Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 189–204 | Cite as

Incorporating landscape connectivity into household pond configuration in a hilly agricultural landscape

  • Chundi Chen
  • Colin D. Meurk
  • Zhenyi Jia
  • Mingquan Lv
  • Shengjun Wu
  • Junsong Jia
Original Paper


Manmade ponds are common landscape features in rural areas and also important habitats for maintaining biodiversity. However, they are vulnerable to anthropogenic activities, land-use changes, and habitat degradation; many ponds being filled or (re)created arbitrarily. Little attention has been paid to quantifying the spatial structure of these manmade ponds at a landscape scale, nor to their potential functional benefits in promoting ecological flows and interactions between habitats for whole-ecosystem integrity. In this study, we investigated the patch-based landscape connectivity of household ponds, a particular type of domestic pond prevalent in hilly rural areas of China, by using least-cost path modelling and graph theory based network analysis. A hierarchical network was modelled consisting of 4606 individual ponds, 373 pond patches and 772 potential links within a 1.5-km threshold distance. Network importance analysis revealed that the largest pond patch contributes 24.5 % to network building and that patches with larger areas are generally more important. In contrast, the importance of the simulated links is only 2.3 % at most, indicating that the network has spatial redundancy which can strengthen resilience to uncertain disturbances. Our study moves beyond network simulation and importance assessment by directly relating the connectivity analysis to a real construction context through the incorporation of a spatially explicit land suitability analysis. This approach systematises the analysis of pond landscapes and guides integration with the wider landscape matrix. It provides operational spatial suggestions for holistic landscape planning across local to regional scales.


Functional connectivity Land suitability Graph theory Pond engineering Three Gorges Reservoir Region 



We acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation (nos. 51408584, 41401633), the Chongqing Science and Technology Commission (no. cstc2014yykfC20002), and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (nos. Y43A370N10, Y33Z172N10). We are especially grateful to local government departments—the Kaixian Science and Technology Commission and the Land Resources and House Authority of Kaixian County—for providing relevant data and assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards


All experiments and surveys comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.


  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(4):233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alagador D, Triviño M, Cerdeira JO, Brás R, Cabeza M, Araújo MB (2012) Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally similar habitats. Landsc Ecol 27(2):291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allentoft ME, O’Brien J (2010) Global amphibian declines, loss of genetic diversity and fitness: a review. Diversity 2(1):47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angelone S, Kienast F, Holderegger R (2011) Where movement happens: scale-dependent landscape effects on genetic differentiation in the European tree frog. Ecography 34(5):714–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayram CAC, Mendoza ME, Etter A, Salicrup DRP (2015) Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: a review of recent studies and applications. Prog Phys Geog 40(1):7–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin RF, Perkl RM, Trombulak SC, Burwell WB III (2010) Modeling ecoregional connectivity. Landscape-scale conservation planning. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 349–367Google Scholar
  7. 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. Landsc Ecol 30(10):2045–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brose U (2010) Improving nature conservancy strategies by ecological network theory. Basic Appl Ecol 11(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown MT, Vivas MB (2005) Landscape development intensity index. Environ Monit Assess 101(3):289–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brudvig LA, Damschen EI, Tewksbury JJ, Haddad NM, Levey DJ (2009) Landscape connectivity promotes plant biodiversity spillover into non-target habitats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(23):9328–9332PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr LW, Fahrig L (2001) Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conserv Biol 15(4):1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen TS, Lin HJ (2011) Application of a landscape development intensity index for assessing wetlands in Taiwan. Wetlands 31(4):745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen CD, Meurk CD, Wu SJ, Chen JL, Lv MQ, Wen ZF, Jiang Y (2014) Restoration design for Three Gorges Reservoir shorelands, combining traditional Chinese agro-ecological knowledge with landscape ecological analysis. Ecol Eng 71:584–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen CD, Meurk CD, Ignatieva M, Stewart G, Wu SJ (2015) Identifying and prioritising functional connectivity for designing urban ecological networks. Acta Ecolo Sinica 35(19):1–13Google Scholar
  15. CQWRB (Chongqing Water Resource Bureau) (2015) Regulations and suggestions on ponds in hilly areas of Chongqing. Accessed 31 December 2015
  16. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dash MC, Mahanta JK (1993) Quantitative analysis of the community structure of tropical amphibian assemblages and its significance to conservation. J Bioscience 18(1):121–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Decout S, Manel S, Miaud C, Luque S (2012) Integrative approach for landscape-based graph connectivity analysis: a case study with the common frog (Rana temporaria) in human-dominated landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27(2):267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Devi BS, Murthy MSR, Debnath B, Jha CS (2013) Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory. Ecol Model 251:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dias PC (1996) Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 11(8):326–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duan B, He D, Li C, Deng QX (2000) Diversity and resources of amphibians in Chongqing. Sichuan J Zool 19(1):25–29 (Chinese with English abstract) Google Scholar
  22. Feld CK, Martins da Silva P, Paulo Sousa J, De Bello F, Bugter R, Grandin U, Pärtel M (2009) Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales. Oikos 118(12):1862–1871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischer K, Becker M, Becker BA, Bensch J, Böckers A, Burmeister M, Winter M (2015) Determinants of tree frog calling ponds in a human-transformed landscape. Ecol Res 30(3):439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR (2002) Large-scale spatial dynamics of plants: metapopulations, regional ensembles and patchy populations. J Ecol 90(3):419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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(1):44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Feced C, Saura S, Elena-Rosselló R (2011) Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: a two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation. For Ecol Manag 261(1):154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gell FR, Roberts CM (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol Evol 18(9):448–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gurrutxaga M, Rubio L, Saura S (2011) Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: a transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe). Landsc Urban Plan 101:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hagen M, Kissling WD, Rasmussen C et al (2012) Biodiversity: species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. Adv Ecol Res 46:89–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrell LJ, Ranjithan SR (2003) Detention pond design and land use planning for watershed management. J Water Res Plan Manag 129(2):98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herzon I, Helenius J (2008) Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol Conserv 141(5):1171–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ichinose T, Asmiwyati IGAAR, Kataoka M, Arifin NHS (2007) Land-use change and irrigation systems in the agricultural landscape of terraced paddy fields in Awaji Island, central Japan. Landsc Ecol Eng 3(2):171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson CJ, Gillingham MP (2004) Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion. J Appl Ecol 41(6):1032–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kong F, Yin H, Nakagoshi N, Zong Y (2010) Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc Urban Plan 95(1):16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lane CR, Brown MT (2007) Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA. Ecol Indic 7:521–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luo J, Gao HY, Wei F, Wei ZX, Yan GC, Peng MJ, Zeng WJ, Zhao L, Chen X et al (2003) Sichuan J Zool 22(3):140–144Google Scholar
  37. Mack JJ (2006) Landscape as a predictor of wetland condition: an evaluation of the landscape development index (LDI) with a large reference wetland dataset from Ohio. Environ Monit Assess 120(1):221–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marco DE, Montemurro MA, Cannas SA (2011) Comparing short and long-distance dispersal: modelling and field case studies. Ecography 34(4):671–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mazerolle MJ (2005) Drainage ditches facilitate frog movements in a hostile landscape. Landsc Ecol 20(5):579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011) Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle. Accessed 31 December 2015
  41. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17(6):1771–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oertli B, Biggs J, Céréghino R, Grillas P, Joly P, Lachavanne JB (2005) Conservation and monitoring of pond biodiversity: introduction. Aquat Conserv 15(6):535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park M, Chung G, Yoo C, Kim JH (2012) Optimal design of stormwater detention basin using the genetic algorithm. KSCE J Civ Eng 16(4):660–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21(7):959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pereira M, Segurado P, Neves N (2011) Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: a case study with pond turtles. Landsc Urban Plan 100(1):67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Powell RA, Mitchell MS (2012) What is a home range? J Mammal 93(4):948–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landsc Ecol 25(4):519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruddle K, Zhong G (1988) Integrated agriculture-aquaculture in South China: the dike-pond system of the Zhujiang Delta. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruggiero A, Céréghino R, Figuerola J, Marty P, Angélibert S (2008) Farm ponds make a contribution to the biodiversity of aquatic insects in a French agricultural landscape. CR Biol 331(4):298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Safner T, Miaud C, Gaggiotti O, Decout S, Rioux D, Zundel S, Manel S (2011) Combining demography and genetic analysis to assess the population structure of an amphibian in a human-dominated landscape. Conserv Genet 12(1):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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(2):91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saura S, Torné J (2012) CONEFOR 2.6 user manual. Quantifying the importance of habitat patches and links for maintaining or enhancing landscape connectivity through spatial graphs and habitat availability (reachability) metrics. Accessed 31 December 2015
  53. Shafer CL (1990) Nature reserves: island theory and conservation practice. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Shulse CD, Semlitsch RD, Trauth KM, Williams AD (2010) Influences of design and landscape placement parameters on amphibian abundance in constructed wetlands. Wetlands 30(5):915–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith SV, Renwick WH, Bartley JD, Buddemeier RW (2002) Distribution and significance of small, artificial water bodies across the United States landscape. Sci Total Environ 299(1):21–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. State Council of China (2011) Compendium of National Environmental Conservation. Accessed 21 December 2012
  57. Taylor P, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Torrubia S, McRae BH, Lawler JJ, Hall SA, Halabisky M, Langdon J, Case M (2014) Getting the most connectivity per conservation dollar. Front Ecol Environ 12(9):491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Urban DL, Keitt TH (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9(1):64–71Google Scholar
  62. Watts K, Eycott AE, Handley P, Ray D, Humphrey JW, Quine CP (2010) Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks. Landsc Ecol 25(9):1305–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whiles MR, Lips KR, Pringle CM, Kilham SS, Bixby RJ, Brenes R, Peterson S (2006) The effects of amphibian population declines on the structure and function of Neotropical stream ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 4(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu JG, Huang JH, Han XG, Gao XM, He FL, Jiang MX, Richard Primack B, Shen ZH (2004) The Three Gorges Dam: an ecological perspective. Front Ecol Environ 2(5):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu D, Yue F, Luo ZK, Wang TH (2011) The distribution and habitat selection patterns of amphibian population in Dalian Lake Wetland. Shanghai. J Fudan Uni (Nat Sci) 50(3):268–273Google Scholar
  66. Xie F, Liu HN, Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Fischman DL (2006) A review of amphibians conservation in China. Sci China Ser C 36(6):570–580Google Scholar
  67. Yang JJ, Liu SL, Wang C (2014) Forest pattern dynamics and landscape connectivity changes in the Manwan Basin after dam construction in the Lancang River China. Landsc Ecol Eng 10(1):77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Youn CH, Pandit A (2012) Estimation of average annual removal efficiencies of wet detention ponds using continuous simulation. J Hydrol Eng 17(11):1230–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zetterberg A, Mörtberg UM, Balfors B (2010) Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc Urban Plan 95(4):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chundi Chen
    • 1
  • Colin D. Meurk
    • 2
  • Zhenyi Jia
    • 1
  • Mingquan Lv
    • 1
  • Shengjun Wu
    • 1
  • Junsong Jia
    • 3
  1. 1.Chongqing Institute of Green and Intelligent TechnologyChinese Academy of SciencesChongqingChina
  2. 2.Landcare Research, Crown Research InstituteLincolnNew Zealand
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Poyang Lake Wetland and Watershed ResearchJiangxi Normal UniversityNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations