Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 507–516 | Cite as

Dynamic connectivity of temporary wetlands in the southern Great Plains

  • Luis Ruiz
  • Niki Parikh
  • Lucas J. Heintzman
  • Steven D. Collins
  • Scott M. Starr
  • Christopher K. Wright
  • Geoffrey M. Henebry
  • Natasja van Gestel
  • Nancy E. McIntyre
Research Article

Abstract

We quantified fluctuations in the status of individual patches (wetlands) in supporting connectivity within a network of playas, temporary wetlands of the southern Great Plains of North America that are loci for regional biodiversity. We used remote sensing imagery to delineate the location of surface waters in >8,000 playa basins in a ~31,900 km2 portion of Texas and quantified connectivity in this region from 2007 to 2011. We ranked playas as stepping-stones, cutpoints, and hubs at different levels of environmental conditions (regionally wet, dry, and average periods of precipitation) for dispersal distances ranging from 0.5 to 34 km, representing a range of species’ vagilities, to provide baseline dynamics within an area likely to experience disrupted connectivity due to anthropogenic activities. An individual playa’s status as a stepping-stone, cutpoint, or hub was highly variable over time (only a single playa was a top 20 stepping-stone, cutpoint, or hub in >50 % of all of the dates examined). Coalescence of the inundated playa network usually occurred at ≥10 km dispersal distance and depended on wetland density, indicating that critical thresholds in connectivity arose from synergistic effects of dispersal ability (spatial scale) and wet playa occurrence (a function of precipitation). Organisms with dispersal capabilities limited to <10 km routinely experienced effective isolation during our study. Connectivity is thus a dynamic emergent landscape property, so management to maintain connectivity for wildlife within ephemeral habitats like inundated playas will need to move beyond a patch-based focus to a network focus by including connectivity as a dynamic landscape property.

Keywords

Betweenness centrality Cutpoint Graph theory Habitat network Hub Playa Stepping-stone 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was made possible in part by NSF-Proactive Recruitment in Introductory Science and Mathematics Grant 1035096 (“RMR-TTU: Recruitment, Mentoring, and Research in Mathematics and Science at Texas Tech University”), NSF-Macrosystems Biology Grants 1065773 and 1065845 (“Collaborative Study: Climatic Forcing of Wetland Landscape Connectivity in the Great Plains”), and the Texas Tech University Center for Undergraduate Research. S.D. Starr was partially supported by The CH Foundation. N.E. McIntyre was partially supported by the Virginia and J. Edward Holtry Visiting Scientist Program at the Geographic Information Science Center of Excellence at South Dakota State University. We gratefully acknowledge the West Texas Mesonet for precipitation data. Comments from the coordinating editor and three anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beger M, Grantham HS, Pressey RL, Wilson KA, Peterson EL, Dorfman D, Mumby PJ, Lourival R, Brumbaught DR, Possingham HP (2010) Conservation planning for connectivity across marine, freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biol Conserv 143:565–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodin Ö, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Model 221:2393–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolen EG, Smith LM, Schramm HL (1989) Playa lakes: prairie wetlands of the Southern High Plains. Bioscience 39:615–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinson MM, Malverez AI (2002) Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environ Conserv 29:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunn A, Urban D, Keitt T (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manag 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cariveau AB, Pavlacky DC Jr, Bishop AA, LaGrange TG (2011) Effects of surrounding land use on playa inundation following intense rainfall. Wetlands 31:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Comstock, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins SD, Heintzman LJ, Starr SM, Wright CK, Henebry GM, McIntyre NE (in review) Hydrological dynamics of temporary wetlands in the southern Great Plains as a function of surrounding land use. J Arid EnvironGoogle Scholar
  10. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695. http://igraph.sourceforge.net. Accessed 4 Jun 2013
  11. D’Eon RG, Glenn SM, Parfitt I, Fortin M-J (2002) Landscape connectivity as a function of scale and organism vagility in a real forested landscape. Conserv Ecol 6(2):10. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art10/. Accessed 10 Jun 2013Google Scholar
  12. Dale MRT, Fortin M-J (2010) From graphs to spatial graphs. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fall A, Fortin M-J, Manseau M, O’Brien D (2007) Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 10:448–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farmer AH, Parent AH (1997) Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99:698–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fish EB, Atkinson EL, Mollhagen TR, Shanks CH, Brenton CM (1998). Playa lakes digital database for the Texas portion of the Playa Lakes Joint Venture region. Technical Publication #T-9-813, Department of Natural Resources Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TXGoogle Scholar
  16. Fortin M-J, Dale M (2005) Spatial analysis: a guide for ecologists. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. PNAS 99:7821–7826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I (1999) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haukos DA, Smith LM (1994) The importance of playa wetlands to biodiversity of the Southern High Plains. Landsc Urban Plan 28:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson LA, Haukos DA, Smith LM, McMurry ST (2012) Physical loss and modification of Southern Great Plains playas. J Environ Manag 112:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johst K, Brandl R, Eber S (2002) Metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes: the role of dispersal distance. Oikos 98:263–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan F, Baldi A, Orci K-M, Racz I, Varga Z (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecol 18:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1:4. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4/. Accessed 24 July 2013
  25. Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecol 26:951–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Metzger J-P, Décamps H (1997) The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecol 18:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:297–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69:026113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozesmi SL, Bauer ME (2002) Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetl Ecol Manag 10:381–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2007) Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Landsc Urban Plan 83:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  33. Ray JD, Sullivan BD, Miller HW (2003) Breeding ducks and their habitats in the High Plains of Texas. Southwest Nat 48:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rubio L, Saura S (2012) Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements: an analysis of simulated and real landscape data. Ecol Complex 11:28–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sader SA, Ahl D, Wen-Shu L (1995) Accuracy of Landsat-TM and GIS rule-based methods for forest wetland classification in Maine. Remote Sens Environ 53:133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in habitat quality and cross-scale interactions in metapopulations. Ecosystems 10:846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith LM (2003) Playas of the Great Plains. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith MA, Green DM (2005) Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28:110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith LM, Haukos DA, McMurry ST, LaGrange T, Willis D (2011) Ecosystem services provided by playas in the High Plains: potential influences of USDA conservation programs. Ecol Appl 21(Suppl):S82–S92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Webb EB, Smith LM, Vrtiska MP, LaGrange TG (2010) Effects of local and landscape variables on wetland bird habitat use during migration through the Rainwater Basin. J Wildl Manag 74:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wickham H (2011) The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw 40: 1–29. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i01/. Accessed 3 Jun 2013Google Scholar
  47. Williams DD (2006) The biology of temporary waters. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Ruiz
    • 1
  • Niki Parikh
    • 1
  • Lucas J. Heintzman
    • 1
  • Steven D. Collins
    • 1
  • Scott M. Starr
    • 1
  • Christopher K. Wright
    • 2
  • Geoffrey M. Henebry
    • 2
  • Natasja van Gestel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Nancy E. McIntyre
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Geographic Information Science Center of ExcellenceSouth Dakota State UniversityBrookingsUSA
  3. 3.The Ecosystem Science and Society Center, Department of Biological SciencesNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations