Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 239–250 | Cite as

Restoring habitat corridors in fragmented landscapes using optimization and percolation models

Article

Landscape fragmentation and habitat loss are significant threats to the conservation of biological diversity. Creating and restoring corridors between isolated habitat patches can help mitigate or reverse the impacts of fragmentation. It is important that restoration and protection efforts be undertaken in the most efficient and effective way possible because conservation budgets are often severely limited. We address the question of where restoration should take place to efficiently reconnect habitat with a landscape-spanning corridor. Building upon findings in percolation theory, we develop a shortest-path optimization methodology for assessing the minimum amount of restoration needed to establish such corridors. This methodology is applied to large numbers of simulated fragmented landscapes to generate mean and variance statistics for the amount of restoration needed. The results provide new information about the expected level of resources needed to realize different corridor configurations under different degrees of fragmentation and different characterizations of habitat connectivity (“neighbor rules”). These results are expected to be of interest to conservation planners and managers in the allocation of conservation resources to restoration projects.

Keywords

conservation planning habitat fragmentation landscape restoration mathematical programming percolation theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This research was supported by a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Interdisciplinary Science Program. We gratefully acknowledge their support.

References

  1. 1.
    D.A. Saunders, R.J. Hobbs and C.R. Margules, Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review, Conserv. Biol. 5 (1991) 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.P. Dobson, A.D. Bradshaw and A.J.M. Baker, Hopes for the future: restoration ecology and conservation biology, Science 277 (1997) 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.M. Urbanska, N.R. Webb and P.J. Edwards, Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development (Cambridge University Press, UK, 1997).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.J. Berger, ed., Environmental Restoration (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1990).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.G. Whisenant, Repairing Damaged Wildlands (Cambridge University Press, UK, 1999).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.H. Hampson and G.F. Peterken, Enhancing the biodiversity of Scotland's forest resource through the development of a network of forest habitats, Biodivers. Conserv. 7 (1998) 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.S. ReVelle, J.C. Williams and J.J. Boland, Counterpart models in facility location science and reserve selection science, Environ. Model. Assess. 7(2) (2002) 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.S. Rodrigues and K.J. Gaston, Optimisation in reserves selection procedures – why not?, Biol. Conserv. 107 (2002) 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Hof, M. Bevers, L. Joyce and B. Kent, An integer programming approach for spatially and temporally optimizing wildlife populations, For. Sci. 40 (1994) 177–191.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.A. Snyder, L.E. Tyrrell and R.G. Haight, An optimization approach to selecting research natural areas in national forests, For. Sci. 45 (1999) 458–469.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Sessions, Solving for habitat connections as a Steiner network problem, For. Sci. 38 (1992) 203–207.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.C. Williams, Delineating protected wildlife corridors with multi-objective programming, Environ. Model. Assess. 3 (1998) 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.L. Tucker, D.B. Rideout and R.B. Shaw, Using linear programming to optimize rehabilitation and restoration of injured land: an application to US army training sites, J. Environ. Manag. 52 (1998) 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K.A. With, The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology, Conserv. Biol. 11 (1997) 1069–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.H. Gardner, B.T. Milne, M.G. Turner and R.V. O'Neill, Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern, Landsc. Ecol. 1 (1987) 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K.A. With and T.O. Crist, Critical thresholds in species' responses to landscape structure, Ecology 76 (1995) 2446–2459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Tischendorf and L. Fahrig, On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity, Oikos 90 (2000) 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    R.E. Plotnick and R.H. Gardner, Lattices and landscapes, Lect. Math. Life Sci. 23 (1993) 129–157.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, Introduction to Percolation Theory (Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA, 1994).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S.M. Pearson, M.G. Turner, R.H. Gardner and R.V. O'Neill, Anorganism-based perspective of habitat fragmentation, in: Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes, eds. R.C. Szaro and D.W.Johnston (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996) pp. 77–95Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Simberloff and J. Cox, Consequences and costs of conservation corridors, Conserv. Biol. 1(1) (1987) 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.F. Noss, Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox, Conserv. Biol. 1(2) (1987) 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.J. Hobbs, The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon?, Trends Ecol. Evol. 7(11) (1992) 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Simberloff, J.A. Farr, J. Cox and D.W. Mehlman, Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?, Conserv. Biol. 6(4) (1992) 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Beier and R.F. Noss, Do habitat corridors provide connectivity?, Conserv. Biol. 12(6) (1998) 1241–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D.J.D. Earn, S.A. Levin and P. Rohani, Coherence and conservation, Science 290 (2000) 1360–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M.E. Soule and M.E. Gilpin, The theory of wildlife corridor capability, in: Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors, eds. D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (Surrey Beatty & Sons, New South Wales, 1991) pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R.T.T. Forman, Landscape corridors: from theoretical foundations to public policy, in: Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors, eds. D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs (Surrey Beatty & Sons, New South Wales, 1991) pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    F.K. Hwang, D.S. Richards and P. Winter, The Steiner Tree Problem (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    F.S. Hillier and G.J. Lieberman, Introduction to Operations Research (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G.B. Dantzig, Linear Programming and Extensions (Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1963).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. Gallo and S. Pallottino, Shortest path algorithms, Ann. Oper. Res. 13 (1988) 3–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Cohon, Multiobjective Programming and Planning (Academic Press, New York, 1978).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    R.V. O'Neill, R.H. Gardner and M.G. Turner, A hierarchical neutral model for landscape analysis, Landsc. Ecol. 7 (1992) 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R.H. Gardner, R.V. O'Neill and M.G. Turner, Ecological implications of landscape fragmentation, in: Humans as Components of Ecosystems, eds. M.J. McDonnell and S.T.A. Pickett (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993) pp. 208–225.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    K.A. With, R.H. Gardner and M.G. Turner, Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments, Oikos 78 (1997) 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Forest ServiceNorth Central Research StationSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations