臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

溼地孕育豐富之生物多樣性與生物量，並且提供多樣之生態系服務功能，因此，溼地評估俾益溼地管理單位進行溼地之監測與管理。黑面琵鷺（Platalea minor）為東亞遷徙性水鳥，被列為瀕臨滅絕物種，每年有超過半數以上族群量於台灣度冬，族群量又以曾文溪口溼地最多，且不斷地增加與擴散，惟當棲地不連續時，生物於棲地間之遷移就顯得極其重要。本論文研究目的主要以台灣重要溼地為例，以常用於溼地地景評估分析之地景發展強度（Landscape Development Intensity，LDI）指數與地景指數（landscape metrics）進行溼地評估，並應用連結度概念，建構檢視黑面琵鷺停棲棲地品質與連結狀況之方法，評估其棲地分布與連結劃設。
本論文第2章，以地景生態角度思考，應用LDI指數於2007年台灣所公告之74處國家重要溼地地景評估，確認LDI評估與專家學者評選是否有相關，俾輔助國家重要溼地評選。該研究參考曾使用於美國佛羅里達州（Florida）溼地之LDI評估，以各溼地及其邊界外擴100 m為計算LDI指數之範圍，將LDI值排序與分級，並與溼地評選小組評選等級進行比對，結果兩者間一致者有67.6%，LDI指數確實可快速與及時提供溼地狀況之基礎資訊與人為干擾程度，結果顯示LDI評估亦可應用於海岸溼地。然而，LDI指數與專家評選排序有些差異，可能由於台灣與佛羅里達州之土地利用類別未完全符合，建議台灣可基於台灣之自然與人為地景，發展本身之土地利用類別之LDI係數。
本論文第3章，除運用LDI指數外，亦加入地景指數進行於2011年台灣所公告增為82處之重要溼地地景評估分析，建構評分系統。該研究篩選10處溼地，以溼地劃設範圍及其邊界外擴0~600 m不同緩衝區距離進行LDI值之測試，結果顯示以溼地及其邊界外擴300 m緩衝距離較為適當之評估範圍。海岸溼地與內陸溼地依LDI與面積指數分布，分別建置評分與評估系統，如將溼地劃分為4級，二者之整體準確度分別為70.0%與41.7%。研究亦證實評估範圍面積大小，確實對LDI值有影響，而不同研究區類型之評估系統亦有明顯差異，故須將二因子納入評估考量，並可將LDI與面積指數納為地景評估之重要成分指數。該評估方法可適用於地狹人稠之國家或地區，而評估架構亦可運用於任一層級之評估方式，惟指數之篩選與指數值之給分範圍與分級可因應情況作適當調整。
本論文第4章，應用地景連結度（connectivity）概念，建構檢視黑面琵鷺停棲棲地品質與連結狀況之方法，評估其棲地分布與面積之妥適性，提供棲地連結與保護區劃設參考與應用。該研究篩選出20處國家重要溼地，以黑面琵鷺之度冬年數、最高數量、棲地面積及地景發展強度等4個參數計算棲地值（habitat value，HV）與連結度，並繪製溼地間移棲之最低成本路徑圖（least cost path）。結果顯示HV值大於0.7者有曾文溪口、蘭陽溪口及四草溼地，表示其可能有最適合黑面琵鷺停棲環境；連結度以蘭陽溪口溼地之0.71為最大，顯示其與其他溼地之連結狀況較佳，此外布袋鹽田與朴子溪河口溼地連結度超過0.4，亦可考量作為黑面琵鷺重要之停棲區域，惟有些重要溼地間隔太遠，連結狀況差，若能其間劃設重要溼地，必能改善連結狀況。該研究架構亦可應用於其他物種之相關研究，如能全面考量，取得更多相關數據，更能彰顯其完整性，並可提供棲地連結、生態廊道規劃及保護區劃設基準之參考。

Wetlands harbor rich biodiversity and biomass and provide a variety of ecosystem services. Therefore, environmental assessment of wetlands is critical for those seeking to manage these pivotal ecosystems. The Landscape Development Intensity (LDI) index is commonly used for wetlands assessment. The Black-faced Spoonbill was a migratory waterfowl in East Asia and has been regarded as a threatened species. Each year more than half of the population wintered in Taiwan. The largest size of wintering population was the Zengwun Estuary Wetland, and its population were increased and spread to surrounding area. Otherwise when habitat became discontinuous, movement of organisms among habitats was extremely important. The objectives of this study were to improve and modify methods for Taiwan’s wetlands assessment using the LDI index and landscape metrics. Also we applied the concept of landscape connectivity to develop a methodology to examine the quality and linkage status of the habitat sites for the Spoonbill in Taiwan; and to assess appropriateness of the distribution and habitat sites.
The objectives of chapter 2 were to examine the landscape status of 74 wetlands as being of importance, each including a 100-m-wide swath of surrounding land area and the wetland itself, and calculated LDI index values, as used in earlier assessments in Florida, USA. The LDI index values were ranked and classified into three levels as done by the Taiwanese government. We compared the ranking of the LDI index values with those evaluated by the Taiwanese government and found that there was 67.6% congruency, suggesting that the LDI index can be used to assess the biodiversity status of wetlands. Our results also suggested that the LDI index can be used to assess coastal wetlands. This provides rapid and timely information on landscape development which can prove useful for managing wetlands in Taiwan. However, there was some variability between the two rankings, apparently resulting from the incongruence of some land-use categories used in Florida and Taiwan. It is recommended that Taiwan develop LDI coefficients corresponding to land-use categories based on its own natural and anthropogenic landscapes.
The objectives of chapter 3 were to improve and modify methods for 82 wetlands assessment using a multi-metric approach that incorporated both the LDI index and landscape metrics. We calculated the LDI index values for 10 wetlands across both the area of each wetland and within a 0 to 600 m wide area. The results showed that the LDI index values varied significantly as the buffer distance increased, and specifically, the wetlands plus a 300-m wide swath was found to encompass the most appropriate area of inclusion for assessment. Due to two types of wetlands identified significantly different in the scatter plots of the LDI index and area, the assessment system was built to accommodate appropriate cut-off points. Four levels were then designated; the coastal wetland had an overall accuracy of 70.0%, while that of the inland wetlands was only 41.7%. This study confirmed that the extent of assessment had an effect on the LDI value, and there were significant differences in the assessment schematics across wetland types. In addition, LDI and/or area indices could be incorporated into landscape assessments. The assessment methods of this study can be applied in regions with high population density and consequently altered terrain, though the metric, scoring ranges, and levels should be adjusted to local conditions.
The objectives of chapter 4 were to apply the concept of landscape connectivity to develop a methodology to examine the quality and linkage status of the habitat sites for the Black-faced Spoonbill in Taiwan; and to assess appropriateness of the distribution and habitat sites. We used four parameters including wintering years, maximum number, habitat area and LDI index to calculate habitat value and connectivity of 20 selected wetlands, also draw the least cost path of the Spoonbill moving among the wetlands. The results showed with a habitat value of three were > 0.7, included the Zengwun Estuary, Lanyang Estuary and Sihcao wetlands. It showed that they might be the most suitable environment for the Spoonbill. The Lanyang Estuary Wetland with a highest FLI value of 0.71 indicated it had better link status with other wetlands. Furthermore, the Budai Salt Pan and Puzi Estuary wetlands, with a value of were > 0.4, maybe considerate as habitat for the Spoonbill. Although there were some distances between important wetlands being too far away with poor links, it would be able to improve the link status if designating some wetlands between them. The research framework could be applied to research of other species, and comprehensive considered and obtained more relative data better to highlight integrity. And also provided baseline reference and application for the linkage of habitat, plan of ecological corridor and design of refuge.

摘要 I
Abstract III
目次 VI
表次 VIII
圖次 IX
第1章 緒言 1
第2章 應用地景發展強度指數評估台灣重要溼地 4
2.1. 前言 4
2.2. 材料與方法 5
2.2.1. 研究區 5
2.2.2. 國土利用調查成果資料 7
2.2.3. 建置台灣溼地土地利用類別地景發展強度係數 8
2.2.4. 計算各溼地之地景發展強度指數 8
2.2.5. 地景發展強度指數與專家評選比較 10
2.3. 結果 10
2.3.1. 溼地類型與面積 10
2.3.2. LDI係數配對 11
2.3.3. 評估範圍內土地利用 11
2.3.4. 溼地LDI指數與排序 11
2.3.5. LDI指數評估與專家評選比較 15
2.4. 討論 18
第3章 溼地地景評估架構之建立 20
3.1. 前言 20
3.2. 材料與方法 22
3.2.1. 研究區 22
3.2.2. 決定溼地評估範圍測試 24
3.2.3. 篩選溼地評估樣本 25
3.2.4. 計算建模樣本溼地之LDI值與地景指數 25
3.2.5. 建置評估系統 27
3.2.6. 驗證評估系統 28
3.3. 結果 29
3.3.1. 溼地類型與面積 29
3.3.2. 決定溼地評估範圍 30
3.3.3. 評估溼地LDI指數與土地利用 31
3.3.4. 指數相關性 32
3.3.5. 評估系統建置 32
3.3.6. 評估系統驗證 35
3.4. 討論 37
第4章 黑面琵鷺停棲重要溼地連結架構之建立 39
4.1. 前言 39
4.2. 材料與方法 40
4.2.1. 篩選研究區 40
4.2.2. 萃取棲地面積 43
4.2.3. 產製成本圖層 43
4.2.4. 計算棲地值 44
4.2.5. 計算連結度 44
4.2.6. 繪製最低成本路徑圖 45
4.3. 結果 45
4.3.1. 停棲溼地面積 45
4.3.2. 溼地LDI指數與土地利用 47
4.3.3. 黑面琵鷺度冬年數與最高數量 47
4.3.4. 成本圖層 47
4.3.5. 溼地棲地值 49
4.3.6. 溼地連結度 49
4.3.7. 最低成本路徑圖 49
4.4. 討論 51
第5章 結論與建議 53
引用文獻 55
附錄 65

中華民國自然生態保育協會。2004。台灣地區黑面琵鷺保育行動綱領建議書。62pp。
中華民國野鳥學會。13年黑面琵鷺全球同步普查，臺灣地區調查結果又創歷年新高。取自：http://www.bird.org.tw/index.php/news/cwbf/919-2013。
王穎、胡正恆。1995。台南七股地區黑面琵鷺覓食及行為生態研究。行政院農業委員會。32 pp。
內政部國土測繪中心。2008。土地使用分類系統表。國土利用調查成果資訊網。取自：http://lui.nlsc.gov.tw/LUWeb/FileDL/FileDLShow.aspx。
行政院農委會林務局。黑面琵鷺簡介—全球瀕臨絕種野生動物黑面琵鷺。取自： http://recreation.forest.gov.tw/epaper/2012_38/ePaper_10038-2.html。
袁孝維。1998。鳥類繫放工作手冊。91pp。
林幸助、薛美莉、陳添水、何東輯。2009。溼地生態系生物多樣性監測系統標準作業程序。行政院農業委員會特有生物研究保育中心。135頁。
翁義聰。2007。國家重要溼地彙編。內政部營建署。台北。168 頁。
Bailey, D., F. Herzog, I. Augenstein, S. Aviron, R. Billeter and J. Baudry. 2007. Thematic resolution matters: indicators of landscape pattern for European agro-ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 7:692-709.
Barbier, E. B., M. Acreman and D. Knowler. 1997. Economic Valuation of Wetlands, A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Bender, D. J., L. Tischendorf and L. Fahrig. 2003. Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecology 18:17-39.
Brander, L. M., R. J. G. M. Florax and J. E. Vermaat. 2006. The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics 33:223-250.
Brooks, R., M. McKenney-Easterling, M. Brinson, R. Rheinhardt, K. Havens, D. O’Brien, J. Bishop, J. Rubbo, B. Armstrong and J. Hite. 2009. A Stream-Wetland-Riparian (SWR) index for assessing condition of aquatic ecosystems in small watersheds along the Atlantic slope of the eastern U.S. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 150:101-117.
Brown, M. T. and M. B. Vivas. 2005. Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101:289-309.
Calabrese, J. M. and W. F. Fagan. 2004. A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:529-536.
Chen, T. S. and H. J. Lin. 2011. Application of a landscape development intensity index for assessing wetlands in Taiwan. Wetlands 31:745-756.
Chen, T. S. and H. J. Lin. 2013. Development of a framework for landscape assessment of Taiwanese wetlands. Ecological Indicators 25:121-132.
Clergeau, P. and F. Burel. 1997. The role of spatio-temporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: an example in a bird distribution. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:37-43.
Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:37-46.
Collar, N. J., A. V. Andreev, S. Chan, M. J. Crosby, S. Subramanya and J. A. Tobias. 2001. Threatened Birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Collinge, S. K. 1998. Spatial arrangement of habitat patches and corridors: clues from ecological field experiments. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:157-168.
Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. Van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.
Crist, M. R., B. Wilmer and G. H. Aplet. 2005. Assessing the value of roadless areas in a conservation reserve strategy: biodiversity and landscape connectivity in the northern Rockies. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:181-191.
Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:1-15. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00386.x.
Crooks, K. R., A. V. Suarez and D. T. Bolger. 2004. Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biological Conservation 115:451-462. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00162-9.
Crooks, K. R. and M. Sanjayan. (eds.). 2006. Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cushman, S. A., K. McGarigal and M. C. Neel. 2008. Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecological Indicators 8:691-703.
Davis, J. A. 1971. Elementary Survey Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Davis, W. S., B. D. Snyder, J. B. Stribling and C. Stoughton. 1996. Summary of State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams and Wadeable Rivers. EPA 230-R-96-007. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
del Hoyo, J., A. Elliot and J. Sargatal. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
Elkie, P., R. Rempel and A. Carr. 1999. Patch Analyst User’s Manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Northwest Science and Technology. Thunder Bay, Ontario. TM-002. 16 pp + Append.
Fennessy, M. S., A. D. Jacobs and M. E. Kentula. 2007. An evaluation of rapid methods for assessing the ecological condition of wetlands. Wetlands 27:504-521.
Findlay, S. C. and J. Houlahan. 1997. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 11(4):1000-1009.
Forman, R. T. T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 619 pp.
Fowler, J. and L. Cohen. 1992. Practical Statistics for Field Biology. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore. 227 pp.
Gleason, H. A. 1925. Species and area. Ecology 6:66-74.
Goodwin, B. J. and L. Fahrig. 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552-570.
Gustafson, E. J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1(2):143-156.
Gustafson, E. J. and G. Parker. 1992. Relationships between land cover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7(2):101-110.
Hale, M. L., P. W. W. Lurz, M. D. F. Shirley, S. Rushton, R. M. Fuller and K. Wolff. 2001. Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of red squirrel populations. Science 293:2246-2248.
Hancock, J. A., J. A. Kushlan and M. P. Kahl. 1992. Storks, ibises and spoonbills of the world. Academic Press Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
Hanski, I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151-162. doi:10.2307/5591.
Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin and P. F. M. Verdonschot. 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516:1-20.
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society. 2007. Result of international census on Black-faced Spoonbill. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Hong Kong.
Houlahan, J. E. and C. S. Findlay. 2003. The effects of adjacent land-use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1078-1094.
Ibanez, I., J. S. Clark, M. C. Dietze, K. Feeley, M. H. Hersh, S. L. LaDeau, A. C. McBride, N. E. Welch and M. S. Wolosin. 2006. Predicting biodiversity change: outside the climate envelope, beyond the species-area curve. Ecology 87(8):1896-1906.
IUCN. 1997. 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. The International Union for Conversation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Johnson, M. L. and M. S. Gaines. 1985. Selective basis for emigration of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster: open field experiment. Journal of Animal Ecology 54:399-410.
Lane, C. R., M. T. Brown, M. Murray-Hudson and M. B.Vivas. 2003. The wetland condition index (WCI): biological indicators of wetland condition for isolated depressional herbaceous wetlands in Florida. Report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Contract No. WM-683). Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
Lane, C. R. and M. T. Brown. 2007. Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators 7:521-540.
Landis, J. R. and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159-174.
Lee, W. H. and K. Y. Liu. 2004. Age structure assessment of wintering Black-faced Spoonbill in Hong Kong 1998/99-2003/04. Pages 128-136 in International Symposium for the Conservation of Black-faced Spoonbills in East Asia. Korean Federation for Environmental Movement Press, Seoul.
Lin, J. P. 2008. A metric and GIS tool for measuring connectivity among habitat patches using least-cost distances. EMRRP-EBA-02, United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lin, J. P. 2009. The functional linkage index: a metric for measuring connectivity among habitat patches using least-cost distances. Journal of Conservation Planning 5:28-37.
Liu, L. L. 2002. Wintering activity of black-faced spoonbill by radio-tracking in Tainan, Taiwan. Pages 40-50 in International Conference of Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation. Tainan County Government and Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation Association, Tainan, Taiwan.
Liu, L. L. 2003. Wintering macro-habitats of black-faced spoonbill in Taiwan. Pages 100-104 in International Symposium on Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation. Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute, Nantou, Taiwan.
Louis, C. and F. Kennon. 1992. Measures of clinical agreement for nominal and categorical data: the kappa coefficient. Computers in Biology and Medicine 22:239-246.
Luderitz, V., R. Juppner, S. Muller and C. K. Feld. 2004. Renaturalization of streams and rivers - the special importance of integrated ecological methods in measurement of success. An Example from Saxony-Anhalt (Germany). Limnologica 34:249-263.
Lyon, J. 2001. Wetland Landscape Characterization. Ann Arbor Press.
Mack, J. J. 2006. Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition an evaluation of the landscape development index (LDI) with a large reference wetland dataset from Ohio. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 120:221-241.
Mack, J. J. 2007. Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing iterations. Ecological Indicators 7:864-881.
Mack, J. J., N. H. Avdis, E. C. Braig and D. L. Johnson. 2008. Application of a vegetation-based index of biotic integrity for Lake Erie coastal marshes in Ohio. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 11:91-104.
McGarigal, K. and B. J. Marks. 1994. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure (Version 2.0). Forest Science Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
McGarigal, K., S. A. Cushman, M. C. Neel and E. Ene. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available from http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.
McGarigal, K. 2002. Landscape pattern metrics. Volume 2, pages 1135-1142 in A. H. El-Shaarawi and W. W. Piegorsch, editors. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
Moilanen, A. and M. Nieminen. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131-1145.
Nestlerode, J. A., V. D. Engle, P. Bourgeois, P. T. Heitmuller, J. M. Macauley and Y. C. Allen. 2009. An integrated approach to assess broad-scale condition of coastal wetlands—the Gulf of Mexico Coastal Wetlands pilot survey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 150:21-29.
Odum, H. T. 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 370 pp.
O'Neill, R. V., C. T. Hunsaker, K. B. Jones, K. H. Riitters, J. D. Wickham, P. M. Schwartz, I. A. Goodman, B. L. Jackson and W. S. Baillargeon. 1997. Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. BioScience 47(8):513-519.
O’Neill, R. V., J. R. Krumme, R. H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D. L. DeAngelis, B. T. Milne, M. G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S. W. Christensen, V. H. Dale and R. L. Graham. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1(3):153-162.
Ozesmi, S. L. and M. E. Bauer. 2002. Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management 10:381-402.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. 2006. The Ramsar Convention Manual: a Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Forth Edition. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Rempel, R. 2010. Patch Analyst 4. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), Lakehead University Campus, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Available from http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rrempel/patch/index.html.
Rempel, R. 2010. Patch Analyst 4.2. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. Available from http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/rrempel/patch/ Accessed 2 March 2010.
Reiss, K. C. 2006. Florida Wetland Condition Index for depressional forested wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6:337-352.
Reiss, K. C. and M. T. Brown. 2007. Evaluation of Florida palustrine wetlands: application of USEPA levels 1, 2, and 3 assessment methods. EcoHealth 4(2):206-218.
Riitters, K. H., R. V. O’Neill, C. T. Hunsaker, D. H. Wickham, D. H. Yankee, S. P. Timmins, K. B. Jones and B. L. Jackson. 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10(1):23-39.
Schoener, A. 1988. Experimental island biogeography. In Analytical Biogeography, A. A. Myers and P. S. Giller, editors. London: Chapman and Hall, pages 483-512.
Taiwan Today, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, R.O.C. (Taiwan). Tainan’s black-faced spoonbill numbers rise in 2013. Available from http://taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=200778&ctNode=413.
Taiwan URDB of CPA. 2011. List of Taiwan Wetlands of Importance. Urban and Rural Development Branch, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of Interior, Executive Yuan, Taipei, Taiwan.
Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig and K. A. With. 2006. Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. Pages 29-43 in K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, editors. Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571-573.
Tigas, L. A., D. H. Van Vuren and R. M. Sauvajot. 2002. Behavioral responses of bobcat and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biological Conservation 108:299-306.
Tischendorf, L. and L. Fahrig. 2000. On the usage of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7-19.
Tsai, C. C. 1998. Chi-Ku, spoonbill, home feeling. Tainan Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation Association, Tainan, Taiwan.
Ueng, Y. T. 2007. Population biology of the Black-faced Spoonbill wintering in southwestern Taiwan. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy Department of Life Sciences, National Cheng Kung University.
US EPA. 1997. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 822-B-97-003. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
US EPA. 2006. Application of Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program for Wetlands. Wetlands Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/.
Wardrop, D. H., M. E. Kentula, D. L. Stevens Jr, S. F. Jensen and R. P. Brooks. 2007. Assessment of wetland condition: an example from the Upper Juniata Watershed in Pennsylvania, USA. Wetlands 27:416-431.
Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-615. doi:10.2307/1313420.
Wilcox, B. A. and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887. doi:10.1086/284386.
With, K. A., R. H. Gardner and M. G. Turner. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78(1):151-169.
Wu, J. and J. L. Vankat. 1991. A system dynamics model of island biogeography. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 53:911-940.
Yu, Y. T. and C. Swennen. 2004. Habitat use of the Black-faced Spoonbill. Waterbirds 27:129-134.