Landscape and Ecological Engineering

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 13–23 | Cite as

Identifying corridors for landscape connectivity using species distribution modeling of Hydnocarpus kurzii (King) Warb., a threatened species of the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot

  • Koushik Majumdar
  • Dibyendu Adhikari
  • Badal Kumar Datta
  • Saroj Kanta BarikEmail author
Original Paper


Modeling habitat corridors for landscape connectivity may serve as an efficient tool for assisting the colonization of threatened and endemic species in the event of environmental change. We demonstrate this through a population survey, species distribution modeling, and the least cost path method. As an example, we used Hydnocarpus kurzii (King) Warb., a threatened and endemic medicinal tree species distributed in the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot covering northeast India, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. We assessed its population in the wild and characterized its current habitats. We also predicted its potential habitats and modeled the connectivity between its potential habitats in the state of Tripura, northeast India. Overall, 18 wild populations of the species comprising 36 mature trees were recorded from glen and upland habitats. About 4 % (~ 443 km2) of the total area of Tripura is predicted to be suitable for H. kurzii. Maxent outputs duly validated by field surveys revealed that the habitat corridors are concentrated mostly in the hill tracts, and that glen types of habitat offer suitable ecological conditions for the species compared to uplands. All the identified areas can form connective corridors among the existing populations. Since ~ 84 % of this suitable area has > 50 % tree cover, these corridors should effectively assist the threatened and endemic plant species in propagule dispersal and support its regeneration and establishment.


Population inventory Habitat distribution modeling Habitat corridor Maxent Isolated habitat Least cost path method 



This work was supported by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, under a grant received through DBT Network Project no. BT/Env/BC/01/2010; Sub-Project 3C and Sub-Project 15. We are grateful to Samir Kumar Debnath, Abhijit Sarkar and Montosh Roy for their scientific assistance during the field inventory. Our gratitude is extended to Dr. A. K. Gupta (IFS), PCCF, Tripura Forest Department for his permission and cooperation.

