Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Methods quantifying habitat patch importance for maintaining habitat network connectivity have been emphasized in helping to prioritize conservation actions. Functional connectivity is accepted as depending on landscape resistance, and several measures of functional inter-patch distance have been designed. However, how the inter-patch distance, i.e., based on least-cost path or multiple paths, influences the identification of key habitat patches has not been explored.

Objectives

We compared the prioritization of habitat patches according to least-cost distance (LCD) and resistance distance (RD), using common binary and probabilistic connectivity metrics.

Methods

Our comparison was based on a generic functional group of forest mammals with different dispersal distances, and was applied to two landscapes differing in their spatial extent and fragmentation level.

Results

We found that habitat patch prioritization did not depend on distance type when considering the role of patch as contributing to dispersal fluxes. However, the role of patch as a connector facilitating dispersal might be overestimated by LCD-based indices compared with RD for short- and medium-distance dispersal. In particular, when prioritization was based on dispersal probability, the consideration of alternatives routes identified the connectors that probably provided functional connectivity for species in the long term. However, the use of LCD might help identify landscape areas that need critical restoration to improve individual dispersal.

Conclusions

Our results provide new insights about the way that inter-patch distance is viewed changes the evaluation of functional connectivity. Accordingly, prioritization methods should be carefully selected according to assumptions about population functioning and conservation aims.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64(4):233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amos JN, Harrisson KA, Radford JQ, White M, Newell G, Mac Nally R, Sunnucks P, Pavlova A (2014) Species- and sex-specific connectivity effects of habitat fragmentation in a suite of woodland birds. Ecology 95(6):1556–1568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ayram CAC, Mendoza ME, Salicrup DRP, Granados EL (2014) Identifying potential conservation areas in the Cuitzeo Lake Basin, Mexico by multitemporal analysis of landscape connectivity. J Nat Conserv 22(5):424–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baranyi G, Saura S, Podani J, Jordan F (2011) Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol Indic 11(5):1301–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25(5):879–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86(8):1988–1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin O, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Model 221(19):2393–2405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauzel C, Girardet X, Foltete JC (2013) Impact assessment of a high-speed railway line on species distribution: application to the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) in Franche-Comte. J Environ Manag 127:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121(2):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst BW (2014) Quantifying landscape connectivity through the use of connectivity response curves. Landscape Ecol 29(6):963–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estrada E, Bodin O (2008) Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol Appl 18(7):1810–1825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Acevedo MA, Robertson EP (2014) The matrix alters the role of path redundancy on patch colonization rates. Ecology 95(6):1444–1450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foltete JC, Girardet X, Clauzel C (2014) A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning. Landsc Urban Plan 124:140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144(1):44–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Feced C, Saura S, Elena-Rossello R (2011) Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: a two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation. For Ecol Manag 261(1):154–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimona A, Poggio L, Brown I, Castellazzi M (2012) Woodland networks in a changing climate: threats from land use change. Biol Conserv 149(1):93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurrutxaga M, Rubio L, Saura S (2011) Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: a transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe). Landsc Urban Plan 101(4):310–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurrutxaga M, Saura S (2014) Prioritizing highway defragmentation locations for restoring landscape connectivity. Environ Conserv 41(2):157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koen EL, Bowman J, Walpole AA (2012) The effect of cost surface parameterization on landscape resistance estimates. Mol Ecol Resour 12(4):686–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koen EL, Garroway CJ, Wilson PJ, Bowman J (2010) The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PLoS One 5(7):e11785

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • LaPoint S, Gallery P, Wikelski M, Kays R (2013) Animal behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape Ecol 28(8):1615–1630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler JJ, Ruesch AS, Olden JD, McRae BH (2013) Projected climate-driven faunal movement routes. Ecol Lett 16(8):1014–1022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marrotte RR, Gonzalez A, Millien V (2014) Landscape resistance and habitat combine to provide an optimal model of genetic structure and connectivity at the range margin of a small mammal. Mol Ecol 23(16):3983–3998

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mateo-Sanchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Perez T, Dominguez A, Saura S (2015) Estimating effective landscape distances and movement corridors: comparison of habitat and genetic data. Ecosphere 6(4):art59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH (2012) Pinchpoint mapper connectivity analysis software. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(50):19885–19890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89(10):2712–2724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011) Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC (2008) Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemnoc plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae). Biol Conserv 141(4):938–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24(2):253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poor EE, Loucks C, Jakes A, Urban DL (2012) Comparing habitat suitability and connectivity modeling methods for conserving pronghorn migrations. PLoS One 7(11):e49390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92(4):847–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roever CL, van Aarde RJ, Leggett K (2013) Functional connectivity within conservation networks: delineating corridors for African elephants. Biol Conserv 157:128–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowcliffe JM, Carbone C, Kays R, Kranstauber B, Jansen PA (2012) Bias in estimating animal travel distance: the effect of sampling frequency. Methods Ecol Evol 3(4):653–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Bodin O, Fortin MJ (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J Appl Ecol 51(1):171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83(2–3):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33(3):523–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Torne J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24(1):135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah VB, McRae BH (2008) Circuitscape: a tool for landscape ecology. In: Varoquaux G., Vaught, T, Millman J (eds) Proceedings of the 7th python in science conference (SciPy 2008), 2008, pp 62–66

  • Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006) Gene flow and functional connectivity in the natterjack toad. Mol Ecol 15(9):2333–2344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5):1205–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol 18(8):791–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang JL (2004) Application of the one-migrant-per-generation rule to conservation and management. Conserv Biol 18(2):332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts K, Eycott AE, Handley P, Ray D, Humphrey JW, Quine CP (2010) Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landscape Ecol 25(9):1305–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters LA, Verbeylen G, Preatoni D, Martinoli A, Matthysen E (2010) Dispersal and habitat cuing of Eurasian red squirrels in fragmented habitats. Popul Ecol 52(4):527–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27(6):777–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zetterberg A, Mortberg UM, Balfors B (2010) Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc Urban Plan 95(4):181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

C.A. was supported by Region PACA (APRF 2011 projet Alterbio PACA) and Irstea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UR RECOVER, Irstea, 13182, Aix-en-Provence, France

    Catherine Avon & Laurent Bergès

Authors
  1. Catherine Avon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurent Bergès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Avon.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avon, C., Bergès, L. Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances. Landscape Ecol 31, 1551–1565 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0336-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0336-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation