Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 11, pp 2583–2605 | Cite as

Evaluating population connectivity for species of conservation concern in the American Great Plains

  • Samuel A. CushmanEmail author
  • Erin L. Landguth
  • Curtis H. Flather
Original Paper


Habitat loss and fragmentation are widely recognized as among the most important threats to global biodiversity. New analytical approaches are providing an improved ability to predict the effects of landscape change on population connectivity at vast spatial extents. This paper presents an analysis of population connectivity for three species of conservation concern [swift fox (Vulpes velox); lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus); massasuaga (Sistrurus catenatus)] across the American Great Plains region. We used factorial least-cost path and resistant kernel analyses to predict effects of landscape conditions on corridor network connectivity. Our predictions of population connectivity provide testable hypotheses about the location of core habitats, corridors, and barriers to movement. The results indicate that connectivity is more sensitive to a species’ dispersal ability than variation in landscape resistance to movement. Thus, it may prove difficult to optimize conservation strategies to maintain population connectivity for multiple species with disparate dispersal abilities and independent distributions.


Connectivity Resistant kernel UNICOR Swift fox Lesser prairie chicken Massasauga 



We gratefully acknowledge the funding assistance provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through the Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative and the input provided by James Broska, GPLCC Science Coordinator. We also want to thank the constructive comments provided by two anonymous reviewers that improved our manuscript.


  1. Beier P, Brost B (2010) Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors. Conserv Biol 24:701–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, Loe S (1992) In my experience: a checklist for evaluating the impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildl Soc Bull 20:434–440Google Scholar
  3. Beier P, Penrod KL, Luke C, Spencer WD, Cabañero C (2006) South coast missing linkages: restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the United States. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan MA (eds) Connectivity and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 555–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beier P, Majka D, Bayless T (2007) Linkage designs for Arizona’s missing linkages. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Accessed Sept 2009
  5. Berger J, Cain SL, Berger KM (2006) Connecting the dots: an invariant migration corridor links the Holocene to the present. Biol Lett 2:528–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark RW, Brown WS, Stechert R, Zamudio KR (2008) Integrating individual behaviour and landscape genetics: the population structure of timber rattlesnake hibernacula. Mol Ecol 17:719–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Compton B, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble L (2007) A resistant kernel model of connectivity for vernal pool breeding amphibians. Conserv Biol 21:788–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics. Landsc Ecol 25:967–979Google Scholar
  10. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2012a) Multi-species connectivity in the northern Rocky Mountains. Ecol Model 231:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2012b) Ecological associations, dispersal ability, and landscape connectivity in the northern Rocky Mountains. Research Paper RMRS-RP-90. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, Lewis J (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bear. Landsc Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, Hayden J, McKelvey KS (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: confronting models with data. Am Nat 168:486–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2009) Using empirically derived source-destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 23:368–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cushman SA, Chase MJ, Griffin C (2010a) Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in southern Africa. In: Cushman SA, Huettman F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, Tokyo, pp 349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman SA, Compton BW, McGarigal K (2010b) 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 369–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushman SA, Gutzwiller K, Evans JS, McGarigal K (2010c) The gradient paradigm: a conceptual and analytical framework for landscape ecology. In: Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, Japan, pp 83–108Google Scholar
  18. Cushman SA, Landguth EL, Flather CH (2012) Evaluating the sufficiency of protected lands for maintaining wildlife population connectivity in the U.S. northern Rocky Mountains. Divers Distrib 18:873–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriansen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K (2013) Biological corridors and connectivity. In: MacDonald D (ed) Conservation in theory and practice, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Dark-Smiley DN, Keinath, DA (2003) Species assessment for swift fox (Vulpes velox) in Wyoming. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, WyomingGoogle Scholar
  21. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ESRI (2008) Environmental systems research incorporated. ESRI, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Fry JA, Coan MJ, Homer CG, Meyer DK, Wickham JD (2009) Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 Land cover change retrofit product: U.S. geological survey open-file report 2008–1379Google Scholar
  24. Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagen CA, Giesen KM (2005) Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithica, NY. Accessed 3 August 2013
  26. Harris LD, Gallagher PB (1989) New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement corridors. In: Mackintosh G (ed) Preserving communities and corridors. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, pp 11–34Google Scholar
  27. Harrison S, Bruna E (1999) Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure. Ecography 22:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hobbs RJ (1992) The role of corridors in conservation: a solution or bandwagon. Trends Ecol Evol 7:389–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamler, JF, Ballard WB, Gese EM, Harrison RL, Karki SM (2004) Dispersal characteristics of swift foxes. USDA National Wildlife Research Center—Staff Publications. Paper 339Google Scholar
  30. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li Q, Racine JS (2007) Smooth varying-coefficient nonparametric models for qualitative and quantitative data (unpublished manuscript)Google Scholar
  32. Mackessy SP (2005) Desert massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus edwardsii): a technical conservation assessment (online). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed 3 August 2013
  33. McCarthy MA, Possingham HP (2007) Active adaptive management for conservation. Conserv Biol 21:956–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McComb BC, Zuckerburg B, Vesely D et al (2010) Monitoring animal populations and their habitats a practitioner’s guide. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Accessed 3 August 2013
  37. Mercure A, Ralls K, Koepfli KP, Wayne RK (1993) Genetic subdivisions among small canids: mitochondrial DNA differentiation of swift, kit, and arctic foxes. Evolution 47:1313–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neilson RP, Drapek RJ (1998) Potentially complex biosphere responses to transient global warming. Glob Chang Biol 4:505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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). Landsc Ecol 28:471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robb LA, Schroeder MA (2005) Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido): a technical conservation assessment (online). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed 3 August 2013
  42. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudnick DA, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps CW, Gerber L, Hartter J, Jennes J, Kintsch J, Merelender AM, Perkl RM, Preziosi DV, Ryan SJ, Trombulak SC (2012) The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol 16:1–20Google Scholar
  44. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seoane J, Bustamante J, Diaz-Delgado RC (2005) Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conserv Biol 19:512–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shirk A, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rice RC, Warheit C (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new multi-scale model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19:3603–3619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Short Bull RA, Cushman SA, Mace R, Chilton T, Kendall KC, Landguth EL, Schwartz MK (2011) Why replication is important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains. Mol Ecol 20(6):1092–1107Google Scholar
  48. Simberloff D, Farr JA, Cox J, Mehlman DW (1992) Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conserv Biol 6:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, Wallin DO (2010) Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho. Landsc Ecol 25:1601–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wiens JA (2001) The landscape concept of dispersal. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 96–109Google Scholar
  52. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27:777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA)  2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel A. Cushman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Erin L. Landguth
    • 2
  • Curtis H. Flather
    • 3
  1. 1.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.Computational Ecology Laboratory, Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  3. 3.Rocky Mountain Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations