|
|
|
|
|
History
The
current discussion on habitat corridors began with in 1962
with Frank W. Preston. Preston published an article in Ecology
that outlined the species-area curve and its importance. Without
diving into too much math, his equation describes the number
of species that can inhabit a certain area of land based on
geographic and species-specific information. Overall, it states
that smaller areas support fewer species. A revolution in
ecology had begun.
|
|
|
|
|
1967
soon arrived with another landmark publication, this time
by two men, Robert MacArthur and Edward O. Wilson. The
Theory of Island Biogeography expanded upon Preston’s
species-area curve and added new factors, immigration and
extinction. MacArthur and Wilson included a simple graph to
explain them: From left to right, the immigration line decreased
while the extinction line increased. In other words, as the
number of species on the island increased, the number of extinctions
increased and the number of successful immigrations decreased.
The intersection of these two lines, they said, was the equilibrium,
or normal, number of species the island could hold. A number
of complex mathematical equations accompanied the graph, but
the figure said it all (Quammen 1996).
|
|
|
|
|
|
These
two publications did more for the study of ecology than stacks
of others. Studies were founded and the theory of island biogeography
was investigated more fully. Perhaps most important of all,
though, was the inclusion of two lines in The Theory of
Island Biogeography. “Insularity is moreover a
universal feature of biogeography. Many of the principles
graphically displayed in the Galápagos Islands and
iother remote archipelagos apply in lesser or greater degree
to all natural habitats” (MacArthur and Wilson 1967).
Basically, island biogeography does not just apply to islands.
Papers were published and a new question was asked, do you
design a single large reserve or several small reserves? Which
offers the best option for preservation? Out of this debate
came the idea of habitat corridors (Quammen 1996). If we are
not able to create a single large reserve (which according
to the species-area curve would support a higher degree of
biodiversity), can we connect the smaller ones to make larger
effective area?
Urban settings such as Northfield are not condusive to large
wildlife reserves and are thus perfect candidates for habitat
corridors. And, as current human activities eat up still more
tracts of land, fragmented and isolated populations will become
increasingly prevalent (Lessica and Allendorf 1992). Habitat
corridors are an effective way to preserve the robustness
of the natural areas in and around Northfield.
What are corridors?
The
word “corridor” is often ill-defined and used
broadly. Beier and Noss (1998) provide a thorough definition
of the term. A corridor is
a
linear habitat, embedded in a dissimilar matrix, that connects
two or more larger blocks of habitat and that is proposed
for conservation on the grounds that it will enhance or
maintain the viability of specific wildlife populations
in the habitat blocks.
Essentially,
a corridor is an area of natural habitat amongst agricultural
fields, residential developments, etc., that connect other
larger natural areas. Their
potential functions, however go far beyond simply connecting
larger natural areas to providing habitat for smaller species,
acting as a filter between agricultural lands and bodies of
water, or even providing for recreation (Hess and Fischer
2001). The possible benefits or uses of habitat corridors
are potentially endless.
Fleury and Brown (1997) note that it is important to place
the objectives for corrridor design into a larger framework.
As such, this study will focus on the use of wildlife corridors
to increase connectivity between larger, existing natural
areas in the Northfield area. Designs can either center themselves
around the protection or preservation of a specific species
(Fleury and Brown 1997) or place an emphasis on preserving
local habitat heterogeneity (Burbrink et al. 1998). In seeking
to take a more wholistic approach, this study will pay special
attention to preserving a variety of historic vegetation types.
|
Presettlement
vegetation of Minnesota
The
Northfield area is situated on the historic prairie-forest
border, with the Big Woods occupying the area northwest of
the Cannon River and prairie stretching to the southeast (Marschner
1974). This ecotone has fluctuated over the years, but the
Cannon River acted as a relatively constant barrier between
the two. The Big Woods forest type is characterized by elm
(Ulmus), basswood (Tilia americana), sugar
maple (Acer saccharum), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana),
bitternut hickory (Corya cordiformis), butternut
(Juglans cinerea), and ash (Fraxinus). Elm
was by far the most common tree, making up 27% of bearing
trees collected in 1850. In the southern region, however,
oaks (both red and white) populated the forest in substantial
numbers while bur oak, jack oak, and aspen dominated the prairie-forest
border due to their adaptations to fire (Grimm 1983, 1984).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grimm
(1984) notes that the Cannon River valley is an exception
to this last trend. The Cannon effectiveness as a firebreak
eliminated the oak-aspen vegetation buffer, meaning that maple,
basswood, and elm grew in relatively close proximity to the
prairie across the river.
Purpose
The
purpose of this study is to link existing or restored natural
areas within the Northfield area to create a continuous landscape
through which the native flora and fauna may thrive. Cooperative
development of these corridors between citizens, developers,
the two colleges, and local government, the Northfield community
will benefit through increased beauty and ecosystem stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|