26 3,001 3,001 4.9 4.9
Upland Upland forest forest 107 107 4,977 4,977 16,125 16,125 19,358 19,358 3,287 3,287 207 207 44,062 44,062 72.6 72.6
Water Water 55 55 394 394 11 11 6 6 0 0 0 0 465 465 0.8 0.8
Farmland Farmland and and grasslands grasslands 7 7 293 293 776 776 145 145 7 7 0 0 1,228 1,228 2.0 2.0
Shrub Shrub and and early early successional successional forest forest 30 30 1343 1343 2,454 2,454 1,366 1,366 278 278 89 89 5,561 5,561 9.2 9.2
Urban Urban and and non-vegetated non-vegetated 17 17 39 39 128 128 22 22 8 8 0 0 215 215 0.4 0.4
- llectares llectares ------
>0- >150- >200- ~150 ~150 ~00 ~00 >250- 900 900 ~50 ~50 >300- >350 >350 950 950 Total Total Percent Percent
Patch Patch type type Elevation Elevation {meters} {meters}
Table Table 7.- Area Area of of each each patch patch type type within within elevation elevation categories categories for for the the study study landscape, landscape, southeastern southeastern Missouri. Missouri.
~00~~~~------
50 50
B) B)
A) A)
Figure Figure
r., r.,
~20% ~20%
() ()
(3 (3
() ()
~20% ~20%
(3 (3
c40% c40%
Q) Q)
t1l t1l
> >
(D60% (D60%
0 0
t1l t1l
~80% ~80%
<{20% <{20%
> >
c40% c40% (D60% (D60%
Q) Q)
(3 (3
0 0 t1l t1l
() ()
t1l t1l
~80% ~80%
.. ..
> >
(D60% (D60%
0 0
~ ~
c40% c40%
t1l t1l
t1l t1l
~80% ~80%
100% 100%
100% 100%
scape, scape,
aspect aspect
1 1
0% 0%
0% 0%
0% 0%
u1Nv u1Nv
6.-Distribution 6.-Distribution
>0-1 >0-1
flat flat
>0-150 >0-150
categories, categories,
southeastern southeastern
• •
0 0
s/EF s/EF
> > 1
N N
0-25 0-25
> >
150-200 150-200
and and
• •
of of
NE NE
Missouri. Missouri.
>25-40 >25-40
patch patch
{C} {C}
F/G F/G
>200-250 >200-250
elevation elevation
Aspect Aspect
E E
types types
>40-55 >40-55
Elevation Elevation
~ ~
See See
Slope(%) Slope(%)
SE SE
among: among:
(degrees) (degrees)
w w
table table
categories categories
>55-70 >55-70
>250-300 >250-300
(m) (m)
1 1
s s
for for
{A) {A)
> >
70-85 70-85
slope slope
patch patch
for for
>300-350 >300-350
sw sw
the the
categories, categories,
>85-1 >85-1
types. types.
study study
w w
00 00
LF LF
>350 >350
land
> > 1
NW NW
00 00
{B) {B) .SF .SF
51 51
in in
CAl CAl
than than
the the
7 7
types. types.
a a
other other
the the
densi
in in
CAl's CAl's
the the
forest forest
forest forest
percent) percent)
in in
all all
(33. (33.
MOFEP MOFEP
lowest lowest
had had
on on
sparse sparse
whole whole
Maximum Maximum
percent, percent,
in in
patch patch
Edge Edge
a a
(31 (31
large large
landscape landscape
the the
whereas whereas
the the
for for
similar similar
index index
all all
type type as as
sparse sparse
as as
in in
upland upland
17.7 17.7
the the
than than
which which
density density
sites. sites.
sites sites
had had
for for
for for
had had
sites, sites,
area area
the the
and and
except except
road road
times times
patch patch
IL\\1SF IL\\1SF
those those
See See
percent). percent).
edge edge
in in
lower lower
within within
sites sites
forest, forest,
study study
to to
core core
forest forest
1.6 1.6
forest forest
MOFEP MOFEP
study study
and and
landscape landscape
(18 (18
(17.2 (17.2
100 100
smaller smaller
100 100
sites, sites,
of of
LF LF
the the
in in
(A) (A)
much much
the the
the the
highest highest
density density
in in
greater greater
was was
MissourL MissourL
upland upland
vegetated vegetated
about about
similar similar
MOFEP MOFEP
in in
in in
study study
upland upland
than than
Lowland Lowland
was was
Values Values
CAl CAl
80 80
and and
80 80
for for
) )
8). 8).
size size
the the
any any
2
Edge Edge
were were
buffers buffers
landscape landscape
were were
landscape landscape
were were
than than
and and
UF UF
of of
lower lower
) )
2
the the
mean mean
the the
MOFEP MOFEP
(table (table
types. types.
sizes sizes
patch patch
except except
CJ CJ
within within
60 60
percent) percent)
km/km
60 60
shrub shrub
were were
stream stream
landscape landscape
southeastern southeastern
the the
(m) (m)
(m) (m)
forest forest
in in
(5.5 (5.5
higher higher
ties ties (6.2 (6.2
patch patch
sites, sites,
versus versus
landscape landscape
km/km
landscape. landscape.
Farmland Farmland
than than respectively). respectively).
the the
mean mean
patch patch
landscape landscape
and and
within within
W W
within within
50 50
Width Width
50 50
Width Width
of of
~ ~
to to
an an
of of
for for
and and
the the
landscape, landscape,
types types
Mean Mean
were were
(133 (133
and and
mean mean
was was
had had
Buffer Buffer 1.33 1.33
Buffer Buffer
) )
F/G F/G
width width
and and
2
(core (core
although although
and and
great great
forest, forest,
patch patch
40 40
40 40
maximum maximum
ha). ha).
), ),
types types
sizes sizes
forest, forest,
study study
2
percent percent
patch patch
as as
forest forest
• •
from from
categories. categories.
edge edge
forest forest
of of
density density
and and
the the
(3.5 (3.5
whole, whole,
<15 <15
km/km
forest, forest,
an an
types. types.
among among
a a
patch patch
patch patch
lowland lowland
twice twice
landscape, landscape,
20 20
S/EF S/EF
of of
20 20
km/km
patch patch
conditions conditions
lowland lowland
upland upland
as as
Edge Edge
ranged ranged
mean mean
Upland Upland
forest forest
(38.2 (38.2
the the
across across
in in
Using Using
patch patch
IL\\1 IL\\1
same same
least least
(6.4 (6.4
upland upland
similar similar
forest, forest,
8). 8).
other other
(B) (B)
For For
at at
index index
for for
average average
shrub, shrub,
10 10
the the
10 10
interior interior
1 1
forest forest
maximum maximum
largest largest
for for
.-Distribution .-Distribution
U/NV U/NV
was was
percent. percent.
forest forest
an an lowland lowland
7 7
in in
forest. forest.
for for
table table
was was
highest highest
landscape landscape
within within
that that
sites. sites.
in in
upland upland
and and
31 31
The The
table table buffers buffers
fractal fractal
than than
IL\\1 IL\\1
0% 0%
0% 0%
had had
the the
of of
for for
100% 100%
were were
Q) Q)
ctl ctl
areas areas
0 0
~ ~
> >
were were
ctl ctl (j;60% (j;60% ctl ctl
en en
cn80% cn80%
> >
0 0
(D60% (D60% ctl ctl
(/) (/)
(/)80% (/)80%
lowland lowland
~20% ~20%
.£40% .£40%
<(20% <(20%
0 0
.~40% .~40%
0 0
8). 8).
(CAl), (CAl), 0 0
0 0
Figure Figure
length length
upland upland
values values
found found
lowland lowland
mean mean
lowest lowest
B) B)
CAl CAl
mean mean
for for
forest forest
dimension dimension
to to
forest forest
MOFEP MOFEP
for for
sizes sizes
sizes sizes
in in
we we
sizes sizes
across across
patch patch
edge edge
(table (table
index index
and and
m, m,
patch patch
1.37 1.37
ha) ha)
patch patch
similar similar
total total
types types
within within Fractal Fractal highest highest upland upland
average average
sparse sparse
lowest lowest area area
patch patch
40 40 smallest smallest
their their
found found shapes; shapes;
• •
~~ ~~
network network
brates brates
densities densities region, region,
52 52
vegetation vegetation
densities densities
(Rost (Rost
suitable suitable
access access
Mountain Mountain
increase increase
american american
and and
ence ence
be be More More
effect effect
wildlife wildlife
elimination elimination
significantly significantly
tures tures
species species
1990). 1990).
road road
the the
The The activities. activities.
play play
the the
and and
(Bennett (Bennett
already already tially tially
often often
further further
structure structure
recorded recorded
able able
heavily heavily of of
ing. ing.
buffers buffers
ment ment
and and The The
support support
in in
up up
considered considered
ecotones ecotones
tion tion
landscape landscape
ian ian
et et
considered considered
100m 100m
aL aL
press). press).
lMr@lFJEIP lMr@lFJEIP
to to
forests forests
small small
areas areas dispersal dispersal
importance importance
cut cut
Best Best
relatively relatively
a a
to to
communities communities
of of
density density
Machtans Machtans
and and
than than
cut cut
associated associated
may may
of of
corridors. corridors.
1993) 1993)
31 31
could could
relatively relatively
to to
suggesting suggesting
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
In In
this this
support support
populations, populations,
evaluated. evaluated.
(Bennett (Bennett
on on
as as
dominated dominated
habitat habitat
also also
areas, areas,
100m, 100m,
in in
diverse diverse
us) us)
of of
of of
1991, 1991,
remote remote for for
percent percent
stands stands
within within
and and
Bailey Bailey
percentage percentage
within within
1980). 1980).
forests forests
region region
indicates indicates
growth, growth,
provide provide
Previous Previous
Allowing Allowing
one-quarter one-quarter
habitat habitat
these these
than than
may may
road road
of of
1.4 1.4 riparian riparian
network network
1.6 1.6
and and
be be
to to
density density
undisturbed undisturbed
is is
represents represents
activity. activity.
forest forest have have
road-influenced, road-influenced,
widespread widespread
it it
fragmentation fragmentation
a a
km/km
Lyon Lyon
km/km
a a
et et
be be
suggesting suggesting
movement movement
for for
greater greater
wildlife wildlife
of of
do do
density, density,
boreal, boreal,
microclimate microclimate with with
1979). 1979).
and and
of of
residual residual Individuals Individuals
this this areas areas
1991) 1991)
is is
critical critical
Avian Avian
of of
concem concem
of of
aL aL
habitat habitat
(Gregory (Gregory
dispersal dispersal
for for
roads roads
microclimatic microclimatic
contained contained
by by
Roads Roads
likely likely
New New
large large
distinct distinct
cutting cutting
the the
studies studies
that that
for for
the the
interior interior
zone. zone.
decreased decreased
on on
especially especially
AND AND
farmland. farmland.
1983). 1983).
(1996) (1996)
of of
landscape landscape
patch patch
territories territories
humans, humans,
In In
by by
2 2
2 2
but but
of of
an an
Rocky Rocky
species species
habitat habitat
landscape landscape the the
role role
York, York,
We We
mixed-wood mixed-wood
communities communities
a a
within within
reduced reduced
variable variable
a a
ungulates ungulates
in in
due due
that that
this this
habitats habitats
areas. areas. the the
significant significant
in in hunters hunters
here. here.
loss loss
distrtbution distrtbution
large large
edge edge
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
These These
rates rates
widespread widespread
or or
can can
region region and and
creating creating
et et
detected detected
have have
types types
found found
corridors corridors
in in
(Reed (Reed
These These
this this
may may
within within
to to
Adirondack Adirondack
of of
other other
black black
road road
al. al.
landscape landscape
(Brosofske (Brosofske
Mountains, Mountains,
for for
fragmentation fragmentation
of of
rapidly rapidly
given given
the the
use use
contrtbute contrtbute
availability, availability,
effect effect
such such
increased increased
portion portion
diverse diverse
should should
habitat habitat
However, However,
This This
and and
that that
environment, environment,
impacting impacting shown shown
landscape landscape
the the
1991, 1991,
regions regions
large large
rely rely
that that
large large
in in
could could
after after et et
that that
(Brocke (Brocke
linear linear
networks networks
Ozark Ozark
by by
riparian riparian
human human
bear bear
these these
additional additional
forest forest
similar similar
as as
amount amount
dispersal dispersal
aL aL
farmland farmland
an an
had had
as as
road road
of of
(Stauffer (Stauffer
for for
more more
one-half one-half
with with are are
of of
animals animals
influ
buffers buffers
verte
Naiman Naiman
be be
vegeta
harvest
move
of of
and and
par that that
100m, 100m,
1996). 1996).
edge edge
be be
could could
(Ursus (Ursus
ripar
also also
some some
et et
fea
been been
given given
road road
were were
et et
aL, aL,
are are
aL aL
of of
of of
low low
upland upland
type type
patch's patch's
interrelationships interrelationships
This This
of of
ture ture and and
dyn.amics dyn.amics
Characterization Characterization
tion tion
practices practices
consider consider
respect respect roles roles from from
assessment assessment
patch patch
types. types.
results results categories, categories,
coverage coverage
ture, ture,
variation variation
Slope, Slope,
through through diversity diversity
(Swanson (Swanson
treatments. treatments.
study study
level level
have have
treatments treatments should should
temporal temporal
considered considered
the the
larger larger
pattem pattem
to to
(Larsen (Larsen
scape scape within within Forested Forested
degree degree
reptiles reptiles
We We
threat. threat.
turtles turtles extreme extreme
barrier barrier
our our
(e.g., (e.g.,
40 40
expand expand
amount amount
obsetved obsetved
MOFEP MOFEP
function. function.
of of
within within
within within
study study
may may
sources sources
structure structure
in in
m, m,
moisture, moisture,
long-term long-term
high high
distrtbution. distrtbution.
sites sites
as as
landscapes, landscapes,
aspect, aspect,
community community
Note Note
stream stream
in in forest) forest)
area area
suggest suggest
further further
to to
and and
for for
determining determining
of of
et et
are are
Road Road
we we
their their
the the
microclimatic microclimatic
and and
of of
a a may may
in in
areas areas
introduce introduce
distrtbutions distrtbutions
of of
MOFEP MOFEP
et et
these these
patch patch
al. al.
the the
areas areas
surface surface
slope slope
whole. whole.
herpetofauna herpetofauna
when when
landscapes landscapes
MOFEP MOFEP
within within
at at
patch patch
found found
of of
of of
landscape landscape
most most
snakes) snakes)
that that
sites sites
was was
landscape landscape
al. al.
spatial spatial
with with
regional regional
that that
1997). 1997).
effects effects
the the
densities densities
or or
differentially differentially
and and
topographical topographical core core
On On
applicability applicability
buffers buffers
(Wallin (Wallin
consider consider
and and
are are
that, that,
consequences consequences
1988, 1988,
variables, variables,
during during
types types
the the
in in
and and
of of
our our
must must comparing comparing
likely likely
types types
landscape landscape
between between
average, average,
numerous numerous
study study
that that
different different
the the
types types
temperature) temperature)
elevation elevation
If If
the the
area area
represented represented
the the
core core
study study
However, However,
additional additional
nutrtent nutrtent
distrtbution distrtbution
were were
distrtbutions distrtbutions
regional regional
MOFEP MOFEP
on on
although although
elevation elevation
Effects Effects
elevation elevation
vegetation vegetation
Zobel Zobel
where where
study study
et et
in in
cover cover
higher higher
less less
of of
environment environment
structure. structure.
should should
heterogeneity heterogeneity
also also
reached reached
to to
is is
the the
insulation, insulation,
within within
the the
habitat habitat
sites sites
and and
al. al.
(e.g., (e.g.,
the the
hatvested hatvested
killed killed
sites sites
similar similar
be be
because because
landscape landscape
using using
of of
influence influence
than than
contour contour
be be
summer, summer,
impact impact et et
1994). 1994).
influence influence
results results
among among
sites sites
scale. scale.
influences influences
gradients gradients of of
the the
animals animals
researchers researchers
affected. affected.
amphibians amphibians
areas areas
landscape. landscape.
managers managers
than than
their their
diversity diversity
for for
error error
data data
van van
the the
al. al.
elucidate elucidate
considered considered play play
silvicultural silvicultural
(except (except
patches patches
by by
to to
for for
1.9 1.9
also also
of of
distrtbutions distrtbutions
long-term long-term 20 20
an an
landscape
across across
1976). 1976).
must must
of of
relative relative
a a
vehicles vehicles
in in
Gelder Gelder
hatvest hatvest
management management
studies studies
surrounding surrounding
tempera were were
any any
Spatial Spatial
of of
Managers Managers
important important
km/km
intetvals. intetvals.
areas areas
the the percent percent
into into
of of
greater greater
edge edge
of of
patch patch
poses poses
regenera
of of
and and
the the
structure structure
(e.g., (e.g.,
the the
plant plant
study study
for for roads roads
and and
on on
of of also also
struc
MOFEP MOFEP
should should
patch patch
the the
the the
aspect aspect
derived derived
Our Our
want want
The The
width width
land
and and
the the
may may
bare bare
1973). 1973).
with with
to to
in in
and and
a a
2 2
of of
be be a a
53 53
of of
a a
1-
on on
5: 5:
the the
21-
Gen. Gen.
R., R.,
an an
A.W., A.W.,
De
Gen. Gen.
re
effect effect
Dou
mitigat
1997. 1997.
Ecologi
streams streams
Cam
K.A. K.A.
Press. Press.
Service, Service,
and and
In: In:
resources. resources.
MO. MO.
Saunders, Saunders,
U.S. U.S.
Missouri Missouri
Station: Station:
Norton, Norton,
ecosystem. ecosystem.
the the
Ozark Ozark
Station: Station:
1995. 1995.
Press: Press:
U.S. U.S.
R.J.; R.J.;
sensitive sensitive
Service, Service,
gradients gradients
D.C. D.C.
In: In:
harvesting harvesting
applications applications
conservation conservation
mosaics: mosaics:
Haney, Haney,
Stephen Stephen
small small
The The
MN: MN:
Conservation. Conservation.
management: management:
on on
PA: PA:
of of
scheme scheme
fragmentation fragmentation
T.A. T.A.
Forest Forest
Louis, Louis,
Ecosystem Ecosystem
future. future.
regions. regions.
forest forest
wildlife wildlife
of of
Applications. Applications.
landscape landscape
symposium: symposium:
Dey, Dey,
northeast? northeast?
99-117. 99-117.
old-growth old-growth
Project: Project:
Forest Forest
from from
St. St.
University University
M.S.; M.S.;
to to
Paul, Paul,
roadsides, roadsides,
Gustafson, Gustafson,
Missouri Missouri
1993. 1993.
Chipping Chipping
review. review.
Naiman, Naiman,
Nature Nature
the the
Washington. Washington.
and and
and and
R.; R.;
and and
the the
forest forest
Shifley, Shifley,
University University
Experiment Experiment
a a
Spies, Spies,
Effects Effects
Experiment Experiment
into into
C. C.
Forest Forest
St. St.
press. press.
Radnor, Radnor,
J.; J.;
on on
the the
3-5; 3-5;
Is Is
in in
Landscape Landscape
networks networks
L.; L.;
J.P.; J.P.;
eds. eds.
