Population Ecology

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 193–203 | Cite as

Coupling inter-patch movement models and landscape graph to assess functional connectivity

  • Benjamin Bergerot
  • Pierline Tournant
  • Jean-Pierre Moussus
  • Virginie-M. Stevens
  • Romain Julliard
  • Michel Baguette
  • Jean-Christophe Foltête
Original article

Abstract

Landscape connectivity is a key process for the functioning and persistence of spatially-structured populations in fragmented landscapes. Butterflies are particularly sensitive to landscape change and are excellent model organisms to study landscape connectivity. Here, we infer functional connectivity from the assessment of the selection of different landscape elements in a highly fragmented landscape in the Île-de-France region (France). Firstly we measured the butterfly preferences of the Large White butterfly (Pieris brassicae) in different landscape elements using individual release experiments. Secondly, we used an inter-patch movement model based on butterfly choices to build the selection map of the landscape elements to moving butterflies. From this map, functional connectivity network of P. brassicae was modelled using landscape graph-based approach. In our study area, we identified nine components/groups of connected habitat patches, eight of them located in urbanized areas, whereas the last one covered the more rural areas. Eventually, we provided elements to validate the predictions of our model with independent experiments of mass release-recapture of butterflies. Our study shows (1) the efficiency of our inter-patch movement model based on species preferences in predicting complex ecological processes such as dispersal and (2) how inter-patch movement model results coupled to landscape graph can assess landscape functional connectivity at large spatial scales.

Keywords

Dispersal Fragmented landscape Inter-patch movement modelling Lepidoptera Pieris brassicae Urbanization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We particularly thank volunteers for their observation and participation to the study and Natureparif, Audrey Coulon for the caterpillars rearing, Leyli Borner and all the Evoltrait team based in Brunoy for their support and useful help in this study. We especially thank the two anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly improved this manuscript. MB’s contribution was funded by a grant from the ANR (Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Open Call DIAME 2008-2011 DIspersal And MEtapopulations). This project was supported by the SCALE project. The graph analysis was conducted in the framework of the Graphab project of the USR 3124 MSHE Ledoux, funded by the French Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Sea.

References

  1. Andersson E, Bodin O (2009) Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergerot B, Julliard R, Baguette M (2010a) Metacommunity dynamics: decline of functional relationship along a habitat fragmentation gradient. PLoS ONE 5(6):e11294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011294 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergerot B, Fontaine B, Renard M, Cadi A, Julliard R (2010b) Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies. Landsc Urban Plan 96:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergerot B, Merckx T, Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2012) Habitat fragmentation impacts mobility in a common and widespread woodland butterfly: do sexes respond differently? BMC Ecology 12(5). doi: 10.1186/1472-6785-12-5
  6. Bink BA (1992) Ecologische atlas van de Dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa (Ecological Atlas of the Butterflies of NW Europe). Schuyt & Co, HaarlemGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landsc Ecol 19:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manage 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhont AA, Nichols JD (2001) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Clobert J, Le Gaillard JF, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12:197–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2007) Support for mending the matrix: resource seeking by butterflies in apparent non-resource zones. J Insect Conserv 11:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fall A, Fortin MJ, Manseau M, O’Brien D (2007) Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 10:448–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feltwell J (1981) Large white butterfly: the biology, biochemistry, and physiology of Pieris Brassicae. DRW junk publishers, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foltête J-C, Clauzel C, Vuidel G, Tournant P (2012) Integrating graph-based connectivity metrics into species distribution models. Landsc Ecol 27:557–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haddad NN (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9:612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haddad NN, Tewksbury JJ (2005) Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecol Appl 15:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Laita A, KotiahoJ Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landsc Ecol 26:951–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20:427–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merckx T, Van Dyck H, Karlsson B, Leimar O (2003) The evolution of movements and behaviour at boundaries in different landscapes: a common arena experiment with butterflies. Proc R Soc B 270:1815–1821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minor ES, Lookingbill TR (2010) A multiscale network analysis of protected-area connectivity for mammals in the United States. Conserv Biol 24:1549–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrison ML, Hall LS (2002) Standard terminology: toward a common language to advance ecological understanding and application. In: Scott JM, Heglund P, Morrisson ML, Raven PH (eds) Predicting species occurrences. Issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Washington, pp 43–52Google Scholar
  26. Morzillo AT, Ferrari JR, Liu JG (2011) An integration of habitat evaluation, individual based modeling, and graph theory for a potential black bear population recovery in southeastern Texas, USA. Landsc Ecol 26:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ockinger E, Dannestam A, Smith HG (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc Urban Plan 93:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stefanescu C, Herrando S, Paramo F (2004) Butterfly species richness in the north-west Mediterranean Basin: the role of natural and human-induced factors. J Biogeogr 31:905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006) Gene flow and functional connectivity in the natterjack toad. Mol Ecol 15:2333–2344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens VM, Turlure C, Baguette M (2010) A meta-analysis of dispersal in butterflies. Biol Rev 85:625–642PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19:3496–3514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor PD, Farhig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas CD (2000) Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc B 267:139–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  39. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Urban D, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Halder I, Barbaro L, Corcket E, Jactel H (2008) Importance of semi-natural habitats for the conservation of butterfly communities dominated by pine plantations. Biodivers Conserv 5:1149–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilcove DS, McLellan CH, Dobson AP (1986) Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. In: Soulé ME (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Assoc, Sunderland, pp 237–256Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin Bergerot
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pierline Tournant
    • 3
  • Jean-Pierre Moussus
    • 1
  • Virginie-M. Stevens
    • 4
    • 5
  • Romain Julliard
    • 1
  • Michel Baguette
    • 1
    • 5
  • Jean-Christophe Foltête
    • 3
  1. 1.CNRS-MNHN-PARIS VI UMR 7204‘Conservation des Espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations’, CRBPOParisFrance
  2. 2.Hepia, Centre de LullierUniversity of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Technology, Architecture and LandscapeJussySwitzerland
  3. 3.CNRS-UMR ThéMA 6049, Université de Franche-ComtéBesançon CedexFrance
  4. 4.F.R.S. FNRS, Unité de Biologie Du ComportementUniversité de LiègeLiègeBelgium
  5. 5.CNRS USR 2936 ‘Station d’écologie expérimentale du CNRSMoulisFrance

Personalised recommendations