Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 291–301 | Cite as

Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats

  • Diogo AlagadorEmail author
  • Maria Triviño
  • Jorge Orestes Cerdeira
  • Raul Brás
  • Mar Cabeza
  • Miguel Bastos Araújo
Research Article

Abstract

Habitat fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity. To minimise the effect of fragmentation on biodiversity, connectivity between otherwise isolated habitats should be promoted. However, the identification of linkages favouring connectivity is not trivial. Firstly, they compete with other land uses, so they need to be cost-efficient. Secondly, linkages for one species might be barriers for others, so they should effectively account for distinct mobility requirements. Thirdly, detailed information on the auto-ecology of most of the species is lacking, so linkages need being defined based on surrogates. In order to address these challenges we develop a framework that (a) identifies environmentally-similar habitats; (b) identifies environmental barriers (i.e., regions with a very distinct environment from the areas to be linked), and; (c) determines cost-efficient linkages between environmentally-similar habitats, free from environmental barriers. The assumption is that species with similar ecological requirements occupy the same environments, so environmental similarity provides a rationale for the identification of the areas that need to be linked. A variant of the classical minimum Steiner tree problem in graphs is used to address c). We present a heuristic for this problem that is capable of handling large datasets. To illustrate the framework we identify linkages between environmentally-similar protected areas in the Iberian Peninsula. The Natura 2000 network is used as a positive ‘attractor’ of links while the human footprint is used as ‘repellent’ of links. We compare the outcomes of our approach with cost-efficient networks linking protected areas that disregard the effect of environmental barriers. As expected, the latter achieved a smaller area covered with linkages, but with barriers that can significantly reduce the permeability of the landscape for the dispersal of some species.

Keywords

Connectivity Environmental surrogates Graph theory Iberian Peninsula Minimum Steiner tree problem Protected areas Spatial conservation planning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

DA was supported by a PhD studentship (BD/27514/2006) and is now funded by a post-doctoral fellowship (BPD/51512/2011) awarded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT); MT is funded by a FPI-MICINN (BES-2007-17311) fellowship; MC was funded through a Spanish RyC fellowship; JOC is partially supported by FCT through the European Community Fund FEDER/POCI 2010 and by the FCT project PTDC/AAC-AMB/113394/2009; MBA is currently funded by the ECOCHANGE project and acknowledges support from the Rui Nabeiro/Delta Chair in Biodiversity and the Spanish Research Council (CSIC). We are grateful to Evgeniy Meyke for the treatment of Iberian Peninsula Natura 2000 data.

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9704_MOESM1_ESM.doc (8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 8180 kb)

References

  1. Aarts EHL, Korst JHM, van Laarhoven PJM (1997) Simulated annealing. In: Aarts E, Lenstra JK (eds) Local search in combinatorial optimization. Wiley, New York, pp 91–120Google Scholar
  2. Alagador D, Cerdeira JO (2007) Designing spatially-explicit reserve networks in the presence of mandatory sites. Biol Conserv 137:254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson MG, Ferree CE (2010) Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity. PLoS ONE 5:e11554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Araújo M (2009) Climate change and spatial conservation planning. In: Moilanen A, Possingham H, Wilson KA (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 172–184Google Scholar
  5. Araújo MB, Humphries CJ, Densham PJ, Lampinen R, Hagemeijer WJM, Mitchell-Jones AJ, Gasc JP (2001) Would environmental diversity be a good surrogate for species diversity? Ecography 24:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Araújo MB, Densham PJ, Williams PH (2004) Representing species in reserves from patterns of assemblage diversity. J Biogeogr 31:1037–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Araújo MB, Alagador D, Cabeza M, Nogués-Bravo D, Thuiller W (2011a) Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol Lett 14:484–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Araújo MB, Guilhaumon F, Neto DR, Pozo I, Calmaestra RG (2011b) Impactos, vulnerabilidad y adaptación al cambio climático de la biodiversidad española, 2nd edn. Fauna de Vertebrados, MadridGoogle Scholar
  9. Baldwin RF, Perkl R, Trombulak S, Burwell W (2010) Modeling ecoregional connectivity. In: Trombulak S, Baldwin RF (eds) Landscape-scale conservation planning. Springer-Verlag, DordretchGoogle Scholar
  10. Beier P, Brost B (2010) Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors. Conserv Biol 24(3):701–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beier P, Noss R (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25:879–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bull JC, Pickup NJ, Pickett B, Hassell MP, Bonsall MB (2007) Metapopulation extinction risk is increased by environmental stochasticity and assemblage complexity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, Carpenter KE, Carr GM, Chanson J, Chenery AM, Csirke J, Davidson NC, Dentener F, Foster M, Galli A, Galloway JN, Genovesi P, Gregory RD, Hockings M, Kapos V, Lamarque J-F, Leverington F, Loh J, McGeoch MA, McRae L, Minasyan A, Morcillo MH, Oldfield TEE, Pauly D, Quader S, Revenga C, Sauer JR, Skolnik B, Spear D, Stanwell-Smith D, Stuart SN, Symes A, Tierney M, Tyrrell TD, Vié J-C, Watson R (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cerdeira JO, Gaston KJ, Pinto LS (2005) Connectivity in priority area selection for conservation. Environ Model Assess 10:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cerdeira JO, Pinto LS, Cabeza M, Gaston KJ (2010) Species specific connectivity in reserve-network design using graphs. Biol Conserv 143:408–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chetkiewicz CLB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chetkiewicz C-LB, St. Clair CC, Boyce M (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conrad J, Gomes CP, van Hoeve W-J, Sabharwal A, Suter JF (2010) Incorporating economic and ecological information into the optimal design of wildlife corridors, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  21. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Du D, Hu X (2008) Steiner tree problems in computer communication networks, World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd., SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  23. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fielding AH (2007) Cluster and classification techniques for the biosciences. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer DT, Church RL (2003) Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model. For Sci 49:555–565Google Scholar
  26. Fuller T, Sarkar S (2006) LQGraph: a software package for optimizing connectivity in conservation planning. Environ Model Softw 21:750–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuller T, Munguia M, Mayfield M, Sanchez-Cordero V, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating connectivity into conservation planning: a multi-criteria case study from central Mexico. Biol Conserv 133:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Game ET, Lipsett-Moore G, Saxon E, Peterson N, Sheppard S (2011) Incorporating climate change adaptation into national conservation assessments. Glob Change Biol 17:3150–3160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hannah L, Midgley GF, Andelman S, Araújo MB, Hughes G, Martinez-Meyer E, Pearson RG, Williams PH (2007) Protected area needs in a changing climate. Front Ecol Environ 5:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanski I (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawkins BA, Field R, Cornell HV, Currie DJ, Guégan J-F, Kaufman DM, Kerr JT, Mittelbach GG, Oberdorff T, O’Brien EM, Porter EE, Turner JRG (2003) Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84:3105–3117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hortal J, Araújo MB, Lobo JM (2009) Testing the effectiveness of discrete and continuous environmental diversity as a surrogate for species diversity. Ecol Ind 9:138–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IUCN (2010) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2010.1 IUCNGoogle Scholar
  34. Kruskal JB (1956) On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc Am Math Soc 7:48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDonnell MD, Possingham HP, Ball IR, Cousins EA (2002) Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environ Model Assess 7:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Önal H, Briers RA (2002) Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve network selection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:2437–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Önal H, Briers RA (2003) Selection of a minimum-boundary reserve network using integer programming. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1487–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Önal H, Briers RA (2005) Designing a conservation reserve network with minimal fragmentation: a linear integer programming approach. Environ Model Assess 10:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Önal H, Wang Y (2008) A graph theory approach for designing conservation reserve networks with minimal fragmentation. Networks 51:142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pinto N, Keitt T (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prim RC (1957) Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst Tech J 36:1389–1401Google Scholar
  43. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rothley KD (1999) Designing bioreserve networks to satisfy multiple, conflicting demands. Ecol Appl 9:741–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sessions J (1992) Solving for habitat connections as a Steiner network problem. For Sci 38:203–207Google Scholar
  49. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Theobald D (2010) Estimating natural landscape changes from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous US. Landscape Ecol 25:999–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whittaker RJ, Nogués-Bravo D, Araújo MB (2007) Geographical gradients of species richness: a test of the water-energy conjecture of Hawkins et al. (2003) using European data for five taxa. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:76–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williams JC (1998) Delineating protected wildlife corridors with multi-objective programming. Environ Model Assess 3:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams JC (2002) A zero-one programming model for contiguous land acquisition. Geogr Anal 34:330–349Google Scholar
  55. Williams JC, ReVelle CS (1998) Reserve assemblage of critical areas: a zero-one programming approach. Eur J Oper Res 104:497–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Williams J, ReVelle C, Levin S (2005) Spatial attributes and reserve design models: a review. Environ Model Assess 10:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu X, Murray A, Xiao N (2011) A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm for optimizing spatial contiguity in reserve network design. Landscape Ecol 26:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diogo Alagador
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Maria Triviño
    • 1
  • Jorge Orestes Cerdeira
    • 2
    • 3
  • Raul Brás
    • 4
    • 5
  • Mar Cabeza
    • 1
    • 6
  • Miguel Bastos Araújo
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary BiologyMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSICMadridSpain
  2. 2.Forest Research Centre, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaTechnical University of Lisbon (TULisbon)LisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Group of Mathematics, Department of Biosystems’ Sciences and Engineering, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaTechnical University of Lisbon (TULisbon)LisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Instituto Superior de Economia e GestãoTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  5. 5.CEMAPRE–Centre for Applied Mathematics and Economics, Instituto Superior de Economia e GestãoTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  6. 6.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  7. 7.Rui Nabeiro Biodiversity ChairCIBIO, University of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal

Personalised recommendations