P. Soranno, K. Webster, K. Cheruvelil, M. T. Bremigan
{"title":"湖泊景观-文脉框架:在多个空间尺度上连接水生联系、陆地特征和人类影响","authors":"P. Soranno, K. Webster, K. Cheruvelil, M. T. Bremigan","doi":"10.1080/03680770.2009.11902218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The principles of landscape ecology provide a powerful means to develop a more robust conceptual understanding of human and hydrogeomorphic controls of lake heterogeneity across space and time (MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000; WIENS 2002; KRATZ et al. 2005). Using a landscape perspective, lakes can be conceptualized as patches (a fundamental unit of a landscape) that are hierarchically organized in a complex terrestrial and aquatic matrix of natural and human-influenced features that interact at multiple spatial scales. WIENS (2002) identified four properties of landscape structure that apply effectively to lakes when treated as patches: (1) patch quality describes the physical features of the patch (e.g., lake morphometry, sediment characteristics), (2) boundaries mark sharp transitions at patch edges (e.g., lake shorelines), (3) patch context describes nearby features (e.g., soils and geology), and (4) connectivity defines the degree to which materials and organisms move across the landscape through aquatic connections ( e.g. streams, groundwater and wetlands). Because the context for lake patches is hierarchical, a multiscale view that considers both spatial extent (i.e. the size of the study area that contains interacting features, such as lakes, geology, climate, etc.) and spatial grain (i.e. the resolution that features are characterized, such as ecoregion or lake district) is required to link aquatic, terrestrial, and human components into a practical framework. Such a framework empowers us to more explicitly integrate the myriad of landscape components that we know influence lake ecosystems at different spatial scales and to identify the factors contributing to the spatial structure of variation among lakes. Existing landscape frameworks have proven to be effective for understanding spatial heterogeneity across lakes (TONN 1990, KRATZ et al. 1997). For example, a combination of biogeographic barriers, abiotic constraints (determined largely by a lake’s morphometry and surface water connections) and biotic interactions can help to understand the presence/absence of aquatic species from fish to plants and invertebrates (TONN 1990; HERSHEY et al. 1999, LEWIS & MAGNUSON 2000, HRABIK et al. 2005, RAHEL 2007). In addition, a lake’s position in the regional groundwater and surface flow system (i.e. landscape position) is strongly related to lake water chemistry, clarity, biological measures, and human use of lakes (KRATZ et al. 1997, SORANNO et al. 1999, RIERA et al. 2000, QUINLAN et al. 2003, LEAVITT et al. 2006, PATOINE et al. 2006). Finally, the hydrogeomorphic setting generates large variation among lakes in their response to disturbance (WEBSTER et al. 2000, CHERUVELIL 2004). Despite these examples and calls for a more explicit landscape perspective for lakes (MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000, WIENS 2002, KRATZ et al. 2005), we lack a formalization of these ideas into an integrated conceptual framework that is broadly applicable to a range of lakes and regions. Many existing lake frameworks have been developed for a particular hydrologic setting or omitted humans as important drivers of variation. Interestingly, stream ecologists have a rich history of considering stream ecosystems from landscape perspectives that integrate hydrogeomorphology with ecology (HYNES 1975, VANNOTE et al. 1980, FRISSELL et al. 1986, WILEY et al. 1997, POFF 1997). If the valley rules the stream, what rules the lake? Our goal in this paper is to present the lake-landscape context (LLC) framework. We propose this as a heuristic framework that allows us to understand multiple and interacting natural and human drivers of lake heterogeneity, as well as the relevant spatial scale of interactions among lakes and landscapes. We provide an example of how this framework can be applied at broad spatial scales to partition variance between local and regional spatial scales and end with a discussion of how such a framework will contribute to lake research, conservation, and management.","PeriodicalId":404196,"journal":{"name":"Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The lake landscape-context framework: linking aquatic connections, terrestrial features and human effects at multiple spatial scales\",\"authors\":\"P. Soranno, K. Webster, K. Cheruvelil, M. T. Bremigan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03680770.2009.11902218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The principles of landscape ecology provide a powerful means to develop a more robust conceptual understanding of human and hydrogeomorphic controls of lake heterogeneity across space and time (MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000; WIENS 2002; KRATZ et al. 2005). Using a landscape perspective, lakes can be conceptualized as patches (a fundamental unit of a landscape) that are hierarchically organized in a complex terrestrial and aquatic matrix of natural and human-influenced features that interact at multiple spatial scales. WIENS (2002) identified four properties of landscape structure that apply effectively to lakes when treated as patches: (1) patch quality describes the physical features of the patch (e.g., lake morphometry, sediment characteristics), (2) boundaries mark sharp transitions at patch edges (e.g., lake shorelines), (3) patch context describes nearby features (e.g., soils and geology), and (4) connectivity defines the degree to which materials and organisms move across the landscape through aquatic connections ( e.g. streams, groundwater and wetlands). Because the context for lake patches is hierarchical, a multiscale view that considers both spatial extent (i.e. the size of the study area that contains interacting features, such as lakes, geology, climate, etc.) and spatial grain (i.e. the resolution that features are characterized, such as ecoregion or lake district) is required to link aquatic, terrestrial, and human components into a practical framework. Such a framework empowers us to more explicitly integrate the myriad of landscape components that we know influence lake ecosystems at different spatial scales and to identify the factors contributing to the spatial structure of variation among lakes. Existing landscape frameworks have proven to be effective for understanding spatial heterogeneity across lakes (TONN 1990, KRATZ et al. 1997). For example, a combination of biogeographic barriers, abiotic constraints (determined largely by a lake’s morphometry and surface water connections) and biotic interactions can help to understand the presence/absence of aquatic species from fish to plants and invertebrates (TONN 1990; HERSHEY et al. 1999, LEWIS & MAGNUSON 2000, HRABIK et al. 2005, RAHEL 2007). In addition, a lake’s position in the regional groundwater and surface flow system (i.e. landscape position) is strongly related to lake water chemistry, clarity, biological measures, and human use of lakes (KRATZ et al. 1997, SORANNO et al. 1999, RIERA et al. 2000, QUINLAN et al. 2003, LEAVITT et al. 2006, PATOINE et al. 2006). Finally, the hydrogeomorphic setting generates large variation among lakes in their response to disturbance (WEBSTER et al. 2000, CHERUVELIL 2004). Despite these examples and calls for a more explicit landscape perspective for lakes (MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000, WIENS 2002, KRATZ et al. 2005), we lack a formalization of these ideas into an integrated conceptual framework that is broadly applicable to a range of lakes and regions. Many existing lake frameworks have been developed for a particular hydrologic setting or omitted humans as important drivers of variation. Interestingly, stream ecologists have a rich history of considering stream ecosystems from landscape perspectives that integrate hydrogeomorphology with ecology (HYNES 1975, VANNOTE et al. 1980, FRISSELL et al. 1986, WILEY et al. 1997, POFF 1997). If the valley rules the stream, what rules the lake? Our goal in this paper is to present the lake-landscape context (LLC) framework. We propose this as a heuristic framework that allows us to understand multiple and interacting natural and human drivers of lake heterogeneity, as well as the relevant spatial scale of interactions among lakes and landscapes. We provide an example of how this framework can be applied at broad spatial scales to partition variance between local and regional spatial scales and end with a discussion of how such a framework will contribute to lake research, conservation, and management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03680770.2009.11902218\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internationale Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03680770.2009.11902218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36
摘要
景观生态学原理提供了一种强有力的手段,以发展对人类和水文地貌在时空上控制湖泊异质性的更强有力的概念理解(MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000;恩斯2002;KRATZ et al. 2005)。从景观的角度来看,湖泊可以被概念化为斑块(景观的基本单位),这些斑块在复杂的陆地和水生基质中分层组织,这些基质由自然和人类影响的特征组成,在多个空间尺度上相互作用。WIENS(2002)确定了四种景观结构的特性,当将其作为斑块处理时,它们可以有效地应用于湖泊:(1)斑块质量描述斑块的物理特征(如湖泊形态、沉积物特征);(2)边界标志着斑块边缘的急剧转变(如湖泊海岸线);(3)斑块环境描述附近特征(如土壤和地质);(4)连通性定义物质和生物通过水生联系(如溪流、地下水和湿地)在景观中移动的程度。由于湖泊斑块的背景是分层的,因此需要考虑空间范围(即包含相互作用特征(如湖泊、地质、气候等)的研究区域的大小)和空间粒度(即特征表征的分辨率,如生态区或湖区)的多尺度视图,以便将水生、陆地和人类成分联系到一个实际框架中。这样的框架使我们能够更明确地整合我们所知道的在不同空间尺度上影响湖泊生态系统的无数景观成分,并确定导致湖泊空间结构变化的因素。现有的景观框架已被证明对理解湖泊的空间异质性是有效的(TONN 1990, KRATZ et al. 1997)。例如,结合生物地理障碍、非生物限制(主要由湖泊的形态和地表水连接决定)和生物相互作用,可以帮助了解从鱼类到植物和无脊椎动物等水生物种的存在/缺失(《海洋研究报告》1990;HERSHEY et al. 1999, LEWIS & MAGNUSON 2000, HRABIK et al. 2005, RAHEL 2007)。此外,湖泊在区域地下水和地表水系统中的位置(即景观位置)与湖水化学、清晰度、生物指标和人类对湖泊的利用密切相关(KRATZ等,1997;SORANNO等,1999;RIERA等,2000;QUINLAN等,2003;LEAVITT等,2006;PATOINE等,2006)。最后,水文地貌环境导致湖泊对扰动的响应存在很大差异(WEBSTER et al. 2000, CHERUVELIL 2004)。尽管有这些例子,并呼吁对湖泊进行更明确的景观视角(MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000, WIENS 2002, KRATZ et al. 2005),但我们缺乏将这些想法形象化成一个广泛适用于一系列湖泊和地区的综合概念框架。许多现有的湖泊框架都是为特定的水文环境而开发的,或者忽略了人类作为变化的重要驱动因素。有趣的是,河流生态学家有丰富的历史,从景观的角度考虑河流生态系统,将水文地貌学与生态学相结合(HYNES 1975, VANNOTE等人1980,FRISSELL等人1986,WILEY等人1997,POFF 1997)。如果山谷主宰溪流,那么什么主宰湖泊呢?我们在本文中的目标是提出湖泊景观文脉(LLC)框架。我们将此作为一个启发式框架,使我们能够理解湖泊异质性的多种相互作用的自然和人为驱动因素,以及湖泊和景观之间相互作用的相关空间尺度。我们提供了一个例子,说明如何在广泛的空间尺度上应用该框架来划分局部和区域空间尺度之间的差异,并以讨论该框架如何有助于湖泊研究、保护和管理作为结束。
The lake landscape-context framework: linking aquatic connections, terrestrial features and human effects at multiple spatial scales
The principles of landscape ecology provide a powerful means to develop a more robust conceptual understanding of human and hydrogeomorphic controls of lake heterogeneity across space and time (MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000; WIENS 2002; KRATZ et al. 2005). Using a landscape perspective, lakes can be conceptualized as patches (a fundamental unit of a landscape) that are hierarchically organized in a complex terrestrial and aquatic matrix of natural and human-influenced features that interact at multiple spatial scales. WIENS (2002) identified four properties of landscape structure that apply effectively to lakes when treated as patches: (1) patch quality describes the physical features of the patch (e.g., lake morphometry, sediment characteristics), (2) boundaries mark sharp transitions at patch edges (e.g., lake shorelines), (3) patch context describes nearby features (e.g., soils and geology), and (4) connectivity defines the degree to which materials and organisms move across the landscape through aquatic connections ( e.g. streams, groundwater and wetlands). Because the context for lake patches is hierarchical, a multiscale view that considers both spatial extent (i.e. the size of the study area that contains interacting features, such as lakes, geology, climate, etc.) and spatial grain (i.e. the resolution that features are characterized, such as ecoregion or lake district) is required to link aquatic, terrestrial, and human components into a practical framework. Such a framework empowers us to more explicitly integrate the myriad of landscape components that we know influence lake ecosystems at different spatial scales and to identify the factors contributing to the spatial structure of variation among lakes. Existing landscape frameworks have proven to be effective for understanding spatial heterogeneity across lakes (TONN 1990, KRATZ et al. 1997). For example, a combination of biogeographic barriers, abiotic constraints (determined largely by a lake’s morphometry and surface water connections) and biotic interactions can help to understand the presence/absence of aquatic species from fish to plants and invertebrates (TONN 1990; HERSHEY et al. 1999, LEWIS & MAGNUSON 2000, HRABIK et al. 2005, RAHEL 2007). In addition, a lake’s position in the regional groundwater and surface flow system (i.e. landscape position) is strongly related to lake water chemistry, clarity, biological measures, and human use of lakes (KRATZ et al. 1997, SORANNO et al. 1999, RIERA et al. 2000, QUINLAN et al. 2003, LEAVITT et al. 2006, PATOINE et al. 2006). Finally, the hydrogeomorphic setting generates large variation among lakes in their response to disturbance (WEBSTER et al. 2000, CHERUVELIL 2004). Despite these examples and calls for a more explicit landscape perspective for lakes (MAGNUSON & KRATZ 2000, WIENS 2002, KRATZ et al. 2005), we lack a formalization of these ideas into an integrated conceptual framework that is broadly applicable to a range of lakes and regions. Many existing lake frameworks have been developed for a particular hydrologic setting or omitted humans as important drivers of variation. Interestingly, stream ecologists have a rich history of considering stream ecosystems from landscape perspectives that integrate hydrogeomorphology with ecology (HYNES 1975, VANNOTE et al. 1980, FRISSELL et al. 1986, WILEY et al. 1997, POFF 1997). If the valley rules the stream, what rules the lake? Our goal in this paper is to present the lake-landscape context (LLC) framework. We propose this as a heuristic framework that allows us to understand multiple and interacting natural and human drivers of lake heterogeneity, as well as the relevant spatial scale of interactions among lakes and landscapes. We provide an example of how this framework can be applied at broad spatial scales to partition variance between local and regional spatial scales and end with a discussion of how such a framework will contribute to lake research, conservation, and management.