Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How should we measure landscape connectivity?

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The methods for measuring landscape connectivity have never been compared or tested for their responses to habitat fragmentation. We simulated movement, mortality and boundary reactions across a wide range of landscape structures to analyze the response of landscape connectivity measures to habitat fragmentation. Landscape connectivity was measured as either dispersal success or search time, based on immigration into all habitat patches in the landscape. Both measures indicated higher connectivity in more fragmented landscapes, a potential for problematic conclusions for conservation plans. We introduce cell immigration as a new measure for landscape connectivity. Cell immigration is the rate of immigration into equal-sized habitat cells in the landscape. It includes both within- and between-patch movement, and shows a negative response to habitat fragmentation. This complies with intuition and existing theoretical work. This method for measuring connectivity is highly robust to reductions in sample size (i.e., number of habitat cells included in the estimate), and we hypothesize that it therefore should be amenable to use in empirical studies. The connectivity measures were weakly correlated to each other and are therefore generally not comparable. We also tested immigration into a single patch as an index of connectivity by comparing it to cell immigration over the landscape. This is essentially a comparison between patch-scale and landscape-scale measurement, and revealed some potential for patch immigration to predict connectivity at the landscape scale. However, this relationship depends on the size of the single patch, the dispersal characteristics of the species, and the amount of habitat in the landscape. We conclude that the response of connectivity measures to habitat fragmentation should be understood before deriving conclusions for conservation management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreassen, H.P., Ims, R.A. and Stenseth, N.C. 1996. Discontinuous habitat corridors: Effects on male root vole movements. J Appl Ecol 33: 555–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars, M.A. 1979. Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44: 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charrier, S., Petit, S. and Burel, F. 1997. Movements of Abax parallelepipedus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in woody habitats of a hedgerow network landscape: a radio-tracing study. Agr Eco Enviro 61: 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R.J. and Barrett, G.W. 1997. Effects of habitat fragmentation on meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) population dynamics in experiment landscape patches. Lands Ecol 12: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demers, M.N., Simpson, J.W., Boerner, R.E.J., Silva, A., Berns, L. and Artigas, F. (1995). Fencerows, edges, and implications of changing connectivity illustrated by two contiguous Ohio landscapes. Cons Biol 9: 1159–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diffendorfer, J.E., Gaines, M.S. and Holt, R.D. 1995. Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmon, Microtus, and Peromyscus). Ecology 76: 827–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, D.F., Marino, P.C. and Kareiva, P.M. 1992. Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: implications for conservation. Theor Pop Biol 41: 315–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl Manag 61: 603–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecol Model 105: 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frampton, G.K., Cilgi, T., Fry, G.L.A. and Wratten, S.D. 1995. Effects of grassy banks on the dispersal of some carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on farmland. Biol Cons 71: 347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, M.S. and McGlenaghan, L.R. 1980. Dispersal in small mammals. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 11: 163–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R.H., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G. and O'Neill, R.V. 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Lands Ecol 1: 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B.J. and Fahrig L. 1998. Spatial scaling and animal population dynamics. In Ecological Scale: Theory and Application. pp. 193–206. Edited by D. Peterson and V.T. Parker Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D.G. 1994. Connectivity and complexity in landscapes and ecosystems. Pac Conserv Biol 1: 194–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, L. 1991. Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biol J Linn Soc 42: 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Lands Ecol 4: 157–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmquist, J.G. 1998. Permeabilities of patch boundaries to benthic invertebrates-influences of boundary contrast, light level, and faunal density and mobility. Oikos 81: 558–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keitt, T.H., Urban, D.L. and Milne, B.T. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Ecol. [online]1: 4. Available from the Internet. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohne, D.T. and Burgin, A.B. 1987. Relative success of residents and immigrants in Peromyscus leucopus. Holarctic Ecol 10: 196–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohne, D.T. and Dubbs, B.A. 1984. An analysis of dispersal in an unmanipulated population of Peromyscus leucopus. Am Midl Nat 112: 146–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohne, D.T. and Miner, M.S. 1985. Removal trapping studies of dispersal in Peromyscus leucopus. Can Zool J 63: 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidicker, W.Z. 1975. The role of dispersal in the demography of small mammals. In Small mammals: their productivity and population dynamics. pp. 103–128. Edited by F.B. Golley, et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mader, H.J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol Conserv 29: 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mader, H.J., Schell, C. and Kornacker, P. 1990. Linear barriers to arthropod movements in the landscape. Biol Cons 54: 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matter, S.F. 1996. Interpatch movement of the red milkweed beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: Individual responses to patch size and isolation. Oecologia 105: 447–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal, K. and Marks, B.J. 1995. Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. U. S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW 351.

  • Merriam, G., Kozakiewicz, M., Tsuchiya, E. and Hawley, K. 1989. Barriers as boundaries for metapopulations and demes of Peromyscus leucopus in farm landscapes. Lands Ecol 2: 227–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, J.P. and Décamps, H. 1997. The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Ecol 18: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, S. and Burel, F. 1998a. Connectivity in fragmented populations–Abax parallelepipedus in a hedgerow network landscape. Comptes Rendus de l' Academie des Sciences Serie III–Sciences de la vie–life Sciences 321: 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, S. and Burel, F. 1998b. Effects of landscape dynamics on the metapopulation of a ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a hedgerow network. Agr Ecol Environ 69: 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pither, J. and Taylor, P.D. 1998. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83: 166–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K.G. 1997. Dispersal patterns of lynx in the northwest territories. J Wildl Manag 61: 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijnsdorp, A.D. 1980. Pattern of movement in and dispersal from a Dutch forest of Carabus problematicus Hbst. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 45: 274–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus, M., Hartway, C. and Kareiva, P.M. 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conserv Biol 11: 1298–1306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, H.F. and Noon, B.R. 1997. Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation. J Wildl Manag 61: 343–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schippers, P., Verboom, J., Knaapen, P. and van Apeldoorn, R.C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: An analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker, N.H. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • StatSoft, Inc. 1995. STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Tulsa, OK.

  • Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf, L. 1997. Modeling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach. EcolModel 103: 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, in press.

  • Wallin, H. and Ekbom, B.S. 1988. Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: A field tracing study. Oecologia 77: 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, J.A., Schooley, R.L. and Weeks, R.D. 1997. Patchy landscapes and animal movements: Do beetles percolate? Oikos 78: 257–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • With, K.A. 1997. The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Cons Biol 11: 1069–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • With, K.A., Gardner, R.H. and Turner, M.G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78: 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • With, K.A. and King, A.W. 1997. The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. Oikos 79: 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lutz Tischendorf

    Present address: , Busestrasse 76, 28213, Bremen, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ottawa-Carleton Institute of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6

    Lutz Tischendorf & Lenore Fahrig

Authors
  1. Lutz Tischendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lenore Fahrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tischendorf, L., Fahrig, L. How should we measure landscape connectivity?. Landscape Ecology 15, 633–641 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008177324187

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008177324187

Keywords

Search

Navigation