Future losses of playa wetlands decrease network structure and connectivity of the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska

  • Bram H. F. VerheijenEmail author
  • Dana M. Varner
  • David A. Haukos
Research Article



The Rainwater Basin in south-central Nebraska once supported a complex network of ~ 12,000 spatially-isolated playa wetlands, but ~ 90% have been lost since European settlement. Future losses are likely and expected reductions in connectivity could further isolate populations, increasing local extinction rates of many wetland species. However, to what extent future losses will affect wildlife likely depends on the role of lost wetlands in maintaining connectivity.


We compared the current Rainwater Basin network to future wetland loss scenarios to assess minimum, mean, and maximum effects of losses on network connectivity for a range of wildlife taxa.


We used network models to rank wetlands by their functionality and relative importance in maintaining connectivity. We then removed 10–50% of high-ranked, low-ranked, or random subsets of wetlands and assessed connectivity of the remaining network.


A 10% loss of highly-ranked wetlands substantially decreased connectivity for species with dispersal capabilities < 5.5 km, while a 40–50% loss reduced connectivity for all tested dispersal distances (0.5–12.0 km). When large proportions of highly-ranked wetlands were lost, the eastern and western halves of the Rainwater Basin network were no longer connected for any dispersal distance. Loss of low-ranked wetlands had minimal effects on network connectivity, until at least the lowest-ranked 50% were removed.


Many highly-ranked playa wetlands in the Rainwater Basin are currently unprotected and might disappear from the landscape. Protecting wetlands that are key in maintaining connectivity especially benefits species with limited dispersal capabilities (< 5.5 km) for which consequences of future habitat losses might be worst.


Connectivity Dispersal distance Habitat fragmentation Habitat loss Network modeling Playa wetlands Rainwater Basin Nebraska Resilience 



This study was funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Plains Landscape Conservation. Cooperative research and National Science Foundation Macrosystems (Grant No. 1544083) grants administered through the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center and the Kansas. Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. All raw data used in this study were derived from online public sources. We are grateful for additional support provided by Chris Wright and the Division of Biology at Kansas State University. We thank J.M. Gehrt, J.S. Lamb, J.B. Malanchuk, B.E. Ross, D.S. Sullins, and E.L. Weiser for helpful suggestions and feedback on previous versions of the manuscript. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_958_MOESM1_ESM.docx (269 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 269 kb)


  1. Albanese G, Haukos DA (2017) A network model framework for prioritizing wetland conservation in the Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 32:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Vespignani A (2008) Dynamical processes on complex networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker CG, Fonseca CR, Haddad CFB, Batista RF, Prado PI (2007) Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science 318:1775–1777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedford BL, Leopold DJ, Gibbs JP (2001) Wetland ecosystems. In: Levin SA (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity, vol 5. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 781–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop-Taylor R, Tulbure MG, Broich M (2015) Surface water network structure, landscape resistance to movement and flooding vital for maintaining ecological connectivity across Australia’s largest river basin. Landscape Ecol 30:2045–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop-Taylor R, Tulbure MG, Broich M (2017) Surface-water dynamics and land use influence landscape connectivity across a major dryland region. Ecol Appl 27:1124–1137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodin O, Norberg J (2007) A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 22:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinson MM, Malvárez AI (2002) Temperate freshwater wetlands: types, status, and threats. Environ Conserv 29:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manag 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burris L, Skagen SK (2013) Modeling sediment accumulation in North American playa wetlands in response to climate change. Clim Change 117:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calenge C (2006) The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Clergeau P, Burel F (1997) The role of spatio-temporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: an example in a bird distribution. Landsc Urban Plan 38:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen R, Erez K, Ben Avraham D, Havlin S (2000) Resilience of the internet to random breakdowns. Phys Rev Lett 85:4626–4628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR (2007) A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol 21:788–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Covich AP, Austen MC, Barlocher F, Chauvet E, Cardinale BJ, Biles CL, Inchausti P, Dangles O, Solan M, Gessner MO, Statzner B, Moss B (2004) The role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and marine benthic ecosystems. Bioscience 54:767–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Syst 1695:1–9Google Scholar
  18. Dahl TE (2011) Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. De Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2011) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z, Knowler DJ, Lévêque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny ML, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ESRI (2017) ArcMap 10.6. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  22. Fortuna MA, Gomez-Rodriquez C, Bascompte J (2006) Spatial network structure and amphibian persistence in a stochastic environment. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1429–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haukos DA, Smith LM (1993) Moist soil management of playa lakes for migrating and wintering ducks. Wildl Soc Bull 21:288–298Google Scholar
  25. Haukos DA, Smith LM (1994) The importance of playa wetlands to biodiversity of the southern high plains. Landsc Urban Plan 28:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haukos DA, Smith LM (2003) Past and future impacts of wetland regulations on playa ecology in the southern Great Plains. Wetlands 23:577–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heal GM (2000) Nature and the marketplace: capturing the value of ecosystem services. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Homer CG, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold N, Wickham J, Megown K (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States – representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogr Eng Remote Sens 81:345–353Google Scholar
  29. Jetz W, Wilcove DS, Dobson AP (2007) Projected impacts of climate and land-use change on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biol 5:1211–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Johnson WC, Werner B, Guntenspergen GR, Voldseth RA, Millett B, Naugle DE, Tulbure M, Carroll RWH, Tracy J, Olawsky C (2010) Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. Bioscience 60:128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson WP, Rice MB, Haukos DA, Thorpe PP (2011) Factors influencing the occurrence of inundated playa wetlands during winter on the Texas High Plains. Wetlands 31:1287–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keddy PA (2000) Wetland ecology: principles and conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  35. LaGrange TG (2005) Guide to Nebraska’s wetlands and their conservation needs, 2nd edn. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  36. LaGrange TG, Stutheit R, Gilbert M, Shurtliff D, Whited PM (2011) Sedimentation of Nebraska’s playa wetlands: a review of current knowledge and issues. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  37. Levins R (1970) Extinction. In: Gerstenhaber M (ed) Lectures on mathematics in the life sciences. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 77–107Google Scholar
  38. Luo H, Smith LM, Allen BL, Haukos DA (1997) Effects of sedimentation on playa wetland volume. Ecol Appl 7:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. McIntyre NE, Collins SD, Heintzman LJ, Starr SM, van Gestel N (2018) The challenge of assaying landscape connectivity in a changing world: a 27-year case study in the southern Great Plains (USA) playa network. Ecol Indic 91:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McIntyre NE, Strauss RE (2013) A new, multi-scaled graph visualization approach: an example within the playa wetland network of the Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 28:769–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Research Council (1995) Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  43. Naugle DE, Higgins KF, Nusser SM, Johnson WC (1999) Scale-dependent habitat use in three species of prairie wetland birds. Landscape Ecol 14:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nugent E, Bishop A, Grosse R, LaGrange T, Varner D, Vrtiska M (2015) An assessment of landscape carrying capacity for waterfowl and shorebirds in Nebraska’s Rainwater Basin. A conservation effects assessment project wildlife component assessment report. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture, Wood RiverGoogle Scholar
  45. Opdam P, Wascher D (2004) Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol Conserv 117:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Osterkamp WR, Wood WW (1987) Playa-lake basins on the Southern High Plains of Texas and New Mexico: part I. Hydrologic, geomorphic, and geologic evidence for their development. Geol Soc Am Bull 99:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearce D (1998) Auditing the Earth: the value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Environment 40:23–27Google Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  49. Rainwater Basin Joint Venture (2014) Annual Habitat Survey. Last accessed on 2 December 2019
  50. Rayfield B, Fortin M, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruiz L, Parikh N, Heintzman LJ, Collins SD, Starr SM, Wright CK, Henebry GM, van Gestel N, McIntyre NE (2014) Dynamic connectivity of temporary wetlands in the southern Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 29:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow R, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge D, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscapes conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schildman G, Hurt J (1984) Update of Rainwater Basin wetland survey. Survey of habitat work plan K-83, W-15-R-40. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith LM (2003) Playas of the Great Plains. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith LM, Haukos DA, McMurry ST (2012) High plains playas. In: Batzer D, Baldwin A (eds) Wetland habitats of North America: ecology and conservation concerns. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 299–311Google Scholar
  57. 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:S82–S92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Starr SM, Heintzman LJ, Mulligan KR, Barbato LS, McIntyre NE (2016) Using remotely sensed imagery to document how land use drives turbidity of playa waters in Texas. Remote Sens 8:192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stutheit RG, Gilbert MC, Whited PM, Lawrence KL (2004) A regional guidebook for applying the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions of Rainwater Basin depressional wetlands in Nebraska. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  60. Tang Z, Li Y, Gu Y, Jiang W, Xue Y, Hu Q, LaGrange T, Bishop A, Drahota J, Li R (2016) Assessing Nebraska playa wetland inundation status during 1985–2015 using Landsat data and Google Earth Engine. Environ Monit Assess 188:654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tsai J, Venne LS, McMurry ST, Smith LM (2007) Influences of land use and wetland characteristics on water loss rates and hydroperiods of playas in the southern High Plains, USA. Wetlands 27:683–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Uden DR, Allen CR, Bishop AA, Grosse R, Jorgensen CF, LaGrange TG, Stutheit G, Vrtiska MP (2015) Predictions of future ephemeral springtime waterbird stopover habitat availability under global change. Ecosphere 6:215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Uden DR, Hellman ML, Angeler DG, Allen CR (2014) The role of reserves and anthropogenic habitats for functional connectivity and resilience of ephemeral wetlands. Ecol Appl 24:1569–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Urban DL, Keitt TH (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graphtheoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. U.S. Climate Data (2019) Version 2.3. Accessed 19 Mar 2019
  67. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Accessed 2 Dec 2019
  68. Verheijen BHF, Varner DM, Haukos DA (2018) Effects of large-scale wetland loss on network connectivity of the Rainwater Basin, Nebraska. Landscape Ecol 33:1939–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Voldseth RA, Johnson WC, Gilmanov T, Guntenspergen GR, Millett BV (2007) Model estimation of land-use effects on water levels of northern prairie wetlands. Ecol Appl 17:527–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Rainwater Basin Joint VentureGrand IslandUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations