Scribd
Upload
236 views4 pages

Patch-Corridor-Matrix Model (: Model (Forman 1995) - Under This Model, Three Major Landscape Elements Are Typically

This document provides an overview of the patch-corridor-matrix model for conceptualizing landscape patterns. It describes the three main elements: patches, which are discrete areas of homogeneous environmental conditions; corridors, which are linear landscape elements that can provide habitat or facilitate movement; and the matrix, which is the most extensive and connected landscape element that dominates landscape functioning. Patches, corridors, and the matrix exist across hierarchies of scales and their definitions depend on the organism or phenomenon of interest. Boundaries are only meaningful at particular scales of analysis.

Uploaded by

Reshma Georgi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
236 views4 pages

Patch-Corridor-Matrix Model (: Model (Forman 1995) - Under This Model, Three Major Landscape Elements Are Typically

This document provides an overview of the patch-corridor-matrix model for conceptualizing landscape patterns. It describes the three main elements: patches, which are discrete areas of homogeneous environmental conditions; corridors, which are linear landscape elements that can provide habitat or facilitate movement; and the matrix, which is the most extensive and connected landscape element that dominates landscape functioning. Patches, corridors, and the matrix exist across hierarchies of scales and their definitions depend on the organism or phenomenon of interest. Boundaries are only meaningful at particular scales of analysis.

Uploaded by

Reshma Georgi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

PATCH-CORRIDOR-MATRIX MODEL

(http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/Conceptual%20Background/Pa
tch-Corridor-Matrix%20Model/Patch-Corridor-Matrix%20Model.htm)

Landscapes are composed of elements–the spatial components that make up the


landscape. A convenient and popular model for conceptualizing and representing the
elements in a categorical map pattern is known as the patch-corridor-matrix
model (Forman 1995). Under this model, three major landscape elements are typically
recognized, and the extent and configuration of these elements defines the pattern of
the landscape.

(1) Patch.--Landscapes are composed of a mosaic of patches (Urban et al. 1987).


Landscape ecologists have used a variety of terms to refer to the basic elements or
units that make up a landscape, including ecotope, biotope, landscape component,
landscape element, landscape unit, landscape cell, geotope, facies, habitat, and site
(Forman and Godron 1986). Any of these terms, when defined, are satisfactory
according to the preference of the investigator. Like the landscape, patches
comprising the landscape are not self-evident; patches must be defined relative to the
phenomenon under consideration. For example, from a timber management
perspective a patch may correspond to the forest stand. However, the stand may not
function as a patch from a particular organism's perspective. From an ecological
perspective, patches represent relatively discrete areas (spatial domain) or periods
(temporal domain) of relatively homogeneous environmental conditions where the
patch boundaries are distinguished by discontinuities in environmental character
states from their surroundings of magnitudes that are perceived by or relevant to the
organism or ecological phenomenon under consideration (Wiens 1976). From a
strictly organism-centered view, patches may be defined as environmental units
between which fitness prospects, or "quality", differ; although, in practice, patches
may be more appropriately defined by nonrandom distribution of activity or resource
utilization among environmental units, as recognized in the concept of "Grain
Response".

Patches are dynamic and occur on a variety of spatial and temporal scales that, from
an organism-centered perspective, vary as a function of each animal's
perceptions (Wiens 1976 and 1989, Wiens and Milne 1989). A patch at any given
scale has an internal structure that is a reflection of patchiness at finer scales, and the
mosaic containing that patch has a structure that is determined by patchiness at
broader scales (Kotliar and Wiens 1990). Thus, regardless of the basis for defining
patches, a landscape does not contain a single patch mosaic, but contains a hierarchy
of patch mosaics across a range of scales. For example, from an organism-centered
perspective, the smallest scale at which an organism perceives and responds to patch
structure is its "grain" (Kotliar and Wiens 1990). This lower threshold of
heterogeneity is the level of resolution at which the patch size becomes so fine that
the individual or species stops responding to it, even though patch structure may
actually exist at a finer resolution (Kolasa and Rollo 1991). The lower limit to grain is
set by the physiological and perceptual abilities of the organism and therefore varies
among species. Similarly, "extent" is the coarsest scale of heterogeneity, or upper
threshold of heterogeneity, to which an organism responds (Kotliar and Wiens 1990,
Kolasa and Rollo 1991). At the level of the individual, extent is determined by the
lifetime home range of the individual (Kotliar and Wiens 1990) and varies among
individuals and species. More generally, however, extent varies with the
organizational level (e.g., individual, population, metapopulation) under
consideration; for example the upper threshold of patchiness for the population would
probably greatly exceed that of the individual. Therefore, from an organism-centered
perspective, patches can be defined hierarchically in scales ranging between the grain
and extent for the individual, deme, population, or range of each species.

Patch boundaries are artificially imposed and are in fact meaningful only when
referenced to a particular scale (i.e., grain size and extent). For example, even a
relatively discrete patch boundary between an aquatic surface (e.g., lake) and
terrestrial surface becomes more and more like a continuous gradient as one
progresses to a finer and finer resolution. However, most environmental dimensions
possess 1 or more "domains of scale" (Wiens 1989) at which the individual spatial or
temporal patches can be treated as functionally homogeneous; at intermediate scales
the environmental dimensions appear more as gradients of continuous variation in
character states. Thus, as one moves from a finer resolution to coarser resolution,
patches may be distinct at some scales (i.e., domains of scale) but not at others.

KEY POINT It is not my intent to argue for a particular definition of patch. Rather, I
wish to point out the following: (1) that patch must be defined relative
to the phenomenon under investigation or management; (2) that,
regardless of the phenomenon under consideration (e.g., a species,
geomorphological disturbances, etc), patches are dynamic and occur
at multiple scales; and (3) that patch boundaries are only meaningful
when referenced to a particular scale. It is incumbent upon the
investigator or manager to establish the basis for delineating among
patches and at a scale appropriate to the phenomenon under
consideration.

(2) Corridor.--Corridors are linear landscape elements that can be defined on the basis
of structure or function. Forman and Godron (1986) define corridors as “narrow strips
of land which differ from the matrix on either side. Corridors may be isolated strips,
but are usually attached to a patch of somewhat similar vegetation.” These authors
focus on the structural aspects of the linear landscape element. As a consequence of
their form and context, structural corridors may function as habitat, dispersal conduits,
or barriers. Three different types of structural corridors exist: (1) line corridors, in
which the width of the corridor is too narrow to allow for interior environmental
conditions to develop; (2) strip corridors, in which the width of the corridor is wide
enough to allow for interior conditions to develop; and (3) stream corridors, which
are a special category.

Corridors may also be defined on the basis of their function in the landscape. At least
four major corridor functions have been recognized, as follows:
1. Habitat Corridor.--Linear landscape element that provides for survivorship,
natality, and movement (i.e., habitat), and may provide either temporary or
permanent habitat. Habitat corridors passively increase landscape connectivity
for the focal organism(s).

2. Facilitated Movement Corridor.–Linear landscape element that provides for


survivorship and movement, but not necessarily natality, between other habitat
patches. Facilitated movement corridors actively increase landscape
connectivity for the focal organism(s).

3. Barrier or Filter Corridor.–Linear landscape element that prohibits (i.e.,


barrier) or differentially impedes (i.e., filter) the flow of energy, mineral
nutrients, and/or species across (i.e., flows perpendicular to the length of the
corridor). Barrier or filter corridors actively decrease matrix connectivity for
the focal process.

4. Source of Abiotic and Biotic Effects on the Surrounding Matrix.–Linear


landscape element that modifies the inputs of energy, mineral nutrients, and/or
species to the surrounding matrix and thereby effects the functioning of the
surrounding matrix.

Most of the attention and debate has focused on facilitated movement corridors. It has
been argued that this corridor function can only be demonstrated when the
immigration rate to the target patch is increased over what it would be if the linear
element was not present (Rosenberg et al. 1997). Unfortunately, as Rosenberg et al.
point out, there have been few attempts to experimentally demonstrate this. In
addition, just because a corridor can be distinguished on the basis of structure, it does
not mean that it assumes any of the above functions. Moreover, the function of the
corridor will vary among organisms due to the differences in how organisms perceive
and scale the environment.

KEY POINT Corridors are distinguished from patches by their linear nature and
can be defined on the basis of either structure or function or both. If a
corridor is specified, it is incumbent upon the investigator or manager
to define the structure and implied function relative to the phenomena
(e.g., species) under consideration.

(3) Matrix.--A landscape is composed typically of several types of landscape elements


(usually patches). Of these, the matrix is the most extensive and most connected
landscape element type, and therefore plays the dominant role in the functioning of
the landscape (Forman and Godron 1986). For example, in a large contiguous area of
mature forest embedded with numerous small disturbance patches (e.g., timber
harvest patches), the mature forest constitutes the matrix element type because it is
greatest in areal extent, is mostly connected, and exerts a dominant influence on the
area flora and fauna and ecological processes. In most landscapes, the matrix type is
obvious to the investigator or manager. However, in some landscapes, or at a certain
point in time during the trajectory of a landscape, the matrix element will not be
obvious. Indeed, it may not be appropriate to consider any element as the matrix.
Moreover, the designation of a matrix element is largely dependent upon the
phenomenon under consideration. For example, in the study of geomorphological
processes, the geological substrate may serve to define the matrix and patches;
whereas, in the study of vertebrate populations, vegetation structure may serve to
define the matrix and patches. In addition, what constitutes the matrix is dependent on
the scale of investigation or management. For example, at a particular scale, mature
forest may be the matrix with disturbance patches embedded within; whereas, at a
coarser scale, agricultural land may be the matrix with mature forest patches
embedded within.

It is important to understand how measures of landscape pattern are influenced by the


designation of a matrix element. If an element is designated as matrix and therefore
presumed to function as such (i.e., has a dominant influence on landscape dynamics),
then it should not be included as another "patch" type in any metric that simply
averages some characteristic across all patches (e.g., mean patch size, mean patch
shape). Otherwise, the matrix will dominate the metric and serve more to characterize
the matrix than the patches within the landscape, although this may itself be
meaningful in some applications. From a practical standpoint, it is important to
recognize this because in FRAGSTATS, the matrix can be excluded from calculations
by designating its class value as background. If the matrix is not excluded from the
calculations, it may be more meaningful to use the class-level statistics for each patch
type and simply ignore the patch type designated as the matrix. From a conceptual
standpoint, it is important to recognize that the choice and interpretation of landscape
metrics must ultimately be evaluated in terms of their ecological meaningfulness,
which is dependent upon how the landscape is defined, including the choice of patch
types and the designation of a matrix.

KEY POINT It is incumbent upon the investigator or manager to determine whether


a matrix element exists and should be designated given the scale and
phenomenon under consideration.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy