Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 1021–1036 | Cite as

Assessing landscape functional connectivity in a forest carnivore using path selection functions

  • Filipe Carvalho
  • Rafael Carvalho
  • António Mira
  • Pedro Beja
Research Article



Understanding connectivity patterns in relation to habitat fragmentation is essential to landscape management. However, connectivity is often judged from expert opinion or species occurrence patterns, with very few studies considering the actual movements of individuals. Path selection functions provide a promising tool to infer functional connectivity from animal movement data, but its practical application remains scanty.


We aimed to describe functional connectivity patterns in a forest carnivore using path-level analysis, and to explore how connectivity is affected by land cover patterns and road networks.


We radiotracked 22 common genets in a mixed forest-agricultural landscape of southern Portugal. We developed path selection functions discriminating between observed and random paths in relation to landscape variables. These functions were used together with land cover information to map conductance surfaces.


Genets moved preferentially within forest patches and close to riparian habitats. Functional connectivity declined with increasing road density, but increased with the proximity of culverts, viaducts and bridges. Functional connectivity was favoured by large forest patches, and by the presence of riparian areas providing corridors within open agricultural land. Roads reduced connectivity by dissecting forest patches, but had less effect on riparian corridors due to the presence of crossing structures.


Genet movements were jointly affected by the spatial distribution of suitable habitats, and the presence of a road network dissecting such habitats and creating obstacles in areas otherwise permeable to animal movement. Overall, the study showed the value of path-level analysis to assess functional connectivity patterns in human-modified landscapes.


Conditional logistic regression Forest carnivores Genetta genetta Landscape conductance Movement behaviour Path-level analysis Road ecology 



This study was funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through grant SFRH/BD/66393/2009 to FC. Logistic support was given by the Conservation Biology Unit and Institute of Mediterranean Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, both from the University of Évora. Ana Galantinho, Pedro Costa and the MOVE project team collaborated in field work; Giovanni Manghi helped in GIS processing, and José Potes (Veterinarian Hospital, University of Évora) supervised the handling of genets. We thank the careful review of the manuscript by Santiago Saura and two anonymous reviewers. Authorization for capturing, handling and tracking genets was provided by the Instituto para a Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade.

Supplementary material

10980_2015_326_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)


  1. Ascensão F, Grilo C, LaPoint S, Tracey J, Clevenger AP, Santos-Reis M (2014) Inter-individual variability of stone marten behavioral responses to a highway. PLoS One 9:e103544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Ascensão F, Mira A (2007) Factors affecting culvert use by vertebrates along two stretches of road in Southern Portugal. Ecol Res 22:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balestrieri A, Remonti L, Ruiz-González A, Zenato M, Gazzola A, Vergara M, Dettori EE, Saino N, Capelli E, Gómez-Moliner BJ, Guidali F, Prigioni C (2015) Distribution and habitat use by pine marten Martes martes in a riparian corridor crossing intensively cultivated lowlands. Ecol Res 30:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbosa AM, Brown JA, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2014) modEvA: model evaluation and analysis. R package, version 1.1.
  5. Barton K (2013) MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.9.0.
  6. Borthagaray AI, Barreneche JM, Abades S, Arim M (2014) Modularity along organism dispersal gradients challenges a prevailing view of abrupt transitions in animal landscape perception. Ecography 37:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho F, Carvalho R, Mira A, Beja P (2014) The use of tree hollows by a Mediterranean forest carnivore. For Ecol Manag 315:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Hewison AJM (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landscape Ecol 23:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crooks KR, Burdett CL, Theobald DM, Rondinini C, Boitani L (2011) Global patterns of fragmentation and connectivity of mammalian carnivore habitat. Phil Trans R Soc B 366:2642–2651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Conservation biology, vol 14. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouzeilles R, Prevedello JA, Figueiredo MZL, Lorini ML, Grelle CEV (2014) The effects of the number, size and isolation of patches along a gradient of native vegetation cover: how can we increment habitat availability? Landscape Ecol 29:479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman AS, Lewis JS, Landguth E (2013) Evaluating the intersection of a regional wildlife connectivity network with highways. Move Ecol 1:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cushman AS, Lewis JS, Landguth E (2014) Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. Diversity 6:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cushman SA (2010) Animal movement data: GPS telemetry, autocorrelation and the need for path-level analysis. In: Cushman SA, Huettman F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics and wildlife conservation. Springer, Tokyo, pp 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman SA, Compton BW, McGarigal K (2010) Habitat fragmentation effects depend on complex interactions between population size and dispersal ability: modeling influences of roads, agriculture and residential development across a range of life-history characteristics. In: Cushman SA, Huettman F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics and wildlife conservation. Springer, Tokyo, pp 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushman SA, Lewis JS (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landscape Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cushman SA, Raphael MG, Ruggiero LF, Shirk AS, Wasserman TN, O’Doherty EC (2011) Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecol 26:1137–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickson BG, Jenness JS, Beier P (2005) Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. J Wild Manag 69:264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickson BG, Roemer GW, McRae BH, Rundall JM (2013) Models of regional habitat quality and connectivity for pumas (Puma concolor) in the southwestern United States. PLoS One 8:e81898CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, Marquéz JR, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duchesne T, Fortin D, Courbin N (2010) Mixed conditional logistic regression for habitat selection studies. J Anim Ecol 79:548–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliot NB, Cushman SA, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014) The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. J Appl Ecol 51:1169–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin J-L (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fahrig L, Rytwinski T (2009) Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol Soc 14:21Google Scholar
  26. Ferreras P, Rodríguez A, Palomares F, Delibes M (2010) Iberian lynx: the uncertain future of a critically endangered cat. In: Macdonald DW, Loveridge JA (eds) Biology and conservation of wild felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 507–520Google Scholar
  27. Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ Conserv 24:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fu W, Liu S, Degloria SD, Dong S, Beazley R (2010) Characterizing the “fragmentation–barrier” effect of road networks on landscape connectivity: a case study in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Landsc Urban Plan 95:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galantinho A, Mira A (2009) The influence of human, livestock, and ecological features on the occurrence of genet (Genetta genetta): a case study on Mediterranean farmland. Ecol Res 24:671–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grilo C, Bissonette JA, Santos-Reis M (2009) Spatial-temporal patterns in Mediterranean carnivore road casualties: consequences for mitigation. Biol Conserv 142:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grilo C, Sousa J, Ascensão F, Matos H, Leitão I, Pinheiro P, Costa M, Bernardo J, Reto D, Lourenço R, Santos-Reis M (2012) Individual spatial responses towards roads: implications for mortality risk. PLoS One 7:e43811CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Guiomar N, Batista T, Fernandes JP, Souto CC (2009) Corine Land Cover Nível 5. Contribuição para a Carta de Uso do Solo em Portugal Continental. AMDE Edt. ÉvoraGoogle Scholar
  34. Gurrutxaga M, Saura S (2014) Prioritizing highway defragmentation locations for restoring landscape connectivity. Environ Conserv 41:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harju SM, Olson CV, Dzialak MR, Mudd JP, Winstead JB (2013) A flexible approach for assessing functional landscape connectivity, with application to greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). PLoS One 8:e82271CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Hartmann SA, Steyer K, Kraus RHS, Segelbacher G, Nowak C (2013) Potential barriers to gene flow in the endangered European wildcat (Felis silvestris). Conserv Genet 14:413–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hijmans RJ (2012) Cross-validation of species distribution models: removing spatial sorting bias and calibration with a null model. Ecology 93:679–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. IPMA (Instituo Português do Mar e da Atmosfera) (2012) Normais climatológicas (1971–2000). Accessed on 26 Apr 2012
  39. Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klar N, Herrmann M, Henning-Hahn M, Pott-Dörfer B, Hofer H, Kramer-Schadt S (2012) Between ecological theory and planning practice: (re-)connecting forest patches for the wildcat in Lower Saxony, Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 105:376–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klar N, Herrmann M, Kramer-Schadt S (2009) Effects and mitigation of road impacts on individual movement behavior of wildcats. J Wild Manag 73:631–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. LaPoint S, Balkenhol N, Hale J, Sadler J, van Der Ree R (2015) Ecological connectivity research in urban areas. Funct Ecol 29:868–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. LaPoint S, Gallery P, Wikelski M, Kays R (2013) Animal behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape Ecol 28:1615–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  45. Levin N, McAlpine C, Phinn S, Price B, Pullar D, Kavanagh RP, Law BS (2009) Mapping forest patches and scattered trees from SPOT images and testing their ecological importance for woodland birds in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Int J Remote Sens 30:3147–3169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  47. Liu C, Berry PM, Dawson TP, Pearson RG (2005) Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous Maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Accessed on 07 Apr 2015
  49. Mergey M, Helder R, Roeder JJ (2011) Effect of forest fragmentation on space-use patterns in the European pine marten (Martes martes). J Mammal 92:328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Millspaugh JJ, Marzluff JM (2001) Radio tracking and animal populations. Academic Press, Washington D.CCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nogués S, Cabarga-Verona A (2014) Modelling land use changes for landscape connectivity: the role of plantation forestry and highways. J Nat Conserv 22:504–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Palomares F, Delibes M (1994) Spatio-temporal ecology and behaviour of European genets in southwestern Spain. J Mammal 75:714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pe’er G, Kramer-Schadt S (2008) Incorporating the perceptual range of animals into connectivity models. Ecol Model 213:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pereira M, Rodríguez A (2010) Conservation value of linear woody remnants for two forest carnivores in a Mediterranean agricultural landscape. J Appl Ecol 47:611–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Polak T, Rhodes JR, Jones D, Possingham HP (2014) Optimal planning for mitigating the impacts of roads on wildlife. J Appl Ecol 51:726–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quantum GIS Development Team (2014) Quantum GIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation ProjectGoogle Scholar
  57. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  58. Reding DM, Cushman SA, Gosselink TE, Clark WR (2013) Linking movement behavior and fine-scale genetic structure to model landscape connectivity for bobcats (Lynx rufus). Landscape Ecol 28:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2010) Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. J Appl Ecol 47:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Riley SPD, Pollinger JP, Sauvajot RM, York EC, Bromley C, Fuller TK, Wayne RK (2006) A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Mol Ecol 15:1733–1741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Roever CL, van Arde RJ, Leggett K (2013) Functional connectivity within conservation networks: delineating corridors for African elephants. Biol Conserv 157:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rondinini C, Boitani L (2002) Habitat use by beech martens in a fragmented landscape. Ecography 25:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosalino LM, Ferreira D, Leitão I, Santos-Reis M (2011) Usage patterns of Mediterranean agro-forest habitat components by wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus. Mamm Biol 76:268–273Google Scholar
  64. Rosalino LM, Santos-Reis M (2002) Feeding habits of the common genet Genetta genetta (Carnivora: Viverridae) in a semi-natural landscape of central Portugal. Mammalia 66:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rudnick DA, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps CW, Gerber LR, Hartter J, Jenness JS, Kintsch J, Merenlender AM, Perkl RM, Preziosi V, Trombulak SC (2012) The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol 16:1–20Google Scholar
  66. Santos MJ, Santos-Reis M (2010) Stone marten (Martes foina) habitat in a Mediterranean ecosystem: effects of scale, sex, and interspecific interactions. Eur J Wild Res 56:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Santos SM, Lourenço R, Mira A, Beja P (2013) Relative effects of road risk, habitat suitability, and connectivity on wildlife roadkills: the case of tawny owls (Strix aluco). PLoS One 8:e79967CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin M-J (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species´ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J Appl Ecol 51:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Method Ecol Evol 1:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Serronha AM, Mateus ARA, Eaton F, Santos-Reis M, Grilo C (2013) Towards effective culvert design: monitoring seasonal use and behavior by Mediterranean mesocarnivores. Environ Monit Assess 185:6235–6246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Silva CC, Lourenço R, Godinho S, Gomes E, Sabino-Marques H, Medinas D, Neves V, Silva C, Rabaça JE, Mira A (2012) Major roads have a negative impact on the tawny owl Strix aluco and the little owl Athene noctua populations. Acta Ornithol 47:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Therneau T (2012) Coxme: mixed effects cox models. R package version 2.2–3.
  76. Tjur T (2009) Coefficients of determination in logistic regression models—a new proposal: the coefficient of discrimination. A Stat 63:366–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Villalva P, Reto D, Santos-Reis M, Revilla E, Grilo C (2013) Do dry ledges reduce the barrier effect of roads? Ecol Eng 57:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Virgós E, Llorente M, Cortésá Y (1999) Geographical variation in genet (Genetta genetta L.) diet: a literature review. Mammal Rev 29:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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
  80. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2015) Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0301-6 Google Scholar
  81. 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 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Rafael Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
  • António Mira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pedro Beja
    • 5
  1. 1.Conservation Biology Unit (UBC), Biology DepartmentUniversity of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  2. 2.Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (CIBIO/InBIO)University of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  3. 3.Ecosystems Functioning and Conservation (FEC), Institute of Mediterranean Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (ICAAM)University of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Zoology and Entomology, School of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Fort HareAliceSouth Africa
  5. 5.EDP Biodiversity Chair, Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (CIBIO/InBIO)University of PortoVairãoPortugal

Personalised recommendations