Project Project
Beatty: Beatty:
In In
Ecosystem Ecosystem
of of
microclimatic microclimatic
Yale Yale
Boyce, Boyce,
management: management:
Roads, Roads,
J.F.; J.F.;
In: In:
forest forest
Ecological Ecological
Agriculture, Agriculture,
1997. 1997.
Forest Forest
management management
edges edges
gradients gradients
Department Department
western western
Jensen, Jensen,
present, present,
Ozark Ozark
approach approach
June June Forest Forest
road road
Ecosystem Ecosystem In: In:
issue issue
Chen, Chen,
R.J., R.J., corridors. corridors.
CT: CT:
of of
1995. 1995.
Cambridge Cambridge
Brian Brian
Agriculture, Agriculture,
Hauser, Hauser,
in in
NC-193. NC-193.
1997. 1997.
of of
NE-140. NE-140.
landscapes landscapes
of of
Surrey Surrey
O'Pezio, O'Pezio,
1991. 1991.
J.F. J.F.
of of
B.L.; B.L.;
B.; B.;
1997 1997
of of
forest forest
past, past,
.F. .F.
MA: MA:
forests. forests.
K.D.; K.D.;
species. species.
conservation: conservation:
Ecosystem Ecosystem
Forest Forest
J J
Central Central
Franklin, Franklin,
Rep. Rep.
management management
role role
A A
Rep. Rep.
R.T.T. R.T.T.
clearcut clearcut
Hobbs, Hobbs,
Haven, Haven,
Ecosystem Ecosystem
A.F. A.F.
p. p.
Missouri Missouri
Proceedings Proceedings
R.H.; R.H.;
Missouri Missouri
sustainable sustainable
Applications, Applications,
overview. overview.
impact impact
p. p.
J.; J.;
uplands uplands
the the
53. 53.
New New
for for
eds. eds.
an an
74-86. 74-86.
632 632
ecology ecology
bridge, bridge,
from from
Growing-season Growing-season
glas-fir glas-fir cal cal
Franklin, Franklin,
19 19
to to
25. 25. microclimatic microclimatic
North North
13-17. 13-17.
search; search; experimental experimental
Department Department
Forest Forest
Brookshire, Brookshire,
eds. eds.
Project: Project:
1990. 1990.
Tech. Tech.
Ozark Ozark
MO: MO:
forest forest
Northeastern Northeastern
The The
management management
partment partment
ing ing
2: 2:
wildlife wildlife
D.A.; D.A.;
Tech. Tech.
Australia: Australia:
wildlife wildlife
Franklin, Franklin,
Forman, Forman,
Chen, Chen,
Brosofske, Brosofske,
Brookshire, Brookshire,
Brookshire, Brookshire,
Brocke, Brocke,
Bennett, Bennett,
of of
on on
or or
et et
m. m.
to to
on on
of of
of of
with with
we we
of of
GIS GIS
on on
a a
25: 25:
other other
if if
mind. mind.
about about
Steve Steve
40 40
and and
How
fluctu
non
edge edge
refer
in in
often often
ha ha
ecologi
image image
four
length length
propor
based based
are are
in in
limits limits
a a
better better
Conserva
(Chen (Chen
or or
extreme extreme
patches patches
this this
interior interior
analysis analysis
areas areas
suggestions suggestions
landscape. landscape.
only only
are are
9.9 9.9
lowland, lowland,
of of
between between
patches patches
although although
patches patches
of of
Characteriz
with with
this this
estimate estimate
time. time.
drawn drawn
high high
Glenn Glenn
and and
low low
provided provided
were were
of of
landscapes. landscapes.
result result
study. study.
Brian Brian
versus versus
between between
studies. studies.
edge edge
about about dependent dependent
conducted conducted
and and
scales, scales,
Research. Research.
and and
in in
and and
that that
be be
species species
available available
Therefore, Therefore,
these these
by by
provide provide
within within
the the
areas areas
exhibit exhibit
1981) 1981)
be be
this this are are
structure structure and and
forested forested
boundary boundary
1995. 1995.
(e.g., (e.g.,
of of
measurements measurements
or or
CITED CITED
in in
MDC MDC
than than
study study
forest forest
width width
forested forested
future future
forest forest
would would
forest forest
types types
some some
al. al.
point point
assisted assisted
for for
not not
manuscript. manuscript.
Forest Forest
of of
from from
a a
MOFEP MOFEP
of of
generous generous
Although Although
influences influences
that that
the the
as as
boundaries boundaries
et et
at at
upland upland
total total
G.A. G.A.
the the
Department Department limited limited
this this
neighboring neighboring
surrounding surrounding
results results
a a
of of
do do
this this
however however
edge edge
should should
patches patches
occur occur
of of
softer softer
largest largest
Shifley Shifley
forested forested
currently currently
of of
the the
comments comments
habitat habitat
in in
in in
is is
patch patch
be be
the the
by by
the the
area area
from from
single single
compare compare
the the
an an
other other all all
of of
landscape. landscape.
our our
classification, classification,
that, that,
ha ha
landscape landscape
questions questions
lab lab
are are
of of
the the
can can
a a
benefit benefit
Note Note
support support
can can
Evaluation Evaluation
Maclean Maclean
to to
sites, sites,
of of
in in
of of
species species
on on
and and
may may
and and This This
the the
structure structure
Jordan, Jordan, core core
minimize minimize
this this
Journal Journal
Missouri Missouri
GIS GIS
and and
For For
LITERATURE LITERATURE
draft draft
landscape landscape
2) 2)
Whitcomb Whitcomb
that that variables variables
interior interior
Stephen Stephen
may may
sparsely sparsely
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
that that
from from
>lOOm >lOOm
types types
Ann Ann
on on
383.3 383.3
provided provided
affected affected
area area
structure structure
structure structure
Some Some study study
of of
the the
which which
the the
continuously. continuously.
E.Z.; E.Z.;
the the
of of
based based
with with
results results
(fig. (fig.
recognize recognize
and and
dynamics, dynamics,
financial financial forest. forest.
ecological ecological
environments environments
the the
habitat habitat
spatial spatial
of of
should should
1989, 1989,
average average
ecotones. ecotones.
until until
increase increase
decrease. decrease.
earlier earlier the the
were were
types types
abiotic abiotic
patch patch
area area
degree. degree.
of of
we we with with
species species
for for
area area
area area
classification classification
of of
1830-1849. 1830-1849.
Canadian Canadian
ing ing
thank thank
processes processes
environment environment
an an
1995). 1995).
Baskent, Baskent,
processing. processing.
Brookshire Brookshire
on on
databases. databases.
tion tion
evaluate evaluate
Westin Westin
We We changing changing
pattern pattern
landscape landscape
ence ence
conclusions conclusions
cal cal
ever, ever,
information information specific specific
landscape landscape
interior interior
forest, forest,
classified classified
The The
adjacent adjacent patch patch
would would these these
would would
upland, upland,
ating ating
tion tion
al. al.
edge edge
interior interior Nudds Nudds
core core
Many Many
lowland lowland
core core
region region
some some
fifths fifths values values
However, However,
within within the the
microclimate microclimate ground ground
~M®W~~------
~ ~
McGartgal, McGartgal,
Larsen, Larsen,
Lyon, Lyon,
Lillesand, Lillesand,
Machtans, Machtans,
Russin, Russin,
Hunsaker, Hunsaker,
54 54
Futuyma, Futuyma, Gustafson, Gustafson,
Glenn, Glenn,
Gregocy, Gregocy,
Gott, Gott,
Agriculture, Agriculture,
west west
fying fying
PNW-351. PNW-351.
John John
ing ing
Timmins, Timmins,
Forestry. Forestry.
Biology. Biology.
ecosystem ecosystem
ment ment spatial spatial
E.W.; E.W.;
Brookshire, Brookshire,
431. 431.
95:4-9. 95:4-9.
Journal Journal backscatter. backscatter.
sensing sensing
pattem. pattem.
Estimating Estimating
Kummins, Kummins,
science science
raphy raphy
of of
landscape landscape
ture, ture,
ties). ties). spective spective
National National
Carter, Carter,
540-551. 540-551.
Sunderland, Sunderland,
1996. 1996.
1994. 1994.
J. J.
patch patch
L.J. L.J.
habitat habitat
S.M.; S.M.;
D.R.; D.R.;
Y.A.; Y.A.;
1975. 1975.
Research Research
landscape landscape
Forest Forest
Rolla, Rolla,
S.V.; S.V.;
Wiley Wiley
corridors corridors
England, England,
Use Use
Sampling Sampling
T.M.; T.M.;
of of
D.J. D.J.
1983. 1983.
pattem pattem
C.T.; C.T.;
C.S.; C.S.;
Oregon, Oregon,
K.; K.;
and and
E.; E.;
and and
of of
Landscape Landscape
10: 10:
of of
colonization. colonization.
mammals mammals
Forest Forest
81: 81:
Nudds, Nudds,
Reich, Reich,
Shifley, Shifley,
S.P.; S.P.;
Portland, Portland,
of of
heterogeneity heterogeneity
researchers. researchers.
Swanson, Swanson,
Soil Soil
Biogeography. Biogeography.
K.W. K.W. riparian riparian
Karks, Karks,
Gardner, Gardner,
effectiveness effectiveness
slash slash
and and
MO: MO:
1986. 1986.
B.L.; B.L.;
Kiefer, Kiefer,
Forest Forest
Remote Remote
1366-1379. 1366-1379.
image image
Villard, Villard,
O'Neill, O'Neill,
IEEE IEEE
riparian riparian
Service. Service.
MA: MA:
Road Road
592-595. 592-595.
Station. Station.
Levine, Levine,
by by
analysis analysis
survey survey
K. K.
Area, Area,
structure. structure.
Sons, Sons,
Ripley Ripley
to to
1991. 1991.
U.S. U.S.
R.M.; R.M.;
T.D. T.D.
pine pine
Dey, Dey,
Sinauer Sinauer
Evolutionary Evolutionary
S.R.; S.R.;
B.J. B.J.
forest forest
Transactions Transactions
1997. 1997.
characterize characterize
density density
interpretation. interpretation.
R.W. R.W.
Service, Service,
in in
zones. zones.
Ecology. Ecology.
OR: OR:
Sensing. Sensing.
R.V.; R.V.;
M-A.; M-A.;
R.H. R.H.
F.J.; F.J.;
56 56
Department Department
buffer buffer
Missouri Missouri
Ecology. Ecology.
Canadian Canadian
Inc. Inc.
biomass biomass
1989. 1989.
An An
of of
D.C.; D.C.;
Hoffer, Hoffer,
D.A.; D.A.;
and and
1995. 1995.
Thompson, Thompson,
122 122
Journal Journal
program program
birds. birds.
for for
1994. 1994.
p. p.
U.S. U.S.
on on
10 10
the the
Jackson, Jackson,
16: 16:
Associates. Associates.
1996. 1996.
ecosystem ecosystem
McKee, McKee,
Bioscience. Bioscience.
Gen. Gen.
749 749
Hannon, Hannon,
models models
Shannon Shannon
Pacific Pacific
p. p.
Guidelines Guidelines
the the
elk. elk.
strips strips
Kurzejeski, Kurzejeski,
Norton, Norton,
Insular Insular
Mark Mark
9: 9:
FRAGSTATS: FRAGSTATS:
Department Department
29 29
261-268. 261-268.
R.M. R.M.
Remote Remote
Conservation Conservation
77: 77:
p. p.
using using
(parts (parts
biology. biology.
207-226. 207-226.
probability probability
landscape landscape
Tech. Tech.
The The
Joumal Joumal
on on
of of
parks. parks.
(3): (3):
for for
W.A; W.A;
of of
New New
1\vain 1\vain
describ
Forestry. Forestry.
as as
North
94-107. 94-107.
F.R., F.R.,
Geo
B.L.; B.L.;
1991. 1991.
S.J. S.J.
biogeog
Agricul
quanti
427-
effect effect
D.J. D.J.
per
coun
radar radar
move
of of
Rep. Rep.
41: 41:
York: York:
for for
III; III;
of of
of of
of of
a a
Stauffer, Stauffer,
Swanson, Swanson,
Spencer, Spencer,
Schumaker, Schumaker,
Rost, Rost,
Reed, Reed,
Pickett, Pickett,
Missouri Missouri
Naiman, Naiman,
Meinert, Meinert,
Agriculture, Agriculture,
Wildlife Wildlife
Woodmansee, Woodmansee,
by by
Bioscience. Bioscience.
Journal Journal
vation vation
to to on on
Forest Forest
effects effects Massengale, Massengale,
resource, resource,
NC-139. NC-139.
mule mule
The The
641. 641.
mentation mentation
tions. tions.
regional regional scape scape
ecological ecological
Department Department
Stephen Stephen
an an
Department Department
succession succession
North North research; research;
56-68. 56-68. forms, forms,
Gen. Gen. 1210-1225. 1210-1225.
study study Ozark Ozark
1996. 1996.
G.R.; G.R.;
R.A.; R.A.;
predict predict
birds birds
ecosystem ecosystem
experimental experimental
role role
S.T.A.; S.T.A.;
Tech. Tech. J.S., J.S.,
D.F.; D.F.;
D.; D.;
R.J.; R.J.;
deer deer
Geological Geological
3: 3:
ecology: ecology:
Contribution Contribution
area. area.
Central Central
F.J.; F.J.;
Forest Forest
Biology. Biology.
Experiment Experiment
of of
geology, geology,
Bailey, Bailey,
Johnson-Bamard, Johnson-Bamard,
Management. Management.
ofWildlife ofWildlife
biodiversity. biodiversity.
of of
of of
St. St.
N.H. N.H.
209-212. 209-212.
R., R.,
Nigh, Nigh,
habitat habitat
1989: 1989:
habitat habitat
1997 1997
systems. systems.
and and
Jr.; Jr.;
Decamps, Decamps,
in in
Best, Best,
riparian riparian
riparian riparian
Rep. Rep.
in in
Kratz, Kratz,
38: 38:
Cadenasso, Cadenasso,
In: In:
Paul, Paul,
Forest Forest
eds. eds.
of of
of of
R.A. R.A.
the the
Ecosystem Ecosystem
pattems pattems
R.G. R.G.
Missouri. Missouri.
1996. 1996.
Forest Forest
Roussopoulos, Roussopoulos,
T.; T.;
spatial spatial
elk elk
Agriculture, Agriculture,
J.A. J.A.
Natural Natural
Brookshire, Brookshire,
10: 10:
92-98. 92-98.
June June
and and
an an
Survey. Survey.
L.B. L.B.
NC-193. NC-193.
approach approach
Proceedings Proceedings
alterations. alterations.
Rocky Rocky
1992. 1992.
connectivity. connectivity.
MN: MN:
T.K.; T.K.;
Kabrick, Kabrick,
in in
Management. Management.
Station. Station.
Service, Service,
1098-1106. 1098-1106.
analysis. analysis.
1988. 1988.
Science. Science.
communities: communities:
of of
corridors corridors
1979. 1979.
soils soils
Using Using
relation relation
H.; H.;
Experiment Experiment
3-5; 3-5;
1980. 1980. Ecological Ecological
44: 44:
heterogeneity heterogeneity
roads roads
U.S. U.S.
and and
Resources. Resources.
Caine, Caine,
M.L. M.L.
Missouri's Missouri's
Mountains. Mountains.
Rolla, Rolla,
Pollock, Pollock,
1979. 1979.
Project Project
of of
St. St.
Landform Landform
1-15. 1-15.
Distribution Distribution
St. St.
landscape landscape
J.; J.;
to to
J. J.
processes. processes.
84 84
Habitat Habitat
Department Department
Forest Forest
Brian Brian
North North
the the
269: 269:
to to
Resour. Resour.
Joumal Joumal
Paul, Paul,
1995. 1995.
to to
in in
landscape landscape
Louis, Louis,
of of
S.M.; S.M.;
1997. 1997.
Baker, Baker,
MO: MO:
N.; N.;
p. p.
forest forest Stratigraphic Stratigraphic
Ecology. Ecology.
MOFEP MOFEP
Applica
roads. roads.
maintaining maintaining
the the
symposium: symposium:
43: 43:
M. M.
331-334. 331-334.
Station: Station:
L.; L.;
evaluating evaluating
Central Central
Service, Service,
forest forest
MN: MN:
185 185
Land
Missouri Missouri
selection selection
Missouri Missouri effects effects
Land
Conser
in in
MO. MO.
1993. 1993.
634-
Bull. Bull.
Shifley, Shifley,
W.L. W.L.
frag
indices indices
of of
of of
p. p.
U.S. U.S.
77: 77: of of
55 55
In: In:
to to
93-
in in
on on
Ims, Ims,
a a
of of
13: 13:
in in
B.; B.;
569-
Review Review
land
the the
125-206. 125-206.
Bystrak, Bystrak,
1994. 1994.
J.F.; J.F.;
and and
legacies legacies
forest. forest.
Forest Forest
4: 4:
western western
approach approach
Dyrness, Dyrness,
B. B.
171-197. 171-197.
Monographs. Monographs.
changes changes
traffic traffic
369-380. 369-380.
K.M.; K.M.;
eds. eds.
Horne, Horne,
to to
diversity diversity
20: 20:
Annual Annual
Lynch, Lynch,
environment environment
ecology: ecology:
G.M.; G.M.;
66: 66:
Oecologia. Oecologia.
central central
from from
land-use land-use
fragmentation fragmentation
of of
Marks, Marks,
Van Van
and and
L. L.
deciduous deciduous
B.M., B.M.,
C.S.; C.S.;
the the
mechanisms mechanisms
Ecological Ecological
quantitative quantitative
Hawk, Hawk,
Applications. Applications.
F.J.; F.J.;
of of
man-dominated man-dominated
process. process.
Oikos. Oikos.
response response
forest forest
rules: rules:
N.C.; N.C.;
bujo bujo
A A
Springer-Verlag: Springer-Verlag:
in in
of of
Klimkiewicz, Klimkiewicz,
A.; A.;
on on
Landscape Landscape
resulting resulting
eastern eastern
Systematics. Systematics.
Sharpe, Sharpe,
Bujo Bujo
structure, structure,
Robbins, Robbins,
1973. 1973.
York: York:
Oregon. Oregon.
B.L.; B.L.;
Ecological Ecological
of of
pattern pattern
Relationships Relationships
ecology. ecology.
and and
of of
1989. 1989.
Swanson, Swanson,
Ecological Ecological
R.L.; R.L.;
Effects Effects
ofthe ofthe
Stenseth, Stenseth,
McKee, McKee,
pattern pattern
New New
J.J. J.J.
generation generation
R.F.; R.F.;
dynamics dynamics
communities communities
mortality mortality
of of
1993. 1993.
1976. 1976.
M.G. M.G.
135-156. 135-156.
D.O.; D.O.;
J.A.; J.A.;
1981. 1981.
D.B.; D.B.;
forest. forest.
the the
Ecology Ecology
Gelder, Gelder,
Cascades Cascades
46: 46:
forest forest
composition, composition,
C.T. C.T.
R.A. R.A.
landscape landscape
scapes. scapes.
island island
580. 580. Burgess, Burgess,
D. D.
avifauna avifauna
in in
pattern pattern
Landscape Landscape
to to
95. 95.
of of
population population
effect effect
Whitcomb, Whitcomb,
Zobel, Zobel,
Wiens, Wiens,
Whitcomb, Whitcomb,
Wallin, Wallin,
van van Turner, Turner,