Spatial processes of landscape transformation in mining areas (case study of opencast lignite mines in Morzysław, Niesłusz, Gosławice)

• Autorzy: Fagiewicz K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper is a landscape study conducted in the post-mining area of Niesłusz-Gosławice. The diagnostic research included qualitative-quantitative features of the landscape (types of patches of land cover, their number, participation in the area) as well as spatial characteristics resulting from the relative positions and deployment of patches. The research was conducted using a set of environmental indicators – landscape metrics that provide a simple tool used in the study of landscape structure. The trends in changes of the analyzed landscape indicators, both for the individual patches of land cover (class metrics) as well as in relation to the landscape as a mosaic of patches of all types of land cover (landscape metrics), show that fragmentation and atrophy of patches, which manifests itself in the form of reduction of area of patches and the increase of their number, is the main processes of spatial transformation of the landscape in post-mining areas. Diagnosis of the structure of post-mining areas and the conclusions arrived at should be taken into account in determining the directions of reclamation and assessment of the effectiveness of the reclamation works carried out.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 23
• Numer: 4
• Opis fizyczny: p.1123-1136,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Fagiewicz K.

• Department of Integrated Geography, Faculty of Geographical and Geological Sciences, Adam Mickiewicz University, Dziegielowa 27, 61-680 Poznan, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. CHMIELEWSKI T.J. Landscape systems. 1st Ed; PWN: Warszawa, 2012 [In Polish].
• 2. ANTROP M. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape Urban Plan. 75, 187, 2006.
• 3. PIETRZAK M. Podstawy i zastosowania ekologii krajo­brazu. (Fundamentals and applications of landscape ecolo­gy). Wyd.1. PWSZ im. J.A. Komeńskiego, Leszno, 2011.
• 4. RICHLIN A., SOLON J. Landscape Ecology. PWN, Warszawa, pp. 464, 2011.
• 5. FORMAN R.T.T. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 632, 1995.
• 6. JAEGER A.G. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmenta­tion. Landscape Ecol. 15, 115, 2000.
• 7. SOLON J. Spatial context of urbanization: Landscape pat­tern and changes between 1950 and 1990 in the Warsaw metropolitan area, Poland. Landscape Urban Plan. 93, 250, 2009.
• 8. FAHRIG L. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on biodiversi­ty, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 34, 487, 2003.
• 9. PULLIN A.S. Biological basis for environmental protection. Wyd.1. PWN: Warszawa, 2005 [In Polish].
• 10. FARINA A. Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Kluver Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2000.
• 11. GŁOWACKA I. Functional criteria of assessment of open areas. Człowiek i Środowisko 15, 209, 1991 [In Polish].
• 12. ŻARSKA B. Landscape protection 4th Ed. Wydawnictwo SGGW: Warszawa, 2011 [In Polish].
• 13. MC GARIGAL K., MARKS B.J. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape struc­ture. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-351, 1995. (online) Available at: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/ pubs/Fragstats.pdf (quoted 07 November 2012).
• 14. TURNER M.G., GARDNER H.G., O'NEIL R.U. Landscape Ecology in theory and practice. Pattern and process, Springer Science, 2001.
• 15. MC GARIGAL K, CUSHMAN S. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmen­tation effects. Ecol. Appl. 12, 335, 2002.
• 16. WICKHAM J.D., RIITTERS K.H., O'NEILL R.V., RECK- HOV K.H., WADE T.G., JONES K.B. Land cover as a framework for assessing risk of water pollution. J. Am. Water Resour. As. 36, 1417, 2000.
• 17. FAHRIG L. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinc- tionthreshold: A synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 12, 346, 2002.
• 18. FAHRIG L., MERRIAM G. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66, 1762, 1985.
• 19. WITH K.A. Assessing the risk of invasive spread in frag­mented landscapes. Risk Anal. 24, 803, 2004.
• 20. WICKHAM J.D., JONES K.B., RIITTERS KH., WADE T.G., O'NEILL R.V. Transitions in forest fragmentation: implications for restoration opportunities at regional scales. Landscape Ecol. 14, 137, 1999.
• 21. RIITTERS K., WICKHAM J., O'NEILL R., JONES B., SMITH E. Global-scale patterns of forest fragmentation. Conservation Ecology 4, 27, 2000.
• 22. MC ALPINE C.A., EYRE T.J., Testing landscape metrics as indicators of habitat loss and fragmentation in continuous eucalypt forests (Queensland, Australia), Landscape Ecol. 17, 711, 2002.
• 23. GUSTAFSON E.J., Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art?, Ecosystems 1, 148, 1998.
• 24. FROHN R.C. Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology: New Metric Indicators for Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. pp. 99, 1998.
• 25. MC GARIGAL K. Landscape pattern metrics. Encyclopedia of Environmentrics. El-Shaarawi A.H., Piegorsch W.W. (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Sussex, England, 2, 1135, 2002.
• 26. SCHUMAKER N.H. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77, 1210, 1996.
• 27. MOILANEN A. and NIEMINEN M. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83, 1131, 2002.
• 28. LI H., WU J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecol. 19, 389, 2004.
• 29. ZHANG N., LI H. Sensitivity and effectivenees and of land- ccape metric scalograms in derermining the characteristic scale of a hierarchically structured landscape. Landscape Ecol., DOI: 10.1007/s10980-012-9837-x, 2013.
• 30. HARGIS C., BISSONETTE J., DAVID J. The behaviour of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecol. 13, 167, 1998.
• 31. O'NEILL R.V., HUNSAKER C.T., TIMMINS S.P., TIM- MINS B.L., JACKSON K.B., JONES K.B., RIITTERS K.H. and WICKHAM J.D. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol. 1, 169, 1996.
• 32. SAURA S. Effects of remote sensor spatial resolution and data aggregation on selected fragmentation indices. Landscape Ecol. 19, 197, 2004.
• 33. Wu J., SHEN W., SUN W., TUELLER P.T. Empirical pat­terns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol. 17, 761, 2002.
• 34. HESS G.R., BAY J.M. Generating confidence intervals for composition-based landscape indexes. Landscape Ecol. 12, 309, 1997.
• 35. WICKHAM J.D., O'NEILL R.V., RIITTERS K.H., WADE T.G., JONES K.B. Sensitivity of selected landscape pattern metrics to land-cover misclassification and differences in land-cover composition. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S. 63, 397, 1997.
• 36. SHAO G., LIU D., ZHAO G. Relationships of image clas­sification accuracy and variation of landscape statistics. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 27, 33, 2001.
• 37. NEEL M.C., MC GARIGAL K., CUSHMAN S.A. Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol. 19, 435, 2004.
• 38. MAS J.F. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to classi­fication approaches. Forest Ecol. Manag. 259, 1215, 2010.
• 39. NEEL M.C., MC GARIGAL K., CUSHMAN S.A. Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol. 19, 435, 2004.
• 40. KOZACKI L. Division of the northern part of Konin District into microregions in order to assess the geographical environ­mental changes caused by human economic activity Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. A. Mickiewicza w Poznaniu 71 (9) Geografia, The methodology of dividing country into microregions in order to assess the geographical environment (Ed.) Bartkowski T, pp. 59-61, 1970 [In Polish].
• 41. MC GARIGAL K. MC COMB W.C. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon coast range. Ecol. Monogr. 65, 235, 1995.
• 42. CAIN D.H., RIITTERS K., ORVIS K. A multi-scale analy­sis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecol. 12, 199, 1997.
• 43. RITTERS K.H., O'NEILL R.V., HUNSAKER C.T., WICK­HAM J.D., YANKEE D. H. TIMMINS S. P., JONES K. B., JACKSON B. L. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol. 10, 23, 1995.
• 44. MASSADA A.B., GABAY O., PEREVOLOTSKY A., CARMEL Y. Quantifying the effect of grazing and shrub- clearing on small scale spatial pattern of vegetation. Landscape Ecol. 23, 327, 2008.
• 45. BENDER J., WASILEWSKI S. Reclamation and develop­ment of the dump in Konin Coal Basin. Problems of protec­tion and reclamation of land surface in Poland. Conference Materials of Scientific-Technical Symposium, Warszawa, 1976 [In Polish].
• 46. CHWASTEK J. The influence of mining-geological factors on the forms of dumps. Czasopismo Geograficzne 4, 23, 1970 [In Polish].
• 47. KULA A., KUREK R., OKRASIŃSKI K. Eligibility of projects for the assessment of environmental impact. Stowarzyszenie Pracownia na Recz Wszystkich Istot: Bystra, 2008 [In Polish].
• 48. HUTTL R., WEBER E. Forest ecosystem development in pos-mining landscapes: a case study of Lusatian lignite dis­trict. Naturwissenschaften 88, 322, 2001.

Uwagi

rekord w opracowaniu