Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 1117–1129 | Cite as

Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal

  • Michel Baguette
  • Hans Van Dyck


Landscape connectivity can be viewed from two perspectives that could be considered as extremes of a gradient: functional connectivity (refers to how the behavior of a dispersing organism is affected by landscape structure and elements) and structural connectivity (depends on the spatial configuration of habitat patches in the landscape like vicinity or presence of barriers). Here we argue that dispersal behavior changes with landscape configuration stressing the evolutionary dimension that has often been ignored in landscape ecology. Our working hypothesis is that the functional grain of resource patches in the landscape is a crucial factor shaping individual movements, and therefore influencing landscape connectivity. Such changes are likely to occur on the short-term (some generations). We review empirical studies comparing dispersal behavior in landscapes differing in their fragmentation level, i.e., with variable resource grain. We show that behavioral variation affecting each of the three stages of the dispersal process (emigration, displacement or transfer in the matrix, and immigration) is indeed likely to occur according to selective pressures resulting from changes in the grain of the landscape (mortality or deferred costs). Accordingly, landscape connectivity results from the interaction between the dispersal behavior of individuals and the grain of each particular landscape. The existence of this interaction requires that connectivity estimates (being based on individual-based models, least cost distance algorithms, and structural connectivity metrics or even Euclidian distance) should be carefully evaluated for their applicability with respect to the required level of precision in species-specific and landscape information.


Dispersal evolution Behavioral syndrome Life-history traits Animal personalities Habitat fragmentation Landscape grain Biological conservation Ecological network Landscape planning 



We thank Thomas Merckx and Nicolas Schtickzelle for their input to this study. Virginie M. Stevens provided constructive comments on a first draft. This work was funded by a grant from UCL to MB and HVD (FSR06 “Behavioral Ecology of Dispersal”), by grants from the Office of Scientific and Cultural Affairs (Belgian Federal Government) to MB (contracts OSTC-PADD II EV10/16A, 2000–2004, PADD II EV10/26A, 2003–2006, and PADD II support action 2004–2006). MB also acknowledges financial support from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.F.C. 2.4556.05).


  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G et al (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247Google Scholar
  2. Altwegg R, Ringsby TH, Saether BE (2000) Phenotypic correlates and consequences of dispersal in a metapopulation of house sparrows Passer domesticus. J Anim Ecol 69:762–770Google Scholar
  3. Baars MA (1979) Patterns of movements of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44:125–140Google Scholar
  4. Baguette M (2003) Long distance dispersal and landscape occupancy in a metapopulation of the cranberry fritillary butterfly. Ecography 26:153–160Google Scholar
  5. Baguette M, Mennechez G, Petit S et al (2003) Effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal in the butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. C R Biol 326:S200–S209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baguette M, Mennechez G (2004) Resource and habitat patches, landscape ecology and metapopulation biology: a consensual viewpoint. Oikos 106:399–403Google Scholar
  7. Baguette M, Schtickzelle N (2006) Negative relationship between dispersal distance and demography in butterfly metapopulations. Ecology 87:648–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bakker VJ, Van Vuren DH (2004) Gap-crossing decisions by the red squirrel, a forest-dependent small mammal. Conserv Biol 18:689–697Google Scholar
  9. Barbaresi S, Santini G, Tricarico E et al (2004) Ranging behaviour of the invasive crayfish, Procambarus clarkii (Girard). J Nat Hist 38:2821–2832Google Scholar
  10. Baudry J, Merriam HG (1988) Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international seminar of the international association for landscape ecology (ed) Connectivity in landscape ecology munstersche geographische arbeiten, Germany, Münster, pp 43–51Google Scholar
  11. Bayne EM, Hobson KA (2001) Movement patterns of adult male ovenbirds during the post-fledging period in fragmented and forested boreal landscapes. Condor 103:343–351Google Scholar
  12. Belichon S, Clobert J, Massot M (1996) Are there differences in fitness components between philopatric and dispersing individuals? Acta Oecol 17:503–517Google Scholar
  13. Belisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995Google Scholar
  14. Belisle M, Desrochers A (2002) Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landsc Ecol 17:219–231Google Scholar
  15. Bell WJ (1991) Searching behaviour. The behavioural ecology of finding resources. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Bennet AF (1999) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Bosschieter L, Goedhart PW (2005) Gap crossing decisions by reed warblers (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol 20:455–468Google Scholar
  18. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landsc Ecol 19:1–20Google Scholar
  20. Burel F, Baudry J (2003) Landscape ecology: concepts, methods and applications. Science Publishers, EnfieldGoogle Scholar
  21. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536Google Scholar
  22. Castellon TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Casula P (2006) Evaluating hypotheses about dispersal in a vulnerable butterfly. Ecol Res 21:263–270Google Scholar
  24. Clobert J, De Fraipont M, Danchin E (2005) L’évolution de la dispersion. In: Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Cezilly F (eds) Ecologie comportementale. Dunod, Paris, pp 199–232Google Scholar
  25. Clobert J, Ims RA, Rousset F (2004) Causes, mechanisms and consequences of dispersal. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulation. Academic, Amsterdam, pp 307–335Google Scholar
  26. Coulon A, Cosson JF, Angibault JM et al (2004) Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol Ecol 13:2841–2850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426Google Scholar
  28. Dingemanse NJ, Both C, van Noordwijk AJ et al (2003) Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:741–747Google Scholar
  29. Dingle H (1968) The influence of environment and heredity on flight activity in the milkweed bug Oncopeltus. J Exp Biol 48:175–184Google Scholar
  30. Doerr ED, Doerr VAJ (2005) Dispersal range analysis: quantifying individual variation in dispersal behaviour. Oecologia 142:1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Doncaster CP, Rondinini C, Johnson PCD (2001) Field test for environmental correlates of dispersal in hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus. J Anim Ecol 70:33–46Google Scholar
  32. Dover JW, Fry GLA (2001) Experimental simulation of some visual and physical components of a hedge and the effects on butterfly behaviour in an agricultural landscape. Entomol Exp Appl 100:221–223Google Scholar
  33. Drent PJ, van Oers K, van Noordwijk AJ (2003) Realized heritability of personalities in the great tit (Parus major). Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:45–51Google Scholar
  34. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Fraser DF, Gilliam JF, Daley MJ et al (2001) Explaining leptokurtic movement distributions: intrapopulation variation in boldness and exploration. Am Nat 158:124–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis. Can J Zool-Rev Can Zool 80:24–35Google Scholar
  37. Grimm V, Railsback SF (2005) Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  38. Gundersen G, Andreassen HP, Ims RA (2002) Individual and population level determinants of immigration success on local habitat patches: an experimental approach. Ecol Lett 5:294–301Google Scholar
  39. Haag CR, Saastamoinen M, Marden JH et al (2005) A candidate locus for variation in dispersal rate in a butterfly metapopulation. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 272:2449–2456Google Scholar
  40. Haddad NM (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9:612–622Google Scholar
  41. Haddad NM, Tewksbury JJ (2005) Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecol Appl 15:250–257Google Scholar
  42. Hanski I (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219Google Scholar
  43. Hanski I, Alho J, Moilanen A (2000) Estimating the parameters of survival and migration of individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81:239–251Google Scholar
  44. Hanski I, Eralahti C, Kankare M et al (2004) Variation in migration propensity among individuals maintained by landscape structure. Ecol Lett 7:958–966Google Scholar
  45. Hanski I, Saastamoinen M, Ovaskainen O (2006) Dispersal-related life-history trade-offs in a butterfly metapopulation. J Anim Ecol 75:91–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54Google Scholar
  47. Hein S, Poethke HJ, Hovestadt T (2005) Computer-generated null models as an approach to detect perceptual range in mark-re-sight studies—an example with grasshoppers. Ecol Entomol 30:225–233Google Scholar
  48. Ims RA, Yoccoz N (1997) Studying transfer processes in metapopulations: emigration, migration and colonization. In: Hanski I, Gilpin M (eds) Metapopulation biology. Ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic, San Diego, pp 247–265Google Scholar
  49. Johnson CG (1969) Migration and dispersal by flight. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson CJ, Parker KL, Heard DC et al (2002) Movement parameters of ungulates and scale-specific responses to the environment. J Anim Ecol 71:225–235Google Scholar
  51. Jongman R, Pungetti G (2004) Ecological networks and greenways. Concepts, design, implementation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Keyghobadi N, Roland J, Strobeck C (2005) Genetic differentiation and gene flow among populations of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus, vary with landscape connectivity. Mol Ecol 14:1897–1909PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Kotliar N, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260Google Scholar
  54. Le Galliard JF, Ferriere R, Clobert J (2005) Effect of patch occupancy on immigration in the common lizard. J Anim Ecol 74:241–249Google Scholar
  55. Lemel JY, Belichon S, Clobert J et al (1997) The evolution of dispersal in a two-patch system: Some consequences of differences between migrants and residents. Evol Ecol 11:613–629Google Scholar
  56. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135Google Scholar
  57. Lin YK, Batzli GO (2004) Emigration to new habitats by voles: the cost of dispersal paradox. Anim Behav 68:367–372Google Scholar
  58. Matter SF, Roland J, Moilanen A et al (2004) Migration and survival of Parnassius smintheus: detecting effects of habitat for individual butterflies. Ecol Appl 14:1526–1534Google Scholar
  59. McDougall PT, Reale D, Sol D et al (2006) Wildlife conservation and animal temperament: causes and consequences of evolutionary change for captive, reintroduced, and wild populations. Anim Conserv 9:39–48Google Scholar
  60. Mennechez G, Petit S, Schtickzelle N et al (2004) Modelling mortality and dispersal: consequences of parameter generalisation on metapopulation dynamics. Oikos 106:243–252Google Scholar
  61. Merckx T, Van Dyck H, Karlsson B et al (2003) The evolution of movements and behaviour at boundaries in different landscapes: a common arena experiment with butterflies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1815–1821Google Scholar
  62. Merckx T, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape of origin affects habitat-finding ability of the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria). Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  63. Michels E, Cottenie K, Neys L et al (2001) Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modelling of the effective geographical distance. Mol Ecol 10:1929–1938PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151Google Scholar
  65. Morales JM (2002) Behavior at habitat boundaries can produce leptokurtic movement distributions. Am Nat 160:531–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Olivieri I, Gouyon PH (1997) Evolution of migration rate and other traits; the metapopulation effect. In: Hanski I, Gilpin M (eds) Metapopulation biology. Ecology, genetics, evolution. Academic, San Diego, pp 293–324Google Scholar
  67. Pither J, Taylor PD (1998) An experimental asessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83:166–174Google Scholar
  68. Rankin MA, Burchsted JCA (1992) The cost of migration in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 37:533–559Google Scholar
  69. Rankin MA, McAnelly ML, Bodenhamer JE (1984) The oogenesis-flight syndrome revisited. In: Danthanarayana W (ed) Insect flight. Dispersal and migration. Springer, Berlin, pp 27–48Google Scholar
  70. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F et al (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Rittenhouse AAG, Semlitsch RD (2006) Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated salamander: migration behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biol Conserv 131:14–22Google Scholar
  72. Roff DA (1977) Dispersal in dipterans: its costs and consequences. J Anim Ecol 46:443–456Google Scholar
  73. Roff DA, Fairbairn D (2001) The genetic basis of dispersal and migration, and its consequences for the evolution of correlated traits. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA et al (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 191–202Google Scholar
  74. Sakai HF, Noon BR (1997) Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation. J Wildl Manage 61:343–350Google Scholar
  75. Schadt S, Revilla E, Wiegand T et al (2002) Assessing the suitability of central European landscapes for the reintroduction of Eurasian lynx. J Appl Ecol 39:189–203Google Scholar
  76. Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2004) Movements of cactus bugs: patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability. Landsc Ecol 19:801–810Google Scholar
  77. Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationship in fragmented landscapes with low quality matrix. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545Google Scholar
  78. Schtickzelle N, Mennechez G, Baguette M (2006) Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87:1057–1065PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Schtickzelle N, Joiris A, Van Dyck H et al (2007) Quantitative analysis of changes in movement behaviour within and outside habitat in a specialist butterfly. BMC Evol Biol 7:7Google Scholar
  80. Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292Google Scholar
  81. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behaviour in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892Google Scholar
  82. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004a) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Sih A, Bell AM, Johnson JC et al (2004b) Behavioral syndromes: an integrative overview. Q Rev Biol 79:241–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith JE, Batzli GO (2006) Dispersal and mortality of prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) in fragmented landscapes: a field experiment. Oikos 112:209–217Google Scholar
  85. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Reid ML (2005) Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology 86:510–518Google Scholar
  86. Stevens VM, Polus E, Wesselingh RA et al (2004) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Landsc Ecol 19:829–842Google Scholar
  87. Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S et al (2006a) Gene flow and functional connectivity in the Natterjack toad. Mol Ecol 15:2333–2444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Stevens VM, Leboulenge E, Wesselingh RA et al (2006b) Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Oecologia 150:161–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Sutcliffe OL, Bakkestuen V, Fry G et al (2003) Modelling the benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly movement. Landsc Urban Plan 63:15–31Google Scholar
  90. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K et al (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573Google Scholar
  91. Taylor PD, Merriam G (1995) Wing morphology of a forest damselfly is related to landscape structure. Oikos 73:43–48Google Scholar
  92. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19Google Scholar
  93. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95:152–155Google Scholar
  94. Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviourl in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545Google Scholar
  95. Van Dyck H, Matthysen E (1999) Habitat fragmentation and insect flight: a changing ‘design’ in a changing landscape? Trends Ecol Evol 14:172–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Vanvuren D, Armitage KB (1994) Survival of dispersing and philopatric yellow-bellied marmots—what is the cost of dispersal. Oikos 69:179–181Google Scholar
  97. Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaensen F et al (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landsc Ecol 18:791–805Google Scholar
  98. Vignieri SN (2005) Streams over mountains: influence of riparian connectivity on gene flow in the Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus). Mol Ecol 14:1925–1937PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Vuilleumier S, Perrin N (2006) Effects of cognitive abilities on metapopulation connectivity. Oikos 113:139–147Google Scholar
  100. Watt WB, Boggs CL (2003) Synthesis: butterflies as model systems in ecology and evolution—present and future. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 603–613Google Scholar
  101. Wiegand TM, Naves J, Stephan T et al (1998) Assessing the risk of extinction for the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Cordillera Cantabrica, Spain. Ecol Appl 68:539–570Google Scholar
  102. Wiegand TM, Naves J, Knauer F (1999) Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. Am Nat 154:605–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397Google Scholar
  104. Wilson DS (1998) Adaptive individual differences within single populations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 353:199–205Google Scholar
  105. Wilson DS, Clark AB, Coleman K et al (1994) Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals. Trends Ecol Evol 9:442–446Google Scholar
  106. Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE et al (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology 80:1019–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département Ecologie et Gestion de la BiodiversitéMuséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR CNRS-MNHN 7179BrunoyFrance
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and BiogeographyUniversity of LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations