Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 831–841 | Cite as

Circuit theory emphasizes the importance of edge-crossing decisions in dispersal-scale movements of a forest passerine

  • V. St-LouisEmail author
  • J. D. Forester
  • D. Pelletier
  • M. Bélisle
  • A. Desrochers
  • B. Rayfield
  • M. A. Wulder
  • J. A. Cardille
Research Article


Measuring landscape connectivity in ways that reflect an animal’s propensity or reluctance to move across a given landscape is key for planning effective conservation strategies. Resistance distance, based on circuit theory, is one such measure relevant for modeling how broad-scale animal movements over long time periods may lead to gene flow across the landscape. Despite the success of circuit theory in landscape genetic studies, its applicability to model finer-scale processes such as the movement patterns of individual animals within their breeding grounds (e.g., while prospecting for territories) has yet to be tested. Here, we applied both circuit models and least-cost models to understand the relationship between landscape connectivity and return time of Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) that had been translocated at least 20 km from their home territory near Québec City, Canada. Using an iterative optimization process, we derived resistance values for three cover types (forest, edge, and open) that resulted in resistance distance values that best explained Ovenbird return times. We also identified the cover-type resistance values that yielded length of least-cost path estimates that best explained return times of the translocated birds. The circuit theory and least-cost path methods were equally supported by the data despite being based on different sets of resistance values. The optimal resistance values for calculating resistance distance indicated that for Ovenbirds, traversing a given distance of edge habitat presented a substantially greater resistance than that of open areas. On the other hand, optimized resistances of edge and open were very similar for calculating length of least-cost path. The circuit theory approach suggested that for an Ovenbird moving through fragmented habitat, the number of forest-open transitions (i.e., edge-crossings) that an individual must make is critical to understanding return times after translocation. The least-cost path approach, on the other hand, suggested that the birds strongly avoid all open areas, regardless of size. Circuit theory offers an important new approach for understanding landscapes from the perspective of individuals moving within their breeding range, at finer spatial scales and shorter time scales than have been previously considered.


Landscape functional connectivity Circuit theory Least-cost path Forest birds Ovenbirds Edge-crossing decisions Cost surface 



Funds for field work were provided by NSERC and Université Laval, Canada. This project was also partly funded by the Government of Canada, via the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Space Agency, as well as through a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. We thank all field assistants participating in the field campaigns; Drs. Julie Bourque and Julie Morand-Ferron in particular provided valuable insights into the field component of this research.


  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of “least-cost” modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bélisle M, Desrochers A (2002) Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landscape Ecol 17:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélisle M, St. Clair CC (2001) Cumulative effects of barriers on the movements of forest birds. Conserv Ecol 5(2):9Google Scholar
  5. Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin MJ (2001) Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: A homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Chetkiewicz C-LB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clevenger AP, Wierzchowski J, Chruszcz B, Gunson K (2002) GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conserv Biol 16:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Desrochers A, Hannon SJ (1997) Gap crossing decisions by forest songbirds during the post-fledging period. Conserv Biol 11:1204–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desrochers A, Bélisle M, Morand-Ferron J, Bourque J (2011) Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landscape Ecol 26:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doherty J, Brebber L, Whyte P (1994) PEST: model-independent parameter estimation. Watermark Computing, Corinda, p 122Google Scholar
  13. Driezen K, Adriaensen F, Rondinini C, Doncaster CP, Matthysen E (2007) Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: a case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecol Model 209:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epps CW, Wehausen JD, Bleich VC, Torres SG, Brashares JS (2007) Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics. J Appl Ecol 44:714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox J (2012) Cox proportional-hazards regression for survival data, appendix to An R and S-PLUS companion to applied regression. Accessed Feb 2014
  16. Howey MCL (2011) Multiple pathways across past landscapes: circuit theory as a complementary geospatial method to least cost path for modeling past movement. J Archaeol Sci 38:2523–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jobin B, Beaulieu J, Grenier M, Bélanger L, Maisonneuve C, Bordage D, Filion B (2003) Landscape changes and ecological studies in agricultural regions, Québec, Canada. Landscape Ecol 18:575–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuroe M, Yamaguchi N, Kadoya T, Miyashita T (2011) Matrix heterogeneity affects population size of the harvest mice: bayesian estimation of matrix resistance and model validation. Oikos 120:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawson CR, Bennie JJ, Thomas CD, Hodgson JA, Wilson RJ (2012) Local and landscape management of an expanding range margin under climate change. J Appl Ecol 49:552–561Google Scholar
  20. Levey DJ, Bolker BM, Tewksbury JJ, Sargent S, Haddad NM (2005) Effects of landscape corridors on seed dispersal by birds. Science 309:146–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60:1551–1561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19885–19890PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McRae BH, Shah VB (2009) Circuitscape user’s guide. ONLINE. The University of California, Santa Barbara.,
  24. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  26. Richardson JL (2012) Divergent landscape effects on population connectivity in two co-occurring amphibian species. Mol Ecol 21:4437–4451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M-J, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor P, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Therneau T (2012) A package for survival analysis in S. R package version 2.36-14Google Scholar
  31. van Etten J (2012) gdistance: distances and routes on geographical grids. R package version 1.1-4.
  32. Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol 18:791–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Villard MA, Haché S (2012) Conifer plantations consistently act as barriers to movement in a deciduous forest songbird: a translocation experiment. Biol Conserv 155:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walpole AA, Bowman J, Murray DL, Wilson PJ (2012) Functional connectivity of lynx at their southern range periphery in Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecol 27:761–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. St-Louis
    • 1
    • 7
    Email author
  • J. D. Forester
    • 1
  • D. Pelletier
    • 2
  • M. Bélisle
    • 3
  • A. Desrochers
    • 4
  • B. Rayfield
    • 5
  • M. A. Wulder
    • 6
  • J. A. Cardille
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation BiologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of EnvironmentMcGill UniversitySte-Anne de BellevueCanada
  3. 3.Chaire de recherche du Canada en écologie spatiale et en écologie du paysage, Département de biologieUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrookeCanada
  4. 4.Centre d’étude de la forêt, Faculté de foresterie, de géographie et de géomatiqueUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  5. 5.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada
  6. 6.Canadian Forest ServicePacific Forestry CenterVictoriaCanada
  7. 7.MNDNR Wildlife Biometrics UnitForest LakeUSA

Personalised recommendations