Aquatic Sciences

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 573–585 | Cite as

Longitudinal connectivity loss in a riverine network: accounting for the likelihood of upstream and downstream movement across dams

  • Gonzalo Rincón
  • Joaquín Solana-Gutiérrez
  • Carlos Alonso
  • Santiago Saura
  • Diego García de Jalón
Research Article


Disruption of longitudinal connectivity is a major concern in most of the world´s rivers. Approaches based on graph theory have proven to be a suitable tool for analysing functional connectivity. However, previous applications of graph-based connectivity methods to river systems have been oversimplified in that they have treated potential barriers as binary features and rivers as symmetric networks. We here apply a network analytical approach in which (a) upstream and downstream connectivity are considered so that fish passability values across dams are asymmetrical, and (b) it is possible to consider a continuous range of passability values for every dam. We build on previous and widely used connectivity metrics (Probability of Connectivity, PC), which here are generalised and adapted toward that end. We compare the results of our approach with those that would be obtained under the more simplified assumptions of symmetric movement and of barriers as binary features. We want to prove if there are substantial differences between considering or not the asymmetry in river networks. The application of symmetrical and asymmetrical PC highlights major differences between the upstream connectivity versus the downstream connectivity. We provide our methods in a free software package so that they can be used in any other application to riverscapes. We expect to provide a better graph-based approach for the prioritisation of the removal or permeabilization of artificial obstacles as well as for the preservation of target river segments for connectivity conservation and restoration.


Longitudinal connectivity Fish passability Graph theory Directional networks Asymmetric dispersal Riverscapes 



Part of this study has been supported by 7th Framework Programme of the European Union (DURERO Project C1 3913442). We thank Gustavo González and his team for the valuable information about connectivity and barrier passability in the Duero River Basin. We would like to express our thanks to Pablo Moreno and Vanesa Martínez-Fernández for their comments which improved the quality of the paper. Two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their helpful comments and insights.


  1. Baranyi G, Saura S, Podani J, Jordán F (2011) Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol Indic 11:1301–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bednarek AT (2001) Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manage 27(6):803–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjornn TC, Peery CA (1992) A review of literature related to movements of adult salmon and steelhead past dams and through reservoirs in the Lower Snake River. Technical Report 92–1, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodin Ö (2009) Ecological topology and networks. In: Meyers S. (ed) Encyclopedia of complexity and system Science. Springer, New York, pp 2728–2744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodin Ö, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Modell 221:2393–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourne CM, Kehler DG, Wiersma YF, Cote D (2011) Barriers to fish passage and barriers to fish passage assessments: the impact of assessment methods and assumptions on barrier identification and quantification of watershed connectivity. Aquat Ecol 45:389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branco P, Segurado P, Santos JM, Pinheiro P, Ferreirs MT (2012) Does longitudinal connectivity loss affect the distribution of freshwater fish? Ecol Eng 48:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison shoppers´ guide to connectivity metrics: trading of between data requirement and information content. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carranza ML, D’Alessandro E, Saura S, Loy A (2012) Connectivity providers for semi-aquatic vertebrates: the case of the endangered otter in Italy. Landscape Ecol 27:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CHD (2009) Plan hidrológico del Duero. Plan hidrológico de la parte española de la demarcación hidrográfica del Duero propuesta de proyecto de plan hidrológico de cuenca. EspañaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cote D, Kehler DG, Bourne C, Wiersma YF (2009) A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landscape Ecol 24:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erös T, Schmera D, Schick RS (2011) Network thinking in riverscape conservation—a graph-based approach. Biol Conserv 144:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erös T, Olden JD, Schick RS, Schmera D, Fortin M-J (2012) Characterizing connectivity relationships in freshwaters using patch-based graphs. Landscape Ecol 27:303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erős T, Grant, EHC (2015) Unifying research on the fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats: patches, connectivity and the matrix in riverscapes. Freshw Biol 60(8):1487–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. González Fernández G, Pérez Cardenal D, Miguelez Carbajo D, Gallego García R, Fernández Suárez R, Álvarez Durango E, Canal Rubio P, Roa Álvarez I, Rosa Cubo E, Seisdedos Fidalgo P (2010) Diagnóstico de la conectividad longitudinal en la Cuenca del Duero. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino. Available on
  16. Gough P, Philipsen P, Schollema PP, Wanningen H (2012) From sea to source: International guidance for the restoration of fish migration highways. Regional Water Authority Hunze en Aa´s. The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant EHC (2011) Structural complexity, movement bias, and metapopulation extinction risk in dendritic ecological networks. J N Am Benthol Soc 30(1):252–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant EHC, Lowe WH, Fagan WF (2007) Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. Ecol Lett 10(2):165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ Jr, Merenlender A (2012). Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Januchowski-Hartley SR, McIntyre PB, Diebel M, Doran PJ, Infante DM, Joseph C, Allan JD (2013) Restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity requires expanding inventories of both dams and road crossings. Front Ecol Environ 11(4):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Junta de Castilla y León (1997) Estudio de las poblaciones piscícolas del río Cega (Segovia). Technical Report: Estudios Biológicos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  22. Kondolf GM, Boulton AJ, O’Daniel S, Poole GC, Rahel FJ, Stanley EH, Whol E, Bång A, Carlstrom J, Cristoni C, Huber H, Koljonen S, Louhi P, Nakamura K (2006) Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecol Soc 11(2):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lucas MC, Baras E, Thom TJ, Duncan A, Slavík O (2001) Migration of freshwater fishes, vol 47. Blackwell Science, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:297–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicola GG, Elvira B, Almodovar A (1996) Dams and fish passage facilities in the large rivers of Spain: effects on migratory species. Large Rivers 10:375–379Google Scholar
  27. O’Hanley JR (2011) Open rivers: barrier removal planning and the restoration of free-flowing rivers. J Environ Manage 92(12):3112–3120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Hanley JR, Tomberlin D (2005) Optimizing the removal of small fish passage barriers. Environ Model Assess 10(2):85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oki T, Kanae S (2006) Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313(5790):1068–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Padgham M, Webb JA (2010) Multiple structural modifications to dendritic ecological networks produce simple responses. Ecol Modell 221(21):2537–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 21:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rahel FJ, Olden JD (2008) Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species. Conserv Biol 22:521–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rivers-Moore N, Mantel S, Ramulifo P, Dallas H (2016) A disconnectivity index for improving choices in managing protected areas for rivers. Aquatic Conservation: Marine Freshwater Ecosystems 26(S1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Santiago JM, García de Jalón D, Alonso C, Solana J, Ribalaygua J, Pórtoles J, Monjo R (2015) Brown trout thermal niche and climate change: expected changes in the distribution of cold-water fish in central Spain. EcohydrolGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. Landscape Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 33:523–537Google Scholar
  37. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24: 135–139.Google Scholar
  38. Saura S, Torné J (2012) Conefor 2.6 user manual (April 2012). Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Available at
  39. Schick RS, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. J Appl Ecol 44:1116–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Segurado P, Branco P, Ferreira MT (2013) Prioritizing restoration of structural connectivity in rivers: a graph based approach. Landscape Ecol 28:1231–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Segurado P, Branco P, Avelar AP, Ferreira MT (2014) Historical changes in the functional connectivity of river based on spatial networks analysis and the past occurrences of diadromous species in Portugal. Aquatic SciGoogle Scholar
  42. Tockner K, Schiemer F, Ward JV (1998) Conservation by restoration: the management concept for a river-floodplain system on the Danube River in Austria. Aquat Conserv 8:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ward JV (1989) The four-dimensional nature of the lotic ecosystem. J N Am Benthol Soc 8:2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiens JA (2002) Riverine landscapes: taking landscape ecology into the water. Freshw Biol 47(4):501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonzalo Rincón
    • 1
  • Joaquín Solana-Gutiérrez
    • 1
  • Carlos Alonso
    • 1
  • Santiago Saura
    • 1
  • Diego García de Jalón
    • 1
  1. 1.E.T.S.I. Montes, Forestal y del Medio NaturalUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations