Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 959–967 | Cite as

Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation

  • Lucía Pascual-Hortal
  • Santiago SauraEmail author
Brief note

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.

Keywords

Connectivity Conservation priorities Corridors Graph theory Habitat fragmentation Habitat loss Landscape metrics Landscape planning Patches Spatial indices 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bunn, A.G., Urban, D.L., Keitt, T.H. 2000Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theoryJ. Environ. Manag.59265278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calabrese, J.M., Fagan, W.F. 2004A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metricsFront. Ecol. Environ.2529536Google Scholar
  3. Grashof-Bokdam, C. 1997Forest species in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands:effects of habitat fragmentationJ. Veg. Sci.82128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Jaeger, J.A.G. 2000Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentationLandsc. Ecol.15115130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson, A.R., Wiens, J.A., Milne, B.T., Crist, T.O. 1992Animal movements and population-dynamics in heterogeneous landscapesLandsc. Ecol.76375Google Scholar
  6. Jordan, F., Baldi, A., Orci, K.M., Racz, I., Varga, Z. 2003Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulationLandsc. Ecol.188392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keitt, T.H., Urban, D.L., Milne, B.T. 1997Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapesConserv. Ecol. [online]14URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol11/iss1/art4Google Scholar
  8. Li, H.B., Wu, J.G. 2004Use and misuse of landscape indicesLandsc. Ecol.19389399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Moilanen, A., Nieminen, M. 2002Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecologyEcology8311311145Google Scholar
  10. Pulliam, H.R. 1988Sources, sinks and population regulationAm. Nat.132652661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ricotta, C., Stanisci, A., Avena, G.C., Blasi, C. 2000Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approachCommun. Ecol.18994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schippers, P., Verboom, J., Knaapen, J.P., van Apeldoorn, R.C. 1996Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk modelEcography1997106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schumaker, N.H. 1996Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivityEcology7712101225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stevens, V.M., Polus, E., Wesselingh, R.A., Schtickzelle, N., Baguette, M. 2004Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita)Landsc. Ecol.19829842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., Merriam, G. 1993Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structureOikos3571573Google Scholar
  16. Tischendorf, L., Fahrig, L. 2000aHow should we measure landscape connectivity?Landsc. Ecol.15633641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tischendorf, L., Fahring, L. 2000bOn the usage and measurement of landscape connectivityOikos90719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Urban, D., Keitt, T. 2001Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspectiveEcology8212051218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Verbeylen, G., Bruyn, L., Adriaensen, F., Matthysen, E. 2003Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape?Landsc. Ecol.18791805CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agroforestry Engineering, Higher Technical School of Agrarian Engineering (ETSEA)University of LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations