Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Analysis of spatial subsidies and resources of Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve for
flora and fauna Using FRAGSTAT
I.
Introduction
Forest vegetation are affected by management practices and land use
systems as brought about by different objectives of management. This includes
the use of land use systems that are focusing on both food production and
restoration efforts. In this short study, analysis of vegetation change includes
the principle of environmental factors such as anthropogenic factors that affect
biodiversity as well as its habitat for food and shelter. Change in the form of
vegetation causes fragmentation in cover, size and resources for biodiversity.
In effect, flora and fauna such as those in protected areas are losing their range
in terms of habitat. Because none of the species has highly specific habitat
requirements, and all have experienced range contractions within the last
century, their absence from those protected areas that contain suitable habitat
can be taken as evidence of local extinction.
II.
Objectives
The purpose of this research is to know and validate if there are effects in terms
of habitat fragmentation, spatial subsidies and resources coming from both land
use systems (e.g. agroforestry) and restoration efforts (e.g. reforestation). The
study assumes that border areas and buffer zones may therefore become
population sinks. Such sinks will have the greatest effect in on overall
population dynamics in MFR.
III.
Review of Literature
Spatial subsidies
According to Polis et.al (1997), spatial subsidy is a context of landscape
ecology in which resource (e.g. nutrient, detritus, and prey) is passed from one
habitat to a recipient (consumer) in a second habitat. As a result, the
productivity of the recipient is increased (Polis et al., 1997). This spatial
subsidies are helping organisms to live in a high competing environment such
as forest where many anthropological factors are affecting the dynamics of
organism health and existence. In the case of Mt. Makiling where landscapes
are now a mosaic of land uses that include patches of residual forests,
plantations, and agricultural lands, spatial subsidies are in threats due to
competing land uses and communities living in its environs, as well as
encroachment, other land uses and long history of rehabilitation persist in the
edge of the mountains especially those near the urban areas of Calamba and
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Los Banos. Based from the study of Ruzol, et.al (2014), an account of spatial
analysis of the 1993-2002 Calamba land cover shows that forest cover
increased by 18%, agricultural land use decreased by as much as 29%, while
built-up areas expanded by as much as 79%. Fragmentation of vegetation in a
forest area may lead to difficulties of species to thrive especially when
searching for food and shelter (Combalicer, 2011). As what as Huxel and
McCann (1998) had emphasized, spatial subsidies is a situation in which
individuals or resources from one system move or are transferred into a
neighboring system, and can change based from different modes of
intervention. This verifies that major vegetation change as brought about by
different systems can affect spatial subsidies.
IV.
Research Problem
There are perceived effects in terms of vegetation cover, habitat, resources
and spatial subsidies as brought about by intensive land management systems
(e.g. agroforestry, farming, etc.) and restoration efforts (e.g. reforestation,
greening, introduction of species). These conflicting and competing systems
for food production and conservation aggravates the condition of ecological
health and loss of subsidies for biodiversity in the landscapes with regards to
food and habitat (e.g. space) being compromise. The use of FRAGSTATS for
this assumption can be viable in proving that allocation of spatial subsidies for
biodiversity conservation is a key to improving management and proper type
of intervention.
The main question is: Is restoration efforts (e.g. planting areas, NGP areas)
and different land use systems (e.g. agroforestry, production forest, etc.) affect
the health of ecosystems by unknowingly affecting the spatial subsidy that
biodiversity should have? As defined in the discussion. These interventions
lessens the patches of landscapes which organisms are using for food and
shelter. However, modifications and alterations (e.g. introduction of species,
new management regime, etc.) as brought about by the aforementioned
factors are experience by MFR. This will lead to fragmentation of species
through their specific range and the overall vegetation as well, that provide
continuum to the spatial subsidies.
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
V.
Methodology
Using the FRAGSTATS, this proposal attempts to analyze if there are effects
in the land use systems being applied in MFR contrary to the subsidy that
biodiversity should have in terms of spatial subsidy (e.g. space or allocation on
habitat). The classification of forest cover, patches, size and aggregation index
will be used in this study to analyze the effects of changes in the landscapes
and focusing on the spatial subsidies that MFR provides for its biodiversity.
Definitions of landscape, patch and landscape level analysis are included in the
later discussion. With the aid of GIS, there should be a map or illustration
showing the deficiency in terms of spatial subsidies for flora and fauna.
To identify the values of spatial subsidies, the use of fragstat in the analysis of
vegetation changes will be done to test the claim by getting the difference in
the values of each components. The exploration of how the size of the patch in
which flora and fauna of Mt. Makiling occurs and the spatial distribution of
species (e.g. flora and fauna) within that patch feedback to influence the
population dynamics of the species. Factoring also the species richness of the
associated recipient community should also be integrated in the analysis. The
analysis that can be generated by this proposal attempts to account species
richness over patch size and aggregation of vegetation (as factor in Fragstats)
can provide a new link among elements of ecology related to wildlife behavior,
population dynamics, and species diversity while also providing a new way of
managing biodiversity into a protected area. Figure 1 shows the current
vegetation image of MFR and its location based on Google Satellite imagery.
Figure 1. Location of the Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines (composite
image of red, green, and blue bands).
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Data availability
The information content of remotely sensed data is directly related to the spatial
resolution of the imagery or the provided 1992 and 2002 vegetation map of MFR
(As per Dr. Dante Vergara Lecture Materials: makiling geotiff). The spatial
resolution of an image is often indicated through pixel size (Tiburan, et.al (2011).
The 15 m × 15 m and 30 m × 30 m spatial resolution of ASTER images and Landsat
Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM +), respectively, will be utilized in this
study. ASTER and Landsat ETM + imageries have a relatively large coverage with
a single scene covering approximately 75 km × 75 km and 225 km × 225 km,
respectively. However, the region of interest was specified for the study area.
Table 1 provides details of datasets acquired for the study.
Table 1.
List of land satellite imageries used in the study.
WRS:P/R
116/050
116/050
--
Acquisition Date
04-Apr-93
04-Mar-02
03-Nov-08
1992
2002
Dataset
ETM
ETMÂ +Â
ASTER
GEOTIFF
GEOTIFF
Attributes
Ortho, Geocover
L1G
L1A
Makiling
Makiling
The following are a few metrics which should be use and considered in this
proposal (there are many more). The help menu in Fragstats has a good summary
of the major landscape metrics, how they are calculated and what they are helpful
for. The following details are pulled directly from the help pages:
Number of Patches
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Patch Area
Aggregation Index
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Largest Patch Index
Shape Index
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Running Fragstats
1. Launch Fragstats with a single click.
2. Click on New (File):
3. In the Input layers tab, set the following:
1. Click Add layer…
a. TIFF as the Data Type
selection
2. Now load the Class descriptors file
(the fcd file we just created in
notepad). This is located under
“Common Tables --> Class
descriptors”
4. Next we will set the Analysis parameters
(click the tab to the right of the input
layers tab).
a. Select the neighbor rule as 8 cell.
b. Click to automatically save
results. Specify where by navigating to your working folder. Type in a
new (subfolder) name within your folder to save your Fragstats results
(e.g. Fragstats).
c. Select No sampling. Check
patch metrics, landscape
metrics and generate patch ID
file.
Now we will set the Patch and Landscape
Metrics (in the panel on the right of our dialogue
box).
1. First, click on the red Patch Metrics
button. Here select Shape
Index (under Shape tab) and specify
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Landscape Level Deviations, Standard Deviation.
2. Then under the Area-Edge tab, select patch area, again specify only
Landscape Level Deviations (Standard Deviation).
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
3. Now select the blue Landscape Metrics button
 Within the Area-Edge tab, choose Largest Patch Index.

Within the Aggregation tab, select Number of Patches and Aggregation Index.
Expected Output of this proposal
-
Values of size (has) for the spatial subsidies for flora and fauna accounting the
analysis of FRAGSTAT from the vegetation, cover, and other metrics used.
Map with the aid of GIS (which to show that there is a deficiency in terms of
spatial subsidies that should be allocated for biodiversity).
Enrico L. Replan
ENS-202 WX2
Reference(s)
-
Marilyn S. Combalicer, Dongyeob Kim, Don Koo Lee, Edwin A. Combalicer, Rex
Victor O. Cruz & Sangjun Im (2011) Changes in the forest landscape of Mt.
Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines, Forest Science and Technology, 7:2, 60-67,
DOI: 10.1080/21580103.2011.572615
-
Polis, G. A., W. B. Anderson, and R. D. Holt. 1997. Towards an integration of
landscape ecology and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized
food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 289-316.
-
Ruzol, C., Colladilla, J., Dizon, J.E. (2014). Population and Forest Land Use Cover
Transition: The Case of Brgy.Puting Lupa, Mt. Makiling Forest Reserve, Laguna,
Philippines. Conference Paper · July 2014: XVIII ISA World Congress of Sociology.
FRAGSTATS User Manual (2000). Fragstat User Manual downloaded from
https://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.
-
-
Fagan, W., Lutscher, F., Schneider, K., Associate Editor: Luc‐Alain Giraldeau, &
Editor: Donald L. DeAngelis. (2007). Population and Community Consequences
of Spatial Subsidies Derived from Central‐Place Foraging. The American
Naturalist, 170(6), 902-915. doi:10.1086/522836
-
Tiburan, C. (2011). GIS-Mapping Lectures. College of Forestry and Natural
Resources. UP Los Banos.