IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i7p692-d586068.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Role of Kettle Holes for Providing and Connecting Amphibian Habitats in Agricultural Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Biljana Savić

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

  • Alevtina Evgrafova

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

  • Cenk Donmez

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
    Remote Sensing and GIS Laboratory, Landscape Architecture Department, Cukurova University, Adana 01330, Turkey)

  • Filip Vasić

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

  • Michael Glemnitz

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

  • Carsten Paul

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

Abstract

The intensification of agriculture over the last few decades has caused habitat loss, which poses a significant threat to the survival of populations and species. Where habitats are connected, populations may escape the destruction of their habitat by migrating to another one. Consequently, the functional connectivity of landscapes has become an important focus for species conservation. Kettle holes are hotspots of biodiversity that provide suitable conditions for wildlife species (i.e., amphibians, insects, aquatic plants) and contribute to landscape heterogeneity. They are also considered to function as stepping stone habitats that contribute to habitat connectivity. This study assesses the contribution of kettle holes for (i) habitat provision and (ii) the functional connectivity of three amphibian species with different movement ranges, and (iii) the study identifies areas where the creation of stepping stone biotopes could improve functional connectivity. The contribution of kettle holes was assessed using GIS-based clustering within three research areas in Germany. It was found that the importance of kettle holes for providing amphibian habitats in the three studied areas was equal to or higher than that of other wetland habitats. The state of functional connectivity and the contribution of kettle holes differed strongly depending on the species’ range. For the short-range species, landscapes were highly fragmented, and the contribution of kettle holes was much smaller than that of corridor habitats. For the long-range species, all habitats suited for amphibian reproduction were connected, and the contribution of kettle holes was similar to that of corridor habitats. However, the contribution of both was mostly redundant. Overall, the results showed that kettle holes play a crucial role in habitat provision and function as important stepping stone biotopes in agricultural landscapes. The clustering method applied in this study provides a simple tool for landscape planning and environmental protection agencies, which can be easily adapted to analyze functional connectivity and habitat interactions for different species or landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Biljana Savić & Alevtina Evgrafova & Cenk Donmez & Filip Vasić & Michael Glemnitz & Carsten Paul, 2021. "Assessing the Role of Kettle Holes for Providing and Connecting Amphibian Habitats in Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:692-:d:586068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/692/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/7/692/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Bour, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    2. LaRue, Michelle A. & Nielsen, Clayton K., 2008. "Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 212(3), pages 372-381.
    3. Christian Hof & Miguel B. Araújo & Walter Jetz & Carsten Rahbek, 2011. "Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 480(7378), pages 516-519, December.
    4. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Sirén, Elina & Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Weibel, Bettina, 2017. "Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 306-315.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Stępniewska, Małgorzata & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2018. "Drivers of the ecosystem services approach in Poland and perception by practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 59-67.
    3. Chunrong Mi & Liang Ma & Mengyuan Yang & Xinhai Li & Shai Meiri & Uri Roll & Oleksandra Oskyrko & Daniel Pincheira-Donoso & Lilly P. Harvey & Daniel Jablonski & Barbod Safaei-Mahroo & Hanyeh Ghaffari , 2023. "Global Protected Areas as refuges for amphibians and reptiles under climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    5. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Grazia Zulian & Joachim Maes & Maria Luisa Paracchini, 2013. "Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, September.
    8. Yutong Zhang & Wei Zhou & Danxue Luo, 2023. "The Relationship Research between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Growth: From Multi-Level Attempts to Key Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    11. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    12. Carmen Schwartz & Mostafa Shaaban & Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura & Annette Piorr, 2021. "Participatory Mapping of Demand for Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Pelletier, Marie-Chantale & Heagney, Elizabeth & KovaÄ , Mladen, 2021. "Valuing recreational services: A review of methods with application to New South Wales National Parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    14. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    15. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    16. La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Dalmazzone, Silvana & Crossman, Neville D. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Bidoglio, Giovanni, 2017. "Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 18-29.
    17. Dawei Wen & Song Ma & Anlu Zhang & Xinli Ke, 2021. "Spatial Pattern Analysis of the Ecosystem Services in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Imagery Based on Deep Learning Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    19. Arturo Sanchez-Porras & María Guadalupe Tenorio-Arvide & Ricardo Darío Peña-Moreno & María Laura Sampedro-Rosas & Sonia Emilia Silva-Gómez, 2018. "Evaluation of the Potential Change to the Ecosystem Service Provision Due to Industrialization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    20. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:7:p:692-:d:586068. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.