| Literature DB >> 24466281 |
Wei-Ta Fang1, Jui-Yu Chou2, Shiau-Yun Lu3.
Abstract
Thousands of farm ponds disappeared on the tableland in Taoyuan County, Taiwan since 1920s. The number of farm ponds that have disappeared is 1,895 (37%), 2,667 ponds remain (52%), and only 537 (11%) new ponds were created within a 757 km(2) area in Taoyuan, Taiwan between 1926 and 1960. In this study, a geographic information system (GIS) and logistic stepwise regression model were used to detect pond-loss rates and to understand the driving forces behind pondscape changes. The logistic stepwise regression model was used to develop a series of relationships between pondscapes affected by intrinsic driving forces (patch size, perimeter, and patch shape) and external driving forces (distance from the edge of the ponds to the edges of roads, rivers, and canals). The authors concluded that the loss of ponds was caused by pond intrinsic factors, such as pond perimeter; a large perimeter increases the chances of pond loss, but also increases the possibility of creating new ponds. However, a large perimeter is closely associated with circular shapes (lower value of the mean pond-patch fractal dimension [MPFD]), which characterize the majority of newly created ponds. The method used in this study might be helpful to those seeking to protect this unique landscape by enabling the monitoring of patch-loss problems by using simple patchy-based simulators.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24466281 PMCID: PMC3900667 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086888
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study area.
Figure 2Trends of the progression of built-up areas in 1926.
Figure 3Trends of the progression of built-up areas in 1960.
Figure 4Farm ponds that existed on the Taoyuan Tableland in 1904 (overlapped with local rivers).
Figure 5Pondscape changes from 1926 to 1960.
(A) Farm ponds that existed on the Taoyuan Table land in 1926. (B) Farm ponds that remained on the Taoyuan Table land in 1960. (C) Trends of losses of farm ponds detected on the Taoyuan Tableland between 1926 and 1960. It is obvious that more farm ponds in the northern region of the Taoyuan Tableland disappeared than in the southern region. (D)Trends of new farm ponds detected on the Taoyuan Tableland between 1926 and 1960.
Figure 6The influence of canals on pondscape changes from 1926 to 1960.
(A) Distances between canals and existing ponds in 1926. (B) Distances between canals and remaining ponds in 1960. (C) Distances between canals and lost ponds from 1926 to 1960. (D) Distances between canals and new ponds from 1926 to 1960.
Figure 7The influence of built-up areas on pondscape changes from 1926 to 1960.
(A) Distances between built-up areas and existing ponds in 1926. (B) Distances between built-up areas and remaining ponds in 1960. (C) Distances between built-up areas and lost ponds from 1926 to 1960. (D) Distances between built-up areas and new ponds from 1926 to 1960.
Figure 8The influence of rivers on pondscape changes from 1926 to 1960.
(A) Distances between rivers and existing ponds in 1926. (B) Distances between rivers and remaining ponds in 1960. (C) Distances between rivers and lost ponds from 1926 to 1960. (D) Distances between rivers and new ponds from 1926 to 1960.
Figure 9The influence of roads on pondscape changes from 1926 to 1960.
(A) Distances between roads and existing ponds in 1926. (B) Distances between roads and remaining ponds in 1960. (C) Distances between roads and lost ponds from 1926 to 1960. (D) Distances between roads and new ponds from 1926 to 1960.
Figure 10The influence of railways on pondscape changes from 1926 to 1960.
(A) Distances between railways and existing ponds in 1926. (B) Distances between railways and remaining ponds in 1960. (C) Distances between railway and lost ponds from 1926 to 1960. (D) Distances between railway and new ponds from 1926 to 1960.
Binomial logit model of pond losses for the period 1926∼1960. Unit of observation: individual ponds in 1960.
| B | S.E. | Wals | df | Significance | Exp(B) | Exp(B) at a 95.0% confidence level | |||
| Lower level | Upper level | ||||||||
| Step 1a | RAIL | .000 | .000 | 284.656 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Constant | 1.102 | .055 | 398.575 | 1 | .000 | 3.011 | |||
| Step 2b | PERI | .002 | .000 | 304.498 | 1 | .000 | 1.002 | 1.002 | 1.003 |
| RAIL | .000 | .000 | 374.463 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Constant | .262 | .072 | 13.316 | 1 | .000 | 1.299 | |||
| Step 3c | PERI | .003 | .000 | 373.709 | 1 | .000 | 1.003 | 1.003 | 1.003 |
| CANAL | .000 | .000 | 202.802 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| RAIL | .000 | .000 | 325.626 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Constant | −.519 | .090 | 33.250 | 1 | .000 | .595 | |||
| Step 4d | PERI | .003 | .000 | 369.346 | 1 | .000 | 1.003 | 1.003 | 1.003 |
| CANAL | .000 | .000 | 256.434 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| RIVER | .000 | .000 | 69.760 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| RAIL | .000 | .000 | 262.406 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Constant | −.972 | .105 | 85.276 | 1 | .000 | .378 | |||
| Step 5e | PERI | .003 | .000 | 368.965 | 1 | .000 | 1.003 | 1.003 | 1.003 |
| CANAL | .000 | .000 | 247.843 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| RIVER | .000 | .000 | 66.615 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| ROAD | .000 | .000 | 15.229 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| RAIL | .000 | .000 | 274.600 | 1 | .000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Constant | −1.059 | .108 | 96.551 | 1 | .000 | .347 | |||
Note 1:
a. Selected into a variable: railroad in Step 1.
b. Selected into a variable: PERI in Step 2.
c. Selected into a variable: CANALin Step 3.
d. Selected into a variable: RIVER in Step 4.
e. Selected into a variable: ROAD in Step 5.
Note 2:
1) AREA: the area of pond; PERI:the perimeter of pond; MPFD: Mean Pond Fractal Dimension;CANAL: distances of farm ponds from nearest canals;BUILD: distances of farm ponds from nearest buildings (built-up areas);RIVER: distances of farm ponds from nearest rivers;ROAD: distances of farm ponds from nearest roads;RAIL: distances of farm ponds from nearest railways.
2) The equation to Mean Pond Fractal Dimension (MPFD):
(5)
a = the area of pond ij (in m2).
n = the number of the pond ij.
p = the perimeter of pond ij (in m).
Level: CLASS, LANDSCAPE
Units: None
Range:1
Description: MPFD reflects shape complexity across a range of pond size. It equals 2 times the logarithm of pond perimeter (m) divided by the logarithm of pond area (m2) (Li &Reynolds, 1994). MPFD approaches 1 for shapes with very simple perimeters such as circles or squares, and approaches 2 for shapes with highly convoluted and plane-filling perimeters.
Binomial logit model of pond increases for the period 1926∼1960. Unit of observation: individual ponds in 1960.
| B | S.E. | Wals | df | Significance | Exp(B) | Exp(B) at a 95.0% confidence level | |||
| Lower level | Upper level | ||||||||
| Step 1a | MPFD | −17.735 | 1.206 | 216.370 | 1 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 |
| Constant | 25.574 | 1.628 | 246.803 | 1 | .000 | 127866882315.499 | |||
| Step 2b | PERI | .002 | .000 | 24.436 | 1 | .000 | 1.002 | 1.001 | 1.002 |
| MPFD | −13.807 | 1.424 | 94.077 | 1 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
| Constant | 19.716 | 1.978 | 99.364 | 1 | .000 | 365137138.357 | |||
| Step 3c | PERI | .002 | .000 | 25.378 | 1 | .000 | 1.002 | 1.001 | 1.002 |
| MPFD | −14.130 | 1.436 | 96.871 | 1 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | |
| RIVER | .000 | .000 | 7.648 | 1 | .006 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
| Constant | 20.261 | 1.999 | 102.743 | 1 | .000 | 629546300.185 | |||
Note 1:
a. Selected into a variable: MPFD in Step 1.
b. Selected into a variable: PERI in Step 2.
c. Selected into a variable: RIVER in Step 3.
Note 2: Variables are defined in the footnotes to Table 1.