Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating airborne lidar and satellite imagery to model habitat connectivity dynamics for spatial conservation prioritization

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

Abstract

Context

The application of regional-level airborne lidar (light detection and ranging) data to characterize habitat patches and model habitat connectivity over large landscapes has not been well explored. Maintaining a connected network of habitat in the presence of anthropogenic disturbances is essential for regional-level conservation planning and the maintenance of biodiversity values.

Objectives

We quantified variation in connectivity following simulated changes in land cover and contrasted outcomes when different conservation priorities were emphasized.

Methods

First, we defined habitat patches using vegetation structural attributes identified via lidar. Second, habitat networks were constructed for different forest types and assessed using network connectivity metrics. And finally, land cover change scenarios were simulated using a series of habitat patch removals, representing the impact of implementing different spatial prioritization schemes.

Results

Networks for different forest structure types produced very different patch distributions. Conservation scenarios based on different schemes led to contrasting changes during land cover change simulations: the scheme prioritizing only habitat area resulted in immediate near-term losses in connectivity, whereas the scheme considering both habitat area and their spatial configurations maintained the overall connectivity most effectively. Adding climate constraints did not diminish or improve overall connectivity.

Conclusions

Both habitat area and habitat configuration should be considered in dynamic modeling of habitat connectivity under changing landscapes. This research provides a framework for integrating forest structure and cover attributes obtained from remote sensing data into network connectivity modeling, and may serve as a prototype for multi-criteria forest management and conservation planning.

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

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 64:233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A (2017) Applying network theory to prioritize multi-species habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12943

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (2014) Sustainable forest management—current facts & statistics. Government of Alberta Publication No. I/666. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15744/$file/GeneralBoundary-CurrentFactsAndStatistics-2011.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 05 May 2017

  • Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (2006). Alberta Forest Management Planning Standard. Forest Management Branch, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Government of Alberta. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/formain15749/$FILE/ForestManagementPlanningStandard-2006.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2017

  • Apps CD, McLellan BN, Kinley TA, Flaa JP (2001) Scale-dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. J Wildl Manag 65:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo MB, Cabeza M, Thuiller W, Hannah L, Williams PH (2004) Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Glob Chang Biol 10:1618–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora VK, Scinocca JF, Boer GJ, Christian JR, Denman KL, Flato GM, Kharin VV, Lee WG, Merryfield WJ (2011) Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046270

    Google Scholar 

  • Asner GP, Hughes RF, Mascaro J, Uowolo AL, Knapp DE, Jacobson J, Kennedy-Bowdoin T, Clark JK (2011) High-resolution carbon mapping on the million-hectare Island of Hawaii. Front Ecol Environ 9:434–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badry MJ, Proulx G, Woodward PM (1997) Home-range and habitat use by fishers translocated to the aspen parkland of Alberta. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmont, pp 233–251

  • Bailey S (2007) Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. For Ecol Manag 238:7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckingham, J, Corns, IGW, Archibald, JH (1996) Field guide to ecosites of west-central Alberta. Special report 9. Canadian Forest Service. Northwest Region. Edmonton, AB

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen KM, Goetz SJ, Dubayah RO, Henebry GM, Hunsaker CT, Imhoff ML, Nelson RF, Parker GG, Radeloff VC (2009) Remote sensing of vegetation 3-D structure for biodiversity and habitat: review and implications for lidar and radar spaceborne missions. J Geophys Res Biogeosci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000883

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsten A, Bodin Ö, Ecke F (2013) Protected areas in a landscape dominated by logging—a connectivity analysis that integrates varying protection levels with competition–colonization tradeoffs. Biol Conserv 160:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blazquez-Cabrera S, Bodin Ö, Saura S (2014) Indicators of the impacts of habitat loss on connectivity and related conservation priorities: do they change when habitat patches are defined at different scales? Ecol Indic 45:704–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö (2009) Prioritizing habitat patches for conservation in fragmented landscapes/townscapes using network-based models and analyses. Sustain Dev Plan IV 1:109–118

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broquet T, Johnson CA, Petit E, Thompson I, Burel F, Fryxell JM (2006) Dispersal and genetic structure in the American marten, Martes americana. Mol Ecol 15:1689–1697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burkett V, Kusler J (2000) Climate change: potential impacts and interactions in wetlands of the United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll C, Roberts DR, Michalak JL, Lawler JL, Nielsen SE, Stralberg D, Hamann A, Mcrae BH, Wang T (2017) Scale-dependent complementarity of climatic velocity and environmental diversity for identifying priority areas for conservation under climate change. Glob Chang Biol 23:4508–4520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castilla G, Hird J, Hall RJ, Schieck J, McDermid GJ (2014) Completion and updating of a landsat-based land cover polygon layer for Alberta, Canada. Can J Remote Sens 40:92–109

    Google Scholar 

  • CBD Secretariat (2010) The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 and the aichi biodiversity targets. Document UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nagoya, Japan

  • Coops NC, Tompaski P, Nijland W, Rickbeil GJ, Nielsen SE, Bater CW, Stadt JJ (2016) A forest structure habitat index based on airborne laser scanning data. Ecol Indic 31:346–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corns IGW, Annas RM (1986) Field guide to forest ecosystems of west-central Alberta. Northern Forestry Center, Canadian Forestry Service, Edmonton, p 251

    Google Scholar 

  • Culbert PD, Radeloff VC, Flather CH, Kellndorfer JM, Rittenhouse CD, Pidgeon AM (2013) The influence of vertical and horizontal habitat structure on nationwide patterns of avian biodiversity. Auk 130:656–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteris PP (2008) Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol 28:2031–2064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilts TE, Weisberg PJ, Leitner P, Matocq MD, Inman RD, Nussear KE, Esque TC (2016) Multiscale connectivity and graph theory highlight critical areas for conservation under climate change. Ecol Appl 26:1223–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubayah RO, Drake JB (2000) Lidar remote sensing for forestry. J For 98:44–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin KL (2009) Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetl Ecol Manag 17:71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkowski MJ, Evans JS, Martinuzzi S, Gessler PE, Hudak AT (2009) Characterizing forest succession with lidar data: an evaluation for the Inland Northwest, USA. Remote Sens Environ 113:946–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecol 10:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatziolis D, Andersen H-E (2008) A guide to LIDAR data acquisition and processing for the forests of the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-768

  • Gobeil J, Villard M (2002) Permeability of three boreal forest landscape types to bird movements as determined from experimental translocations. Oikos 98:447–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin NR, Coops NC, Culvenor DS (2006) Assessment of forest structure with airborne LiDAR and the effects of platform altitude. Remote Sens Environ 103:140–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf RF, Mathys L, Bollmann K (2009) Habitat assessment for forest dwelling species using LiDAR remote sensing: Capercaillie in the Alps. For Ecol Manag 257:160–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grelle CEV (2003) Forest structure and vertical stratification of small mammals in a secondary Atlantic forest, southeastern Brazil. Stud Neotrop Fauna Environ 38:81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo X, Coops NC, Tompalski P, Nielsen SE, Bater CW, Stadt JJ (2017) Regional mapping of vegetation structure for biodiversity monitoring using airborne lidar data. Ecol Inform 38:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MJ, Franklin SE, Woudsma CG, Peterson M (2001) Caribou habitat mapping and fragmentation analysis using Landsat MSS, TM, and GIS data in the North Columbia Mountains, British Columbia, Canada. Remote Sens Environ 77:50–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen AJ, Phillips LB, Dubayah R, Goetz S, Hofton M (2014) Regional-scale application of lidar: variation in forest canopy structure across the southeastern US. For Ecol Manage 329:214–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrault PA, Larrieu L, Cordier S, Gimmi U, Lachat T, Ouin A, Sarthou JP, Sheeren D (2016) Combined effects of area, connectivity, history and structural heterogeneity of woodlands on the species richness of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Landscape Ecol 31:877–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter ML Jr (1993) Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biol Conserv 65:115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwamura T, Wilson KA, Venter O, Possingham HP (2010) A climatic stability approach to prioritizing global conservation investments. PLoS ONE 5:e15103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2016) Habitat amount, not habitat configuration, best predicts population genetic structure in fragmented landscapes. Landscape Ecol 31:951–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joppa LN, Pfaff A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4:e8273

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly EN, Schindler DW, Hodson PV, Short JW, Radmanovich R, Nielsen CC (2010) Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:16178–16183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • King AW, With KA (2002) Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecol Modell 147:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latham ADM, Latham MC, McCutchen NA, Boutin S (2011) Invading white-tailed deer change wolf–caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. J Wildl Manag 75:204–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefsky MA, Cohen WB, Parker GG, Harding DJ (2002) Lidar remote sensing for ecosystem studies. Bioscience 52:19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim K, Treitz P, Wulder M, St-Onge B, Flood M (2003) LiDAR remote sensing of forest structure. Prog Phys Geogr 27:88–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB (2000) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol 14:941–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linke J, Franklin SE, Huettmann F, Stenhouse G (2005) Seismic cutlines, changing landscape metrics and grizzly bear landscape use in Alberta. Landscape Ecol 20:811–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Linderman M, Ouyang Z, An L, Yang J, Zhang H (2001) Ecological degradation in protected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas. Science 292:98–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maciejewski K, Cumming GS (2016) Multi-scale network analysis shows scale-dependency of significance of individual protected areas for connectivity. Landscape Ecol 31:761–774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchese C (2015) Biodiversity hotspots: a shortcut for a more complicated concept. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 3:297–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathys AS, Coops NC, Waring RH (2017) An ecoregion assessment of projected tree species vulnerabilities in western North America through the 21st century. Glob Change Biol 23:920–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCleary K, Mowat G (2002) Using forest structural diversity to inventory habitat diversity of forest-dwelling wildlife in the West Kootenay region of British Columbia. BC J Ecosyst Manag 2:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean KA, Trainor AM, Asner GP, Crofoot MC, Hopkins ME, Campbell CJ, Martin RE, Knapp DE, Jansen PA (2016) Movement patterns of three arboreal primates in a Neotropical moist forest explained by LiDAR-estimated canopy structure. Landscape Ecol 31:1849–1862

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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, Wilson KA, Possingham H (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Morsdorf F, Mårell A, Koetz B, Cassagne N, Pimont F, Rigolot E, Allgöwer B (2010) Discrimination of vegetation strata in a multi-layered Mediterranean forest ecosystem using height and intensity information derived from airborne laser scanning. Remote Sens Environ 114:1403–1415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelliti A, Fagiani S, Battisti C, Capizzi D, Boitani L (2010) Independent effects of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and structural connectivity on forest-dependent birds. Divers Distrib 16:941–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mysterud A, Larsen PK, Ims RA, Østbye E (1999) Habitat selection by roe deer and sheep: does habitat ranking reflect resource availability? Can J Zool 77:776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Regions Committee (2006) Natural regions and subregions of Alberta. Compiled by DJ Downing and WW Pettapiece. Government of Alberta, Pub. No. T/852

  • Nijland W, Coops NC, Macdonald SE, Nielsen SE, Bater CW, Stadt JJ (2015) Comparing patterns in forest stand structure following variable harvests using airborne laser scanning data. For Ecol Manag 354:272–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115:135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0

  • Reutebuch SE, Andersen HE, McGaughey JH (2005) Light detection and ranging (LiDAR): an emerging tool for multiple resource inventory. J For 103:286–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenvald R, Lohmus A (2008) For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. For Ecol Manag 255:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothley KD, Rae C (2005) Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environ Model Assess 10:107–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio L, Bodin Ö, Brotons L, Saura S (2015) Connectivity conservation priorities for individual patches evaluated in the present landscape: how durable and effective are they in the long term? Ecography 38:782–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueness EK, Stenseth NC, O’donoghue M, Boutin S, Ellegren H, Jakobsen KS (2003) Ecological and genetic spatial structuring in the Canadian lynx. Nature 425:69–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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 33:523–537

    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 24:135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Vogt P, Velázquez J, Hernando A, Tejera R (2011) Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses. For Ecol Manag 262:150–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Bendiksen E, Birkemoe T, Larsson KH (2014) Do conservation measures in forest work? A comparison of three area-based conservation tools for wood-living species in boreal forests. For Ecol Manag 330:8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson I, Mackey B, McNulty S, Mosseler A (2009) Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. In: A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. CBD Technical Series No. 43, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

  • Uezu A, Metzger JP, Vielliard JME (2005) Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biol Conserv 123:507–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vierling KT, Vierling LA, Gould WA, Martinuzzi S, Clawges RM (2008) Lidar: shedding new light on habitat characterization and modelling. Front Ecol Environ 6:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Sacken A (1998) Interior habitat. In: Voller J, Harrison S (eds) Conservation biology principles for forested landscapes, Chapter 5. UBC Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Kang M, Gao P, Huang H (2010) Contemporary pollen flow and mating patterns of a subtropical canopy tree Eurycorymbus cavaleriei in a fragmented agricultural landscape. For Ecol Manag 260:2180–2188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver JL, Paquet PC, Ruggiero LF (1996) Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv Biol 10:964–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikramanayake E, McKNIGHT M, Dinerstein E, Joshi A, Gurung B, Smith D (2004) Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated environments. Conserv Biol 18:839–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Work TT, Spence JR, Volney WJA, Morgantini LE, Innes JL (2003) Integrating biodiversity and forestry practices in western Canada. Forest Chron 79:906–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulder MA, White JC, Cranny M, Hall RJ, Luther JE, Beaudoin A, Goodenough DG, Dechka JA (2008) Monitoring Canada’ s forests. Part 1: completion of the EOSD land cover project. Can J Remote Sens 34:549–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xun B, Yu D, Wang X (2017) Prioritizing habitat conservation outside protected areas in rapidly urbanizing landscapes: a patch network approach. Landsc Urban Plan 157:532–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JE, Sánchez-Azofeifa GA, Hannon SJ, Chapman R (2006) Trends in land cover change and isolation of protected areas at the interface of the southern boreal mixedwood and aspen parkland in Alberta, Canada. For Ecol Manag 230:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zald HS, Ohmann JL, Roberts HM, Gregory MJ, Henderson EB, McGaughey RJ, Braaten J (2014) Influence of lidar, Landsat imagery, disturbance history, plot location accuracy, and plot size on accuracy of imputation maps of forest composition and structure. Remote Sens Environ 143:26–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Government of Alberta (GOA: 16GRFMB08) and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) (RGPIN 311926-13 and 6563) Discovery grant to N. Coops. The ALS data were provided by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada

    Xuan Guo, Nicholas C. Coops & Sarah E. Gergel

  2. Forest Management Branch, Forestry Division, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Edmonton, AB, T5K 2M4, Canada

    Christopher W. Bater & J. John Stadt

  3. Department of Renewable Resources, Faculty of Agricultural, Life, and Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H1, Canada

    Scott E. Nielsen

  4. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, Delta, BC, V4K 3N2, Canada

    Mark Drever

Authors
  1. Xuan Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas C. Coops
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah E. Gergel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher W. Bater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott E. Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. John Stadt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark Drever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuan Guo.

Appendix

Appendix

Figures 7, 8 and 9.

Fig. 7
figure 7

A demonstration of four habitat patch networks (habitat patches are represented by black dots): a deciduous-dominated patches; b coniferous-dominated patches; c mixedwood-dominated patches; and d wetland-dominated patches

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

A fine-scale view of the network configuration before first step of patch removal for wetland-dominated habitat patches. The nodes selected to be removed were in red color for area-only scenario and in purple color for area-connector scenario. Nodes A1–A4 were scheduled for removal in the area-only scenario because their small patch size. However, these nodes were important stepping stones for the connection of distant nodes: node A2 shortened the link steps needed to traverse between node C1 and C2; similarly, node A3 and A4 were critical connector elements shortening the distance required to traverse between node pair C3 and C4, and node pair C5 and C6 dramatically. In comparison, the nodes removed in area-connector scenario (in purple) were on the periphery of the network configuration and more replaceable as alternative pathways could be identified

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

An example of network spatial configurations at step 15 (the midpoint of simulations) to compare coniferous-dominated patches distribution in area-connector and area-connector-climate scenarios

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, X., Coops, N.C., Gergel, S.E. et al. Integrating airborne lidar and satellite imagery to model habitat connectivity dynamics for spatial conservation prioritization. Landscape Ecol 33, 491–511 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0609-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0609-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation