نشریه محیط زیست طبیعی

ارزیابی کارایی شبکة مناطق تحت حفاظت استان چهارمحال و بختیاری در حفاظت تیپ‌های گیاهی و پیشنهاد شبکة بهینه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه محیط‌زیست، دانشکدة منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه شهرکرد، شهرکرد، ایران.

2 مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان چهارمحال و بختیاری، شهرکرد، ایران.

3 گروه محیط‌زیست، دانشکدة منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

10.22059/jne.2023.363926.2589

چکیده

یکی از معیارهای مهم طراحی شبکة مناطق تحت حفاظت،­ "معرف­ بودن، جامعیت و توازن" برای کل تنوع ­زیستی می­ باشد. بنابراین برای آگاهی از کیفیت این معیار، شبکة مناطق تحت حفاظت هر کشور یا منطقه، نیازمند ارزیابی کارایی و بازنگری از لحاظ این معیار و در صوت نیاز برنامه ­ریزی شبکة بهینه­ از این نظر است. در تحقیق حاضر معرف ­بودن مناطق چهارگانة استان چهارمحال و بختیاری از نظر تیپ ­های گیاهی ارزیابی و یک توزیع بهینه برای این مناطق پیشنهاد شده است. بدین‌منظور ابتدا براساس ارزش نادربودن و تنوع گونه­ ای برای هر یک از تیپ ­های گیاهی حداقل درصدی از آن‌ها که باید در مناطق چهارگانه وجود داشته باشند به‌عنوان اهداف حفاظتی تعیین شد. با روی هم­ اندازی نقشة مناطق چهارگانه و نقشه تیپ­ های گیاهی، وضعیت حفاظت فعلی و تراز حفاظتی (حفاظت کمتر یا بیشتر از حد لازم) آن­ها تعیین شد. سپس با استفاده از نرم ­افزار پشتیبان تصمیم ­گیری مارکسان شبکه ­ای از مناطق پیشنهادی که در حداقل مساحت، تا حد ممکن اهداف تعیین ­شده برای تیپ­ های گیاهی را برآورده نمایند، مشخص شدند. نتایج نشان داد که از 106 تیپ گیاهی موجود در استان، مناطق چهارگانه موجود، اهداف تعیین شده برای 37 تیپ را تا حدودی برآورده می­ نمایند. برای برآورده شدن اهداف تعیین ­شده برای همة تیپ­ های گیاهی با در نظر گرفتن مناطق چهارگانة موجود در حالت بهینه به 14/47درصد و در حالت جمعی به 30/07درصد از مساحت استان نیاز است. بدون در نظر گرفتن مناطق چهارگانة موجود در حالت بهینه، به 19/086درصد و در حالت جمعی 37 درصد از مساحت استان مورد نیاز است. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که مناطق تحت حفاظت­ موجود در حالت بهینه 8/5 درصد و در حالت جمعی 12/85درصد با مناطق پیشنهادی همپوشانی دارند. بیشتر مناطق دارای اولویت برای حفاظت در نیمة شرقی استان از شمال تا جنوب واقع شده ­اند که به‌علت وجود تیپ ­های گیاهی کوچک و پراکنده مرتعی در این بخش است که توسط مناطق تحت حفاظت موجود پوشش داده نشده­ اند.  

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province in protecting vegetation types and proposing the optimal network

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamid Reza Asadzadeh 1
  • Ali Jafari 1
  • Hamzeh-Ali Shirmardi 2
  • Shekoufe Nematollahi 3

1 Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.

2 Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province.

3 Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The most important goal of the protected areas of a country or region is to protect examples of the most valuable elements of biodiversity in this network. Therefore, the network of protected areas usually needs to be evaluated and revised in terms of the criterion of "representativeness" for the total biodiversity and optimization planning in terms of this criterion if need. in the present study, the representativeness of the Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari protected areas network has been evaluated in terms of vegetation types and an optimal distribution has been proposed for these areas. For this purpose, first, based on the rarity and species diversity, a minimum percentage of each type that should be introduced in the protected areas was determined as conservation goals. Then, the current protection status of vegetation types and their protection deficits or excesses were determined by overlaying the maps of protected areas and vegetation types. Using the Marxan, a decision support software, a network of proposed areas that meet the vegetation types conservation goals, as much as possible in the minimum area, were identified. The results showed that determined conservation goals meet only for 37 out of 106 vegetation types by existing protected areas. In order to meet the determined goals for all vegetation types, taking into account the existing protected areas, 14.47% and 30.07% of the total area of ​​the province are needed in the optimal and summed solutions, respectively. Without considering the existing protected areas, 19.086% and 37% of the total area of ​​the province are needed in the optimal and summed solution, respectively. Also, the results showed that the existing and proposed protected areas overlap by 8.5% in the optimal solution and 12.85% in the summed solution. Also, most of the priority areas for protection are located in the eastern half of the province from north to south.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province
  • Marxan
  • Protected areas network
  • Representativeness
de Alban, J.D.T., Leong, B.P.I., Venegas-Li, R., Connette, G.M., Jamaludin, J., Latt, K.T., Webb, E.L., 2021. Conservation beyond the existing protected area network is required to improve species and habitat representation in a global biodiversity hotspot. Biological Conservation 257(2021), 109105.
Christian, C.S., Stewart, G.A., 1968. Methodology of integrated surveys. In: King R. Bruce. 1970. A parametric approach to land system classification. Geoderma 4(1), 37-46.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., 2003. Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation 112‌, 1-13.
Esfandeh, S.; Kaboli, M., Eslami, L., 2015. A chronological review on application of Marxan tool for systematic conservation planning in landscape. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 2(12), 2439-3661.
Fayyaz, M., Nemati, H., Ashoori, P., Shirmardi, H.A., 2011. Iran’s ecological regions plan: Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province vegetation types. Forest and Rangelands Research Institute, 186 p. (In Persian)
Fearnside P.M., Ferraz J., 1995. A conservation gap analysis of Brazil’s Amazonian vegetation, Conservation Biology 9(5), 1134-1147.
Game, E.T., Grantham, H.S., 2008. Marxan user manual: for Marxan version 1.8.10. University of Queensland, St. Lucia. 135 p.
Holdridge, L.R., 1967. Life Zone Ecology, in: Powell G.V.N., Barborak J., Rodriguez M.S., 2000.  Assessing representativeness of protected natural areas in Costa Rica for conserving biodiversity: a preliminary gap analysis, Biological Conservation 93(1), 35-41.
Jafari, A., Yavari, A. R., Yarali, N., Valipour G., 2010a. Representativeness Assessment of Protected Areas Network Emphasizing Plant Diversity in Charmahal & Bakhtiari, Iran. Journal of Environmental Studies 36(2), 77-88. (In Persian)
Jafari, A., Yavari, A. R., Bahrami, S., Yarali, N., 2010b. Selection of New Protected Areas Emphasizing Vegetation Types Using C-Plan (Case Study: Kohgiluye & Boir-Ahmad Province, Iran). Journal of Environmental Studies 36(4), 1-12. (In Persian)
Kenny Alice J. and Krebs, Charles J. 2001. Ecological Methodology, Version 6.0, Department of Zoology, British Columbia University, B.C. CANADA, V6T 1Z4. 
Kukkala, A.S., Santangeli, A., Butchart, S.H.M., Maiorano, L., Ramirez, I., Burfield, I.J., Moilanen A., 2016. Coverage of vertebrate species distributions by Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas and Special Protection Areas in the European Union. Biological Conservation 202(2016), 1-9.
Lessmann, J.; Munoz, J., Bonaccorso, E., 2014. Maximizing species conservation in continental Ecuador; a case of systematic conservation planning for biodiverse regions. Ecology and Evolution 4(12), 2410-2422.
Majnoonian, H., 2014. Protected areas: Basics and protection measures of parks and areas in Iran and the world. Day-Negar Publication. 414 p. (In Persian)
Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405(6783), 243-253.
Margules, C.R., Sarkar, S., 2007. Systematic Conservation Planning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mehri, A., Salmanmahiny, A., Mirkarimi, S.H., Rezaei, H. R., 2014. Use of optimization algorithms to prioritize protected areas in Mazandaran Province of Iran. Journal for Nature Conservation 22(5), 462-470.
Morato, R. G., Ferraz, K.M.P.M.B., Paula, R.C., Campos, C.B., 2014. Identification of Priority Conservation Areas and Potential Corridors for Jaguars in the Caatinga Biome, Brazil. PLoS ONE 9(4), e92950.
Nematollahi, S., Fakheran, S., Kienast, F., Jafari, A., 2020. Application of InVEST habitat quality module in spatially vulnerability assessment of natural habitats (case study: Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province, Iran). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 192(2020), 487.
Ohsawa, M., 1987. Life zone ecology of Bhutan Himalaya. Laboratory of ecology, Chiba University. 212 p.
Oldfield T.E.E., Smith R.J., Harrop S.R., Leader-Williams N., 2004. A gap analysis of terrestrial protected areas in England and its implications for conservation policy, Biological Conservation 120(3), 303-309.
Possingham, H.P.; Ball, I.R., Andelman, S., 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S, Burgman M (Eds.), Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 291-305.
Powell G.V.N., Barborak J., Rodriguez M.S., 2000. Assessing representativeness of protected natural areas in Costa Rica for conserving biodiversity: a preliminary gap analysis, Biological Conservation 93(1), 35-41.
Pressey R.L., Taffs K., 2001. Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation 100(3), 355-376.
Ramesh, B.R., Menon, S., Bawa, K.S., 1997. A vegetation-based approach to biodiversity gap analysis in the Agastyamalai region, Western Ghats, Indian Ambio 26(8), 529-536.
Scott, J. M., Davis, F.W, McGhie, R.G., Wright, R.G., Groves, C., Estes, J., 2001. Nature Reserves: Do They Capture the Full Range of America's Biological Diversity?. Ecological Applications 11(4), 999-1007.
Shams Esfand-Abad, B., Kaboli, M., 2018. Development of the conservation area network using systematic conservation planning approach in Iran. Journal of Animal Environment 10(4): 147-162. (In Persian)
Shen, G., Lan, T., Deng, Sh., Wang, Y., Xu, W., Xie, Z., 2023. Giant panda-focused conservation has limited value in maintaining biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Science of Total Environment 880(2023), 163186.
Shrestha, U. B., Shrestha, S., Chaudhary, P., Chaudhary, R.P., 2010. How representative is the protected areas system of Nepal?. Mountain Research and Development 30(3), 282-294.
Signorello, G., Prato, C., Marzo, A., Ientile, R., Villa F., 2018. Are protected areas covering important biodiversity sites? An assessment of the nature protection network in Sicily (Italy). Land Use Policy 78(2018), 593-602.
de Souza, A.C., Prevedello, J.A., 2020. The importance of protected areas for overexploited plants: Evidence from a biodiversity hotspot. Biological Conservation 243(2020), 108482.
Urbina-Casanova, R., Luebert, F., Pliscoff, P., Scherson, R.A., 2016. Assessing floristic representativeness in the protected areas national system of Chile: are vegetation types a good surrogate for plant species? Environmental Conservation 43(3), 199-207.
Watts, M.E., Ball, I.R., Stewart, R.S., Klein, C.J., Kerrie, W., Steinback, C., Lourival, R., Kircher L., Possingham Hugh P., 2009. Marxan with Zones: Software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning,Environmental Modelling and Software 24(12), 1513-15-21.
Yousefi, M., Ashrafi, S., Kafash, A., Davar, L., 2016. Protected area coverage for terrestrial biomes in Iran. Journal of Natural Environment 69(2), 581-595. (In Persian)
Zhang, C., Zhu, R., Sui, X., Chen, K., Li, B., Chen Y., 2020. Ecological use of vertebrate surrogate species in ecosystem conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation 24(2020), e01344.
نشریه محیط زیست طبیعی
دوره 76، ویژه نامه مناطق تحت حفاظت
بهمن 1402
صفحه 111-127