188
evaluation of changes in human impacts on biomass production and carbon cycle
(Pechanec et al. 2018). In addition to the interaction of climate and land use, we can
also expect a multiplication of negative impacts on the biodiversity when combining
these drivers. A combination of climate change, species invasions and reduced areas
of natural habitat is likely to promote biotic homogenization in biodiversity hotspots
in particular and foster unpredictable interactions between plants, animals and
microorganisms (Thuiller 2007).
Population responses to extreme climate events, such as drought, are likely to be
affected by habitat quality, area, configuration and heterogeneity (Fischer and
Lindenmayer 2006; Oliver and Morecroft 2014). The most discussed is the impact
of land use on a species ability to shift their distribution in response to climate
warming (Hill et al. 2001; Travis 2003). An intensively managed landscape may
restrict species migration and the ability to cope with climate change by tracking of
suitable conditions (Thomas et al. 2004). Also, a combination of low habitat heterogeneity and climate change can negatively impact biodiversity, because greater
habitat and topographic heterogeneity provide broader microclimatic gradients necessary for species survival (Oliver and Morecroft 2014).
Recent studies also stress the important influence of land-cover change in accelerating invasions (Polce et al. 2011). Open or disturbed areas related to land use
changes are often favoured by non-native species adapted to take advantage of
resource release (González-Moreno et al. 2014). Moreover, certain land-use changes
increase the fragmentation and isolation of forest landscapes, which are more
invaded than large continuous forests (Malavasi et al. 2014).
1.5 The Spatial Data, Persistence of Land Cover/Habitats
LU changes are often studied by using temporal satellite images. A spatial data time
series enables us to compare LC or habitat composition in individual years. Using
the proportion of natural/near natural habitats, we can estimate the relative biodiversity in individual years, because natural parts in the landscape increase its ecological
stability through a higher amount of resources, species richness, and population sizes
(Hodgson et al. 2011). Trajectory construction is more suitable for tracking changes
(Frondoni et al. 2011) while persistence (continuity) analysis can indicate stability,
integrity or habitat quality (Skaloš et al. 2015; Pitkanen et al. 2016). Conversely, the
relative amount of transition land can be used as an indicator of long-term changes
in the landscape (Wästfelt and Arnbergb 2013). Land use history and habitat continuity play crucial roles in determining the degree of diversity (Lovett et al. 2005), as
been confirmed in grasslands (Cousins et al. 2009) and forests (Nordén et al. 2014).
The number and location of stable (unchanged) polygons with a long continuity of
development can detect areas with higher ecological quality and consequently higher
biodiversity (Käyhkö and Skånes 2006). Skaloš et al. (2015) used unchanged forest
polygons to assess the quality of forest integrity, while Pitkanen et al. (2016) used
stable polygons for a stability and human pressure assessment.
P. Cudlín et al.
evaluation of changes in human impacts on biomass production and carbon cycle
(Pechanec et al. 2018). In addition to the interaction of climate and land use, we can
also expect a multiplication of negative impacts on the biodiversity when combining
these drivers. A combination of climate change, species invasions and reduced areas
of natural habitat is likely to promote biotic homogenization in biodiversity hotspots
in particular and foster unpredictable interactions between plants, animals and
microorganisms (Thuiller 2007).
Population responses to extreme climate events, such as drought, are likely to be
affected by habitat quality, area, configuration and heterogeneity (Fischer and
Lindenmayer 2006; Oliver and Morecroft 2014). The most discussed is the impact
of land use on a species ability to shift their distribution in response to climate
warming (Hill et al. 2001; Travis 2003). An intensively managed landscape may
restrict species migration and the ability to cope with climate change by tracking of
suitable conditions (Thomas et al. 2004). Also, a combination of low habitat heterogeneity and climate change can negatively impact biodiversity, because greater
habitat and topographic heterogeneity provide broader microclimatic gradients necessary for species survival (Oliver and Morecroft 2014).
Recent studies also stress the important influence of land-cover change in accelerating invasions (Polce et al. 2011). Open or disturbed areas related to land use
changes are often favoured by non-native species adapted to take advantage of
resource release (González-Moreno et al. 2014). Moreover, certain land-use changes
increase the fragmentation and isolation of forest landscapes, which are more
invaded than large continuous forests (Malavasi et al. 2014).
1.5 The Spatial Data, Persistence of Land Cover/Habitats
LU changes are often studied by using temporal satellite images. A spatial data time
series enables us to compare LC or habitat composition in individual years. Using
the proportion of natural/near natural habitats, we can estimate the relative biodiversity in individual years, because natural parts in the landscape increase its ecological
stability through a higher amount of resources, species richness, and population sizes
(Hodgson et al. 2011). Trajectory construction is more suitable for tracking changes
(Frondoni et al. 2011) while persistence (continuity) analysis can indicate stability,
integrity or habitat quality (Skaloš et al. 2015; Pitkanen et al. 2016). Conversely, the
relative amount of transition land can be used as an indicator of long-term changes
in the landscape (Wästfelt and Arnbergb 2013). Land use history and habitat continuity play crucial roles in determining the degree of diversity (Lovett et al. 2005), as
been confirmed in grasslands (Cousins et al. 2009) and forests (Nordén et al. 2014).
The number and location of stable (unchanged) polygons with a long continuity of
development can detect areas with higher ecological quality and consequently higher
biodiversity (Käyhkö and Skånes 2006). Skaloš et al. (2015) used unchanged forest
polygons to assess the quality of forest integrity, while Pitkanen et al. (2016) used
stable polygons for a stability and human pressure assessment.
P. Cudlín et al.