Abstract
The loss of connectivity of natural areas is a major threat for wildlife dispersal and survival and for the conservation of biodiversity in general. Thus, there is an increasing interest in considering connectivity in landscape planning and habitat conservation. In this context, graph structures have been shown to be a powerful and effective way of both representing the landscape pattern as a network and performing complex analysis regarding landscape connectivity. Many indices have been used for connectivity analyses so far but comparatively very little efforts have been made to understand their behaviour and sensitivity to spatial changes, which seriously undermines their adequate interpretation and usefulness. We systematically compare a set of ten graph-based connectivity indices, evaluating their reaction to different types of change that can occur in the landscape (habitat patches loss, corridors loss, etc.) and their effectiveness for identifying which landscape elements are more critical for habitat conservation. Many of the available indices were found to present serious limitations that make them inadequate as a basis for conservation planning. We present a new index (IIC) that achieves all the properties of an ideal index according to our analysis. We suggest that the connectivity problem should be considered within the wider concept of habitat availability, which considers a habitat patch itself as a space where connectivity exists, integrating habitat amount and connectivity between habitat patches in a single measure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
References
A.G. Bunn D.L. Urban T.H. Keitt (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory J. Environ. Manag. 59 265–278 10.1006/jema.2000.0373
J.M. Calabrese W.F. Fagan (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics Front. Ecol. Environ. 2 529–536
C. Grashof-Bokdam (1997) Forest species in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands:effects of habitat fragmentation J. Veg. Sci. 8 21–28 10.2307/3237238
J.A.G. Jaeger (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation Landsc. Ecol. 15 115–130 10.1023/A:1008129329289
A.R. Johnson J.A. Wiens B.T. Milne T.O. Crist (1992) Animal movements and population-dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes Landsc. Ecol. 7 63–75
F. Jordan A. Baldi K.M. Orci I. Racz Z. Varga (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation Landsc. Ecol. 18 83–92 10.1023/A:1022958003528
T.H. Keitt D.L. Urban B.T. Milne (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes Conserv. Ecol. [online] 1 4
H.B. Li J.G. Wu (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices Landsc. Ecol. 19 389–399 10.1023/B:LAND.0000030441.15628.d6
A. Moilanen M. Nieminen (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology Ecology 83 1131–1145
H.R. Pulliam (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation Am. Nat. 132 652–661 10.1086/284880
C. Ricotta A. Stanisci G.C. Avena C. Blasi (2000) Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach Commun. Ecol. 1 89–94 10.1556/ComEc.1.2000.1.12
P. Schippers J. Verboom J.P. Knaapen R.C. van Apeldoorn (1996) Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model Ecography 19 97–106 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1996.tb00160.x
N.H. Schumaker (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity Ecology 77 1210–1225 10.2307/2265590
V.M. Stevens E. Polus R.A. Wesselingh N. Schtickzelle M. Baguette (2004) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) Landsc. Ecol. 19 829–842 10.1007/s10980-004-0166-6
P.D. Taylor L. Fahrig K. Henein G. Merriam (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure Oikos 3 571–573
L. Tischendorf L. Fahrig (2000a) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landsc. Ecol. 15 633–641 10.1023/A:1008177324187
L. Tischendorf L. Fahring (2000b) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity Oikos 90 7–19 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x
D. Urban T. Keitt (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective Ecology 82 1205–1218 10.2307/2679983
G. Verbeylen L. Bruyn De F. Adriaensen E. Matthysen (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landsc. Ecol. 18 791–805 10.1023/B:LAND.0000014492.50765.05
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pascual-Hortal, L., Saura, S. 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 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
Keywords
- Connectivity
- Conservation priorities
- Corridors
- Graph theory
- Habitat fragmentation
- Habitat loss
- Landscape metrics
- Landscape planning
- Patches
- Spatial indices