Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 865–878 | Cite as

Validating movement corridors for African elephants predicted from resistance-based landscape connectivity models

  • Liudmila OsipovaEmail author
  • Moses M. Okello
  • Steven J. Njumbi
  • Shadrack Ngene
  • David Western
  • Matt W. Hayward
  • Niko Balkenhol
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Resistance-based connectivity models are widely used conservation tools for spatial prioritization and corridor planning, but there are no generally accepted methods and recommendations for validating whether these models accurately predict actual movement routes. Hence, despite growing interest and recognition of the importance of protecting landscape connectivity, the practical utility of predictions derived from connectivity models remains unclear.

Objectives

The difficulties in validations are mainly related to the unavailability of independent data and lack of appropriate, easily applied statistical frameworks. Here, we present a case study where two independently collected datasets were used to validate resistance-based landscape connectivity models and movement corridors identified by these models.

Methods

We used annual aerial counts to evaluate the connectivity model, and a field survey to assess the performance of predicted corridors. We applied these two independent datasets to validate a previously developed connectivity model for the African elephant (Loxodonta africana) in the Borderland region between Kenya and Tanzania.

Results

The results of this study confirm that the resistance-based connectivity model is a valid approach for predicting movement corridors for the African elephant. We show that high connectivity values are a strong predictor of the presence of large numbers of the elephants across the years. The probability of observing elephants increased with increasing connectivity values, while accounting for seasonality is an important factor for accurately predicting movements from connectivity models.

Conclusion

Movement corridors derived from resistance-based connectivity models have a strong predictive power and can be successfully used in spatial conservation prioritization.

Keywords

African elephant Conservation planning Resistance surface Landscape connectivity Movement corridors Step-selection function 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the European Commission under the Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Programme (FONASO). We would like to thank Alexander Silbersdorff for consulting and comments to the analytical part of this research. We acknowledge Prof. Brendan Wintle for valuable advice on data analysis and interpretation of the results of this study. We would also like to show our gratitude to Edward Masharen Lekina for assistance for data collection and interpretation.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_811_MOESM1_ESM.docx (455 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 455 kb)
10980_2019_811_MOESM2_ESM.docx (305 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 304 kb)
10980_2019_811_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Abrahms B, Sawyer SC, Jordan NR, McNutt JW, Wilson AM, Brashares JS (2016) Does wildlife resource selection accurately inform corridor conservation? J Appl Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12714 Google Scholar
  2. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett AF (2003) Linkages in the landscape: the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation. IUCN reportGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett A, Crooks K, Sanjayan M (2006) The future of connectivity conservation. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 676–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beyer HL, Haydon DT, Morales JM, Frair JL, Hebblewhite M, Mitchell M, Matthiopoulos J (2010) The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use–availability designs. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2245–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolker B, Brooks M, Gardner B, Lennert C, Minami M (2012) Owls example: a zero-inflated, generalized linear mixed model for count data. Departments of Mathematics & Statistics and Biology, McMaster University, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond ML, Bradley CM, Kiffner C, Morrison TA, Lee DE (2017) A multi-method approach to delineate and validate migratory corridors. Landscape Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0537-4 Google Scholar
  11. Bowman J, Cordes C (2015) Landscape connectivity in the Great Lakes Basin. Wildlife Research and Monitoring Section Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooker L, Brooker M, Cale P (1999) Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat: measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use, and dispersal mortality. Conserv Ecol 3:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooks CP (2003) A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buckland ST (2004) Advanced distance sampling. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. J Appl Ecol 52:675–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carroll C, McRae B, Brookes A (2012) Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America. Conserv Biol 26:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carvalho F, Carvalho R, Mira A, Beja P (2015) Assessing landscape functional connectivity in a forest carnivore using path selection functions. Landscape Ecol 31:1021–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clevenger Wierzchowski Jack, Bryan Chruszcz, Kari Gunson (2002) GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conserv Biol 16:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2009) Use of empirically derived source-destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 23:368–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doerr VAJ, Barrett T, Doerr ED et al (2010) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donaldson L, Wilson RJ, Maclean IMD (2017) Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century. Biodivers Conserv 26:527–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunham KM (2011) Trends in populations of elephant and other large herbivores in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe, as revealed by sample aerial surveys. Afr J Ecol 50:476–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dutta T, Sharma S, McRae BH, Roy PS, DeFries R (2016) Connecting the dots: mapping habitat connectivity for tigers in central India. Reg Environ Change 16:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forester JD, Im HK, Rathouz PJ (2009) Accounting for animal movement in estimation of resource selection functions: sampling and data analysis. Ecology 90:3554–3565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forman RT (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecol 10:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fortin D, Morales JM, Boyce MS (2005) Elk winter foraging at fine scale in Yellowstone National Park. Oecologia 145:334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goswami VR, Vasudev D (2017) Triage of conservation needs: the juxtaposition of conflict mitigation and connectivity considerations in heterogeneous, human-dominated landscapes. Front Ecol Evol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00144 Google Scholar
  31. Graham MD, Notter B, Adams WM, Lee PC, Ochieng TN (2010) Patterns of crop-raiding by elephants, Loxodonta africana, in Laikipia, Kenya, and the management of human–elephant conflict. Syst Biodivers 8:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haddad NM, Tewksbury JJ (2006) Impacts of corridors on populations and communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 390–415Google Scholar
  33. Hijmans RJ, van Etten J, Cheng J, Mattiuzzi M, Sumner M, Greenberg JA, Lamigueiro OP, Bevan A, Racine EB, Shortridge A, Hijmans MR (2016) Package ‘raster’. R package. ftp://slartibardfast.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/CRAN/web/packages/raster/raster.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
  34. Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Wintle BA, Moilanen A (2009) Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J Appl Ecol 46:964–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hofman MPG, Hayward MW, Kelly MJ, Balkenhol N (2018) Enhancing conservation network design with graph-theory and a measure of protected area effectiveness: refining wildlife corridors in Belize, Central America. Landsc Urban Plan 178:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jachmann H (2002) Comparison of aerial counts with ground counts for large African herbivores. J Appl Ecol 39:841–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jackson CR, Marnewick K, Lindsey PA, Røskaft E, Robertson MP (2016) Evaluating habitat connectivity methodologies: a case study with endangered African wild dogs in South Africa. Landscape Ecol 31:1433–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson CJ, Nielsen SE, Merrill EH, McDonald TL, Boyce MS (2006) Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J Wildl Manag 70:347–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jolly GM (1969) Sampling methods for aerial censuses of wildlife populations. East Afr Agric For J 34:46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keeley ATH, Beier P, Gagnon JW (2016) Estimating landscape resistance from habitat suitability: effects of data source and nonlinearities. Landscape Ecol 31:2151–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keeping D, Pelletier R (2014) Animal density and track counts: understanding the nature of observations based on animal movements. PLoS ONE 9:e96598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kioko J, Okello M, Muruthi P (2006) Elephant numbers and distribution in the Tsavo-Amboseli ecosystem, south-western Kenya. Pachyderm 41:53–60Google 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. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies, 2nd edn. Kluwer, NordrechtGoogle Scholar
  45. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Pérez T, Domínguez A, Saura S (2015) A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: Are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? Landscape Ecol 30:1405–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McRae B, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology and conservation. Ecology 10:271–272Google Scholar
  47. McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011) Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. The nature conservancy. Toolbox available at http://www.circuitscape.org/linkagemapper. Accessed 20 Feb 2017
  48. Mech SG, Hallett JG (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. Conserv Biol 15:467–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meiklejohn K, Ament R, Tabor G (2009) Habitat corridors & landscape connectivity: clarifying the terminology. Center for Large Landscape Conservation, BozemanGoogle Scholar
  50. Mose VN, Nguyen-Huu T, Western D, Auger P, Nyandwi C (2013) Modelling the dynamics of migrations for large herbivore populations in the Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Ecol Model 254:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Naidoo R, Kilian JW, Du Preez P, Beytell P, Aschenborn O, Taylor RD, Stuart-Hill G (2018) Evaluating the effectiveness of local- and regional-scale wildlife corridors using quantitative metrics of functional connectivity. Biol Conserv 217:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ndaimani H, Murwira A, Masocha M, Gara TW, Zengeya FM (2016) Evaluating performance of aerial survey data in elephant habitat modelling. Afr J Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12348 Google Scholar
  54. Ngene S, Ihwagi F, Nzisa M, Mukeka J, Njumbi S, Omondi P (2011) Total aerial census of elephants and other large mammals in the Tsavo-Mkomazi ecosystem. Nairobi Kenya Kenya Wildl Serv 43:5–56Google Scholar
  55. Norris D, Peres CA, Michalski F, Hinchsliffe K (2008) Terrestrial mammal responses to edges in Amazonian forest patches: a study based on track stations. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. Norton-Griffiths M (1978) Handbooks on techniques currently used in African wildlife ecology. AWLF, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Hara RB, Kotze DJ (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:118–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Okello MM (2005) Land use changes and human–wildlife conflicts in the Amboseli area, Kenya. Hum Dimens Wildl 10:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Okello MM, Kenana L, Maliti H, Kiringe JW, Kanga E, Warinwa F, Bakari S, Ndambuki S, Massawe E, Sitati N, Kimutai D, Mwita M, Gichohi N, Muteti D, Ngoru B, Mwangi P (2016) Population density of elephants and other key large herbivores in the Amboseli ecosystem of Kenya in relation to droughts. J Arid Environ 135:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Osipova L, Okello MM, Njumbi SJ, Ngene S, Western D, Hayward MW, Balkenhol N (2018) Fencing solves human–wildlife conflict locally but shifts problems elsewhere: a case study using functional connectivity modelling of the African elephant. J Appl Ecol 55:2673–2684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pittiglio C, Skidmore AK, van Gils HAMJ, Prins HHT (2012) Identifying transit corridors for elephant using a long time-series. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 14:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prins HHT, Douglas-Hamilton I (1990) Stability in a multi-species assemblage of large herbivores in East Africa. Oecologia 83:392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 18 Dec 2018
  64. Reid S, Tibshirani R (2014) Regularization paths for conditional logistic regression: the clogitL1 package. J Stat Softw 58:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Roever CL, van Aarde RJ, Leggett K (2013) Functional connectivity within conservation networks: delineating corridors for African elephants. Biol Conserv 157:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rowcliffe JM, Field J, Turvey ST, Carbone C (2008) Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. J Appl Ecol 45:1228–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sanderson J, Da Fonseca GA, Galindo-Leal C, Alger K, Inchausty VH, Morrison K, Rylands A (2006) Escaping the minimalist trap: design and implementation of large-scale biodiversity corridors. Conserv Biol Ser Camb 14:620Google Scholar
  69. Shah VB, McRae BH (2008) Circuitscape: a tool for landscape ecology. In: Proceedings of the 7th python in science conference, pp 62–66Google Scholar
  70. Signer J, Fieberg J, Avgar T (2017) Estimating utilization distributions from fitted step-selection functions. Ecosphere 8:e01771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland EJ (2011) Monitoring ungulates in Central Asia: current constraints and future potential. Oryx 45:38–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Songhurst A, McCulloch G, Coulson T (2016) Finding pathways to human–elephant coexistence: a risky business. Oryx 50:713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Southgate R, Moseby K (2008) Track-based monitoring for the deserts and rangelands of Australia. Prepared for the threatened species network at WWF Australia. Envisage Environmental Services Ecological Horizons, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  74. Southgate R, Paltridge R, Masters P, Nano T (2005) An evaluation of transect, plot and aerial survey techniques to monitor the spatial pattern and status of the bilby (Macrotis lagotis) in the Tanami Desert. Wildl Res 32:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stander PE, Ghau II, Tsisaba DO, Oma II (1997) Tracking and the interpretation of spoor: a scientifically sound method in ecology. J Zool 242:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stephens PA, Zaumyslova OY, Miquelle DG, Myslenkov AI, Hayward GD (2006) Estimating population density from indirect sign: track counts and the Formozov–Malyshev–Pereleshin formula. Anim Conserv 9:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stoner C, Caro T, Mduma S, Mlingwa C, Sabuni G, Borner M, Schelten C (2007) Changes in large herbivore populations across large areas of Tanzania. Afr J Ecol 45:202–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Street GM, Fieberg J, Rodgers AR, Carstensen M, Moen R, Moore SA, Windels SK, Forester JD (2016) Habitat functional response mitigates reduced foraging opportunity: implications for animal fitness and space use. Landscape Ecol 31:1939–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thurfjell H, Ciuti S, Boyce MS (2014) Applications of step-selection functions in ecology and conservation. Mov Ecol 2:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wade AA, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2015) Resistance-surface-based wildlife conservation connectivity modeling: summary of efforts in the United States and guide for practitioners. Gen Tech Rep RMRS-GTR-333 Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 93, p 333Google Scholar
  82. Wang Y-H, Yang K-C, Bridgman CL, Lin L-K (2008) Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity. Landscape Ecol 23:989–1000Google Scholar
  83. Western D, FAO R (Italy) eng, Wildlife M of T and, Eng N (Kenya) WC and MD (1976) An aerial method of monitoring large mammals and their environment (with a description of a computer program for survey analyses) - project working document 9Google Scholar
  84. Yumnam B, Jhala YV, Qureshi Q, Maldonado JE, Gopal R, Saini S, Srinivas Y, Fleischer RC (2014) Prioritizing tiger conservation through landscape genetics and habitat linkages. PLoS ONE 9:e111207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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 31:1–17Google Scholar
  86. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ziółkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T, Sergiel A, Zwijacz-Kozica T, Zięba F, Śmietana W, Selva N (2016) Assessing differences in connectivity based on habitat versus movement models for brown bears in the Carpathians. Landscape Ecol 31:1863–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zuur AF, Ieno EN (2016) A protocol for conducting and presenting results of regression-type analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 7:636–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Zero-truncated and zero-inflated models for count data. In: Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Savelliev AA, Smith GM (eds) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, Berlin, pp 261–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wildlife SciencesUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Bangor UniversityBangorUK
  3. 3.Department of Tourism ManagementMoi UniversityNairobiKenya
  4. 4.International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)NairobiKenya
  5. 5.Kenya Wildlife ServiceNairobiKenya
  6. 6.African Conservation CentreNairobiKenya
  7. 7.University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations