@Ahmet,

Let's start the discussion and wait for the feedback of our peers.

IMHO, there isn't standard table or guideline!

Not sure I understand your question well. Based on the objective or process of your study the distance from edge may vary from few meters to several kilometers. For example, most edge effects occur within 100-200 m of the forest edge.

As a concluding remark, the Edge Effect is depends on SCALE/PURPOSE/LAND USE/LANDSCAPE COMPLEXITY/SPECIES of the study.

Hope it give you some directions.

Regards,

@Ahmet,

Let's start the discussion and wait for the feedback of our peers.

IMHO, there isn't standard table or guideline!

Not sure I understand your question well. Based on the objective or process of your study the distance from edge may vary from few meters to several kilometers. For example, most edge effects occur within 100-200 m of the forest edge.

As a concluding remark, the Edge Effect is depends on SCALE/PURPOSE/LAND USE/LANDSCAPE COMPLEXITY/SPECIES of the study.

Hope it give you some directions.

Regards,

Overall it is estimated that the foreground hardly exceeds 10 meters against the intermediate zone or plane is 10 meters but does not exceed 100 meters. Beyond 100 meters is considered a background area.

Best regards

Dear @Raoof

I think that you understood my question very well. Thanks for your nice answer.

"Most edge effects occur within 100-200 m of the forest edge." but why? as you said that it is depend on scale or target species or etc. what you work.

Now it is clear that determination of core area is depend on researcher's subjectivity.

It is a big gap for landscape ecology.

If we will determine a core area, there should be really different things than other places of the patch.

But so many researchers drawing core area borders but nothing difference than all the patch. They just imaginary polygons :) not real.

Sorry for my terrible English and thank you again..

The question is very broad and everything depends on the heterogeneity or variation  within  and between landscape. You have to provide more details about the landscape and adjoining area of your study  to give any solid suggestion.

@Unnikrishnan

do you know any publication which measured influence of edge effect variables (wind or nutrient etc) to determine core area borders? as i see that only variable is researcher's feelings. 

Wind penetration, sunlight, nutrient deposition, vegetation structure - all of these can be strongly influenced both by the distance to an edge and, of course, the type of edge. For example, a "hard" edge can mark the boundary between two very different patches, e.g., mature broadleaf forest and a tilled cropfield. A "soft" edge might be identified where the patches are more similar, e.g., mature broadleaf forest and an adjacent patch of regenerating forest.

My background is in wildlife conservation and the edge effect we're often dealing with concerns nest predation on  native songbirds from common predators.  In temperate North America, raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes, etc. tend to be more abundant in landscapes that provide a mix of forested and herbaceous cover, i.e., lots of edges, and less so in the interior of large forest patches.  These generalist predators might also preferentially forage along edges.  Thus, the edge/interior split that many recognize is strongly influenced by where people perceive predators to be most active, but that doesn't make those buffers any less arbitrary.

Personally, I prefer a 100m buffer to mark the edge/interior boundary in temperate forest patches.  Biologically, that's broad enough to cover the territory of small songbirds that might occur along the edge of a forested patch as well as encompass the search zone for predators working the edge. Computationally, it's a nice, round, arbitrary buffer. 

Thank you. I just wondered that are there any kind of formula or mathematical modeling including variables (wind penetration, sunlight, nutrient deposition etc.). Now i see that we must trust researcher's knowledge and experience and his decisions. As a positivist, i prefer formulas. But need to except that it is hard to measure of these variables.

Although a slightly older reference now, the following paper has a great figure (figure 3) showing the penetration distance of different edge effects into forests:

Laurance, W. F., T. E. Lovejoy, H. L. Vasconcelos, E. M. Bruna, R. K. Didham, P. C. Stouffer, C. Gascon, R. O. Bierregaard, S. G. Laurance, and E. Sampaio. 2002. Ecosystem Decay of Amazonian Forest Fragments: A 22-Year Investigation. Conservation Biology 16:605-618.

Thank you. This is just right for me :)

thank you Shirkou. is it a paper or a book? by the way could you upload your full paper about landscape metrics?

A paper by: Bunyan et al 2012

Have a look (attached). it may give you some directions.

Empirical support for core area relevance to songbird nest success:

thank you @Mostafazadeh  and thank you @O’Connell..

There are no standard measures of distance to core areas. The distance (or edge width) depend on the contrast between the cover type within the core area and the cover type that surrounds the patch. In general, the largest the contrast, the wider the edge.

Dear Silvia, thanks for interested.

Now its clear that there are no standard. But researchers may create their own standard depend on aim of the study.

Of course, you may create a standard for a particular landscape on the basis of your experience and according to your project aim. However, this standard is valid only for your study area.

If the landscape consists of three planes, we have:

     - Before a plan is considered closest spatial portion of the viewer that extends a few meters from his point of view. In this area, the viewer has a perception of detail;

      - An intermediate level: spatial portion sandwiched between the foreground and the background that might actually be the "landscape itself." Its extent after the forward plan spans a few hundred meters hardly exceeding 1,000 meters. Perception is remote, the items or components that are perceived by their shapes and mass ratios;

      - A background: part located above 1000 meters from the localized perspective in the foreground. The elements are not perceived by their characteristics but revealing their volumes.

thank you very much Fadel Djamel..