Supplementary material

11355_2018_353_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. Adhikari D, Barik SK, Upadhaya K (2012) Habitat distribution modelling for reintroduction of Ilex khasiana Purk., a critically endangered tree species of northeastern India. Ecol Eng 40:37–43Google Scholar
  2. Adhikari D, Reshi Z, Datta BK, Samant SS, Chettri A, Upadhaya K, Shah MA, Singh PP, Tiwary R, Majumdar K, Pradhan A, Thakur ML, Salam N, Zahoor Z, Mir SH, Kaloo ZA, Barik SK (2018a) Inventory and characterization of new populations through ecological niche modelling improve threat assessment. Curr Sci 114(3):519–531Google Scholar
  3. Adhikari D, Mir AH, Upadhaya K, Iralu V, Roy DK (2018b) Abundance and habitat-suitability relationship deteriorate in fragmented forest landscapes: a case of Adinandra griffithii Dyer, a threatened endemic tree from Meghalaya in northeast India. Ecol Proc 7:3. Google Scholar
  4. Allen SE, Grimshaw HM, Parkinson JA, Quarmby C (1974) Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Barve N, Barve V, Jiménez-Valverde A, Lira-Noriega A, Maher SP, Peterson AT, Soberon J, Villalobos F (2011) The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol Model 222(11):1810–1819Google Scholar
  6. Brown JL (2014) SDMtoolbox: a python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic, and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol Evol 5:694–700. Google Scholar
  7. CAMP (1998) Report on selected medicinal plants of Northern, Northeastern and Central India. In: Molur S, Walker, S (eds) Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) Workshop, Forest Department of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, 21–25 January 1997. Zoo Outreach Organisation. Zoos Print 13(6)Google Scholar
  8. Champion SH, Seth SK (1968) A revised survey of the forest types of India. Manager of Publications, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole HI, Cardoso HT (1939) Analysis of chaulmoogra oils. III. Hydnocarpus wightiana oil. J Am Chem Soc 61(9):2351–2353Google Scholar
  10. Daubenmire RF (1943) Vegetational zonation in the Rocky Mountains. Bot Rev 9(6):325–393Google Scholar
  11. Deb DB (1981) The Flora of Tripura State, Vol. I. Today and tomorrows’ printers and publishersGoogle Scholar
  12. Deb DB, Mondal SK, Malick KC (1978) Identification of seeds of Hydnocarpus and Gynocardia (Flacourtiaceae). Bull Bot Surv India 20(1–4):31–35Google Scholar
  13. Drayton B, Primack RB (1996) Plant species lost in an isolated conservation area in metropolitan Boston from 1894 to 1993. Conserv Biol 10(1):30–39Google Scholar
  14. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 40:677–697Google Scholar
  15. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JM, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151Google Scholar
  16. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T, Dudík M, Chee YE, Yates CJ (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17(1):43–57Google Scholar
  17. Ferson S, Burgman M (eds) (2000) Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghani A (2003) Medicinal plants of Bangladesh: chemical constituents and uses, 2nd edn. Asiat Soc Bangladesh, Dhaka, p 183Google Scholar
  19. Giovanelli JG, de Siqueira MF, Haddad CF, Alexandrino J (2010) Modeling a spatially restricted distribution in the neotropics: how the size of calibration area affects the performance of five presence-only methods. Ecol Model 221(2):215–224Google Scholar
  20. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009Google Scholar
  21. Guisan A, Zimmermann NE (2000) Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol Model 135(2):147–186Google Scholar
  22. Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Sutcliffe PR, Tulloch AIT, Regan TJ, Brotons L, McDonald-Madden E, Mantyka-Pringle C, Martin TG, Rhodes JR, Maggini R, Setterfield SA, Elith J, Schwartz MW, Wintle BA, Broennimann O, Austin M, Ferrier S, Kearney R, Possingham HP, Buckley YM (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16:1424–1435Google Scholar
  23. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman SV, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L, Justice CO, Townshend JRG (2013) High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342 (15 November): 850–53. Data available on-line from:
  24. Hirosawa Y, Marsh SE, Kliman DH (1996) Application of standardized principal component analysis to land-cover characterization using multitemporal AVHRR data. Remote Sens Environ 58(3):267–281Google Scholar
  25. IIRS (2002) Biodiversity characterization at landscape level in north-eastern India using satellite remote sensing and geographic information system. Indian Ins Remote Sens, DehradunGoogle Scholar
  26. IUCN (2012) Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1 IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2nd edn, p iv + 32Google Scholar
  27. IUCN (2014) Hydnocarpus kurzii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. Downloaded on 26 June 2014
  28. Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ (2009) Maxent modeling for predicting suitable habitat for threatened and endangered tree Canacomyrica monticola in New Caledonia. J Ecol Nat Environ 1(4):094–098Google Scholar
  29. LaRue MA, Nielsen CK (2008) Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least cost path methods. Ecol Model 212(3):372–381Google Scholar
  30. Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17(2):145–151Google Scholar
  31. Lyngdoh M, Chettri A, Adhikari D, Barik SK (2018) Metapopulation modelling of threatened plants to assess conservation status and determine minimum viable population size. Curr Sci 114(3):532–538Google Scholar
  32. Majumdar K, Shankar U, Datta BK (2012) Tree species diversity and stand structure along major community types in lowland primary and secondary moist deciduous forests in Tripura, Northeast India. J For Res 23(4):553–568Google Scholar
  33. Matsushita B, Yang W, Chen J, Onda Y, Qiu G (2007) Sensitivity of the enhanced vegetation index (EVI) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) to topographic effects: a case study in high-density cypress forest. Sensors 7(11):2636–2651Google Scholar
  34. Mech SG, Hallett JG (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. Conserv Biol 15(2):467–474Google Scholar
  35. Menon S, Choudhury BI, Khan ML, Peterson AT (2010) Ecological niche modeling and local knowledge predict new populations of Gymnocladus assamicus a critically endangered tree species. Endanger Species Res 11(2):175–181Google Scholar
  36. Merow C, Smith MJ, Silander JA (2013) A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36(10):1058–1069Google Scholar
  37. ORNL DAAC (2008) MODIS collection 5 land products global subsetting and visualization tool. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. Subset obtained for MOD13Q1 product at 23.7074N, 91.6282E, time period: 2014-01-01–2015-12-19, and subset size: 200.25 × 200.25 km. Accessed March 12, 2016
  38. Peet RK (2000) Forests and meadows of the Rocky Mountains. In: Barbour MG, Billings WD (eds) North American terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Peterson AT, Papeş M, Soberón J (2008) Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol Model 213(1):63–72Google Scholar
  40. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190(3):231–259Google Scholar
  41. Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, Ferrier S (2009) Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl 19(1):181–197Google Scholar
  42. Quinn JF, Hastings A (1987) Extinction in subdivided habitats. Conserv Biol 1(3):198–209Google Scholar
  43. Raxworthy CJ, Martinez-Meyer E, Horning N, Nussbaum RA, Schneider GE, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT (2003) Predicting distributions of known and unknown reptile species in Madagascar. Nature 426(6968):837–841Google Scholar
  44. Scherrer D, Körner C (2011) Topographically controlled thermal-habitat differentiation buffers alpine plant diversity against climate warming. J Biogeogr 38(2):406–416Google Scholar
  45. Setiawan Y, Yoshino K, Prasetyo LB (2014) Characterizing the dynamics change of vegetation cover on tropical forestlands using 250 m multi-temporal MODIS EVI. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 26:132–144Google Scholar
  46. Sukumar R, Dattaraja HS, Suresh HS, Radhakrishnan J, Vasudeva R, Nirmala S, Joshi NV (1992) Long term monitoring of vegetation in a tropical deciduous forest in Mudumalai, southern India. Curr Sci 62(9):608–616Google Scholar
  47. Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araújo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC (2005) Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(23):8245–8250Google Scholar
  48. Thuiller W, Broennimann O, Hughes G, Alkemade JRM, Midgley GF, Corsi F (2006) Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative land transformation assumptions. Glob Change Biol 12(3):424–440Google Scholar
  49. Yusuf M, Chowdhury JU, Wahab MA, Begum J (2009) Medicinal plants of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories, Chittagong, p 192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Consortium of Landscape and Ecological Engineering and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koushik Majumdar
    • 1
  • Dibyendu Adhikari
    • 2
  • Badal Kumar Datta
    • 1
  • Saroj Kanta Barik
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BotanyTripura UniversitySuryamaninagarIndia
  2. 2.Department of BotanyNorth-Eastern Hill UniversityShillongIndia
  3. 3.CSIR-National Botanical Research InstituteLucknowIndia

Personalised recommendations