Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using landscape graphs to delineate ecologically functional areas

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

Abstract

Context

Landscape graphs are widely used to model connectivity and to support decision-making in conservation planning. Compartmentalization methods applied to such graphs aim to define clusters of highly interconnected patches. Recent studies show that compartmentalization based on modularity is suitable, but it applies to non-weighted graphs whereas most landscape graphs involve weighted nodes and links.

Objectives

We propose to adapt modularity computation to weighted landscape graphs and to validate the relevance of the resulting compartments using demographic or genetic data about the patches.

Methods

A weighted adjacency matrix was designed to express potential fluxes, associating patch capacities and inter-patch distances. Eight weighting scenarios were compared. The statistical evaluation of each compartmentalization was based on Wilks’ Lambda. These methods were performed on a grassland network where patches are documented by annual densities of water voles in the Jura massif (France).

Results

The scenarios in which patch capacity is assigned a small weight led to the more relevant results, giving high modularity values and low Wilks’ Lambda values. When considering a fixed number of compartments, we found a significant negative correlation between these two criteria. Comparison showed that compartments are ecologically more valid than graph components.

Conclusions

The method proposed is suitable for designing ecologically functional areas from weighted landscape graphs. Maximum modularity values can serve as a guide for setting the parameters of the adjacency matrix.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Awade M, Boscolo D, Metger JP (2012) Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landscape Ecol 27:185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2004) The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:3747–3752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berthier K, Chaval Y, Galan M, Charbonnel N, Cosson JF (2009) Dispersion individuelle: conséquences. In: Delattre P, Giraudoux P (eds) Le campagnol terrestre: prévention et contrôle des populations. QUAE Edition, Versailles, pp 39–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthier K, Piry S, Cosson JF, Giraudoux P, Foltête JC, Defaut R, Truchetet D, Lambin X (2014) Dispersal, landscape and travelling waves in cyclic vole populations. Ecol Lett 17:53–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bjornstad ON, Ims RA, Lambin X (1999) Spatial population dynamics: analyzing patterns and processes of population synchrony. Trends Ecol Evol 14:427–432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blant MA, Beuret B, Poitry R, Joseph E (2009) Influence of landscape and soil on the intensity of pullulations of vole (Arvicola terrestris scherman) in Swiss Jura. Rev Suisse Agric 41:301–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodea M, Burrage K, Possingham HP (2008) Using complex network metrics to predict the persistence of metapopulations with asymmetric connectivity patterns. Ecol Model 214:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin O, Norberg J (2007) A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 22:31–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandes U, Delling D, Gaertler M, Görke R, Hoefer M, Nikoloski Z, Wagner D (2008) On modularity clustering. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 20:172–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanaugh KC, Siegel DA, Raimondi PT, Alberto F (2014) Patch definition in metapopulation analysis: a graph theory approach to solve the mega-patch problem. Ecology 95:316–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clauzel C, Bannwarth C, Foltête JC (2015) A planning tool for integrating broad-scale connectivity in habitat restoration: an application to pond creation in eastern France. J Nat Conserv 23:98–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhamel R, Quéré JP, Delattre P, Giraudoux P (2000) Landscape effects on the population dynamics of the fossorial form of the water vole (Arvicola terrestris Sherman). Landscape Ecol 15:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everitt BS, Dunn G (1991) Applied multivariate data analysis. Edward Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fall A, Fortin MJ, Manseau M, O’Brien D (2007) Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 10:448–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête JC, Clauzel C, Vuidel G, Tournant P (2012a) Integrating graph-based connectivity metrics into species distribution models. Landscape Ecol 27:557–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête JC, Couval G, Fontanier M, Vuidel G, Giraudoux P (2016) A graph-based approach to defend agro-ecological systems against water vole outbreaks. Ecol Indic 71:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête 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 

  • Foltête JC, Giraudoux P (2012) A graph-based approach to investigating the influence of the landscape on population spread processes. Ecol Indic 18:684–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête JC, Vuidel G, Clauzel C (2012b) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Model Soft 38:316–327

    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 144:44–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galpern P, Manseau M, Wilson P (2012) Grains of connectivity: analysis at multiple spatial scales in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 21:3996–4009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gao P, Kupfer JA, Guo D, Lei TL (2013) Identifying functionally connected habitat compartments with a novel regionalization technique. Landscape Ecol 28:1949–1959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraudoux P, Delattre P, Habert M, Quéré JP, Deblay S, Defaut R, Duhamel R, Moissenet MF, Salvi D, Truchetet D (1997) Population dynamics of fossorial water vole: a land use and landscape perspective. Agric Ecosyst Environ 66:47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraudoux P, Pradier B, Delattre P, Deblay S, Salvi D, Defaut R (1995) Estimation of water vole abundance by using surface indices. Acta Theriol 40:77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7821–7826

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall AL, Beissinger SR (2014) A practical toolbox for design and analysis of landscape genetics studies. Landscape Ecol 29:1487–1504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lookingbill TR, Elmore AJ, Engelhardt KAM, Churchill JB, Gates E, Johnson JB (2010) Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. Biol Conserv 143:974–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luque S, Saura S, Fortin MJ (2012) Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data. Landscape Ecol 27:153–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marriott FHC (1971) Practical problems in a method of cluster analysis. Biometrics 27:501–514

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan GJ (2004) Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morilhat C, Bernard N, Foltête JC, Giraudoux P (2008) Neighbourhood landscape effect on population kinetics of the fossorial water vole (Arvicola terrestris scherman). Landscape Ecol 23:569–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman M (2004) Analysis of weighted networks. Phys Rev E 70:056131

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newman M, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113

    Article  CAS  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 83:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz P, Caflisch A (2008) Efficient modularity optimization by multistep greedy algorithm and vertex mover refinement. Phys Rev E 77(046):112

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor P, Fahrig L, With W (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tournant P, Afonso E, Giraudoux P, Roué S, Foltête JC (2013) Evaluating the effect of habitat connectivity on the distribution of lesser horseshoe bat maternity roosts using landscape graphs. Biol Conserv 164:39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, Keitt TH (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph theoretic approach. Ecology 82:1205–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Riiters KH, Iwanowski M, Estreguil C, Kozak J, Wade TG, Wickham JD (2007) Mapping spatial patterns with morphological image processing. Landscape Ecol 22:171–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster R (1972) Wilks’s criterion: a measure for comparing the value of general purpose soil classifications. J Soil Sci 11:254–260

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been funded by the French Ministry of Ecology (Campagraphe project in DIVA3 Program). Computations were performed on the supercomputer facilities of the “Mésocentre de calcul de Franche-Comté”. This research is part of the Jurassian Arc long-term ecological research site (http://zaaj.univ-fcomte.fr/?lang=en).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ThéMA, UMR 6049 CNRS – Université Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 32, rue Mégevand, 25030, Besançon, France

    Jean-Christophe Foltête & Gilles Vuidel

Authors
  1. Jean-Christophe Foltête
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gilles Vuidel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Christophe Foltête.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foltête, JC., Vuidel, G. Using landscape graphs to delineate ecologically functional areas. Landscape Ecol 32, 249–263 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0445-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0445-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation