User:Joncole99/sandbox

Test Text - The article What I will write about will most likely have something to do with Landscape Connectivity.

Article evaluation:

The article I chose to evaluate was entitled Roadkill - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadkill

This article was written as part of two separate projects – the WikiProject Environment and the WikiProject Food and drink, which is kind of gross!! Overall, the article is quite relevant to the subject, and there are many sub-sections that all pertain to the main idea of Roadkill. My main problem is that, in many places, it is poorly written, and there is a lack of peer-reviewed reference sources. Many of the citations are from newspaper articles or websites, and some fact-based sentences go without citing’s at all.

Examples:

(1) “Roadkill refers to an animal or animals that have been struck and killed by motor vehicles on highways.” - I would change this to roads as many animals are also killed on roads as well as highways.

(2) “During the early 20th century, roadkill or "flat meats" (or "highway pizza") became a common sight in most industrialized First World nations…” – I would change this sentence. We don’t need (or "highway pizza"), in brackets and quotations.

(3) “One rarely considered positive aspect of roadkill is the regular availability of carrion it provides for scavenger species such as vultures, crows, foxes, Virginia opossums and a wide variety of carnivorous insects.” – this sentence is not structured properly - I would change this sentence to at least - One rarely considers the positive aspects of roadkill, such as the availability of carrion it regularly provides to scavenger species…

(4) “This [roadkill] is a relatively new source of fatality; and if one were to estimate the entire mileage of such roads in the state [California], the mortality must mount into the hundreds and perhaps thousands every 24 hours - (citation needed) – I have found the proper citation (*).


 * Field notes of Joseph Grinnell from the Archives of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, http://bsit.berkeley.edu/mvz/vol umes.html; 1920–21: Section 2: Journal and catalog: Death Valley, Calif., May 5, 1920, p. 69.

(5) “Mortality resulting from roadkill can be very significant for species with small populations. Roadkill is estimated to be responsible for 50% of deaths of Florida panthers, and is the largest cause of badger deaths in England.” – each of these three facts should be cited!

(6) “In 1993, 25 schools throughout New England, United States participated in a roadkill study involving 1,923 animal deaths. By category, the fatalities were: 81% mammals, 15% bird, 3% reptiles and amphibians, 1% indiscernible.[13] Extrapolating these data nationwide, Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People Newspaper) estimated that the following animals are being killed by motor vehicles in the United States annually: 41 million squirrels, 26 million cats, 22 million rats, 19 million opossums, 15 million raccoons, 6 million dogs, and 350,000 deer.[14] This study may not have considered differences in observability between taxa (e.g. dead raccoons are easier to see than dead frogs), and has not been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.” - should this be included?? Not peer reviewed!

Looking at the article’s “Talk Page” there is a rather large volume of comments expressing the need to make changes, including many of the same ones I have mentioned. Thus, overall, I find that this article needs some major revisions – possibly, I will work on it as part of the next few assignments. We will see!

Landscape Connectivity - Article for Wikipedia

Landscape Connectivity is a term used in ecology and conservation that refers to the degree of permeability of the landscape to the movement of organisms and/or processes both spatially and temporally (1). The concept is comprised of a physical and a behavioural component. The physical component is defined by the spatial configuration of the landscape elements (landform, landcover and land use types), and the behavioural component is defined by the behavioural responses, of organisms and/or processes, to the physical arrangement of the landscape elements (1,2,3). A brief history of definitions

The concept of “Landscape connectivity” was first introduced by (Merriam, 1984) (4). Merriam noted that the movement among habitat patches was not merely a function of an organism’s attributes, but also, a quality of the landscape elements through which it must move (3). To emphasize this fundamental interaction between the organism and/or process and the landscape structure in determining a particular movement path, Meriam defined landscape connectivity as “the degree to which absolute isolation is prevented by landscape elements which allow organisms to move among habit patches.” (4) Nine years later, Taylor et al, 1993, revised this definition to “the degree to which the landscape impedes or facilitates movement among resource patches (6). With et al, 1997, further modified the definition to “the functional relationship among habitat patches, owing to the spatial contagion of habitat and the movement responses of organisms to landscape structure.” (7). Finally, in 2014, Ament et al, 2014 consolidated the definition as “the degree to which regional landscapes, encompassing a variety of natural, semi-natural, and developed land cover types, are conducive to wildlife movement and to sustain ecological processes.” (8). Although there have been slight changes to the definition of landscape connectivity over the past 30 years, each new description emphasizes both a structural (movement of organisms and/or processes) and a behavioural (species or process specific response) element to the landscape connectivity concept.

Quantifying Landscape Connectivity

Since the definition of landscape connectivity has both a physical and a behavioural component, quantifying landscape connectivity is consequently organism-, process- and landscape-specific. (3) According to (Wiens & Milne, 1989), the first step in the quantification process of landscape connectivity is defining the specific habitat or habitat network of the focal species, and in turn, describe the landscape elements from its point of view (9). The next step is to determine the scale of the landscape structure as perceived by the organism. This is defined as the scale at which the species responds to the array of landscape elements, through its fine-scale (grain), and large-scale (extent), movement behaviours (10). Lastly, how the species responds to the different elements of a landscape is determined. This comprises the species’ movement pattern based on behavioural reactions to the mortality risk of the landscape elements, including habitat barriers and edges. (3)

References

1. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M. Connectivity Conservation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.

(2) Bennett, A.F. (1998, 2003). Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

(3) Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L. (2000). On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos. Vol. 90, Pg 7-19.

4 Merriam, G. (1984). Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. – In: Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (eds), Proceedings of the 1st international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. Roskilde University. Denmark, Pg 5-15.

5 Fletcher Jr., R., Burrell, N., Reichert, B., Vasudev, and D., Austin, J. (2016). Divergent Perspectives on Landscape Connectivity Reveal Consistent Effects from Genes to Communities. Curr Landscape Ecol Rep Vol. 1, Pg 67-79.

6. Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. (1993). Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos. Vol. 68, Pg 571-572.

7. With, K., Gardner, R., Turner, M. (1997). Landscape Connectivity and Population Distributions in Heterogeneous Environments. Oikos. Vol. 78, Pg 151-169

8. Ament, R., R. Callahan, M. McClure, M. Reuling, and G. Tabor. 2014. Wildlife Connectivity: Fundamentals for conservation action. Center for Large Landscape Conservation: Bozeman, Montana.

9. Wiens, J. A. and Milne, B. T. 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. – Landscape Ecol. 3: 87–96.

10. Wiens, J. A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. – In: Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. E. (eds), Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, pp. 43–62.

What is Landscape Connectivity?
The concept of “Landscape connectivity” was first introduced by Dr. Gray Merriam in 1984. Merriam noted that movement among habitat patches was not merely a function of an organism’s attributes, but also, a quality of the landscape elements through which it must move. To emphasize this fundamental interaction in determining a particular movement pathway, Merriam (1984), defined landscape connectivity as “the degree to which absolute isolation is prevented by landscape elements which allow organisms to move among habitat patches.” Nine years later, Merriam and colleagues, revised the definition to “the degree to which the landscape impedes or facilitates movement among resource patches. Although this definition has undoubtedly become the most accepted and cited meaning within the scientific literature, many authors have continued to create their own definitions. With et al (1997), presented their interpretation as “the functional relationship among habitat patches, owing to the spatial contagion of habitat and the movement responses of organisms to landscape structure.”, and Ament et al (2014) defined it as “the degree to which regional landscapes, encompassing a variety of natural, semi-natural, and developed land cover types, are conducive to wildlife movement and to sustain ecological processes.” Thus, although there have been many definitions of landscape connectivity over the past 30 years, each new description emphasizes both a structural and a behavioural element to the landscape connectivity concept. The physical component is defined by the spatial and temporal configuration of the landscape elements (landform, landcover and land use types), and the behavioural component is defined by the behavioural responses, of organisms and/or processes, to the physical arrangement of the landscape elements, ,.

Why is it important?
Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have become ubiquitous in both natural and human modified landscapes, resulting in detrimental consequences for local species interactions and global biodiversity. Human development now modifies over 50% of the earth’s landscape, leaving only patches of isolated natural or semi-natural habitats for the millions of other species we share this planet with. Patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem functions are changing worldwide resulting is a loss of connectivity and ecological integrity for the entire global ecological network. Loss of connectivity can influence individuals, populations and communities through within species, between species, and between ecosystem interactions. These interactions affect ecological mechanisms such as nutrient and energy flows, predator-prey relationships, pollination, seed dispersal, demographic rescue, inbreeding avoidance, colonization of unoccupied habitat, altered species interactions, and spread of disease, ,. Accordingly, landscape connectivity facilitates the movement of biotic processes such as animal movement, plant propagation, and genetic exchange, as well as abiotic processes such as water, energy, and material movement within and between ecosystems.

Types of Animal Movement
Daily Movements: Within their home range or territory most animals must move daily among multiple primary habitat patches to forage for food and obtain all the resources they need. Migration: Some species travel to different locations throughout the year to access the resources they need. These movements are usually predictable and are due to changes in the environmental conditions at the primary habitat site, or to facilitate access to breeding grounds. Migratory behaviour is seen in land animals, birds and marine species , and the routes they follow are usually the same year after year. Dispersal: Is the once in a lifetime movement of certain individuals from one population to another for the purpose of breeding. These exchanges maintain genetic and demographic diversity among populations. Disturbance movement: Is the unpredictable movement of individuals or populations to new locations of suitable habitat due to an environmental disturbance. Major disturbances such as fire, natural disasters, human development, and climate change can impact the quality and distribution of habitats and necessitate the movement of species to new locations of suitable habitat. Incidental movement: Movement of species in areas that are typically used by humans. These include greenbelts, recreational trail systems, hedgerows, and golf courses.

Connectivity Conservation
Preserving or creating landscape connectivity has become increasingly recognized as a key strategy to protect biodiversity, maintain viable ecosystems and wildlife populations, and facilitate the movement and adaptation of wildlife populations in the face of climate change. The degree to which landscapes are connected determines the overall amount of movement taking place within and between local populations. This connectivity has influences on gene flow, local adaptation, extinction risk, colonization probability, and the potential for organisms to move and adapt to climate change. With habitat loss and fragmentation increasingly deteriorating natural habitats, the sizes and isolation of the remaining habitat fragments are particularly critical to the long-term conservation of biodiversity. Thus, connectivity among these remaining fragments, as well as the characteristics of the surrounding matrix, and the permeability and structure of the habitat edges are all important for biodiversity conservation and affect the overall persistence, strength and integrity of the remaining ecological interactions.

Quantifying Landscape
Connectivity Since the definition of landscape connectivity has both a physical and a behavioural component, quantifying landscape connectivity is consequently organism-, process- and landscape-specific. According to (Wiens & Milne, 1989), the first step in the quantification process of landscape connectivity is defining the specific habitat or habitat network of the focal species, and in turn, describe the landscape elements from its point of view. The next step is to determine the scale of the landscape structure as perceived by the organism. This is defined as the scale at which the species responds to the array of landscape elements, through its fine-scale (grain), and large-scale (extent), movement behaviours. Lastly, how the species responds to the different elements of a landscape is determined. This comprises the species’ movement pattern based on behavioural reactions to the mortality risk of the landscape elements, including habitat barriers and edges.