Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 31–44 | Cite as

A Network Approach for Analyzing Spatially Structured Populations in Fragmented Landscape

Reaearch Article


We extend the recently proposed graph-theoretical landscape perspective by applying some network-centric methods mainly developed in the social sciences. The methods we propose are suitable to (1) identify individual habitat patches that are disproportionally high in importance in preserving the ability of organisms to traverse the fragmented landscape, and (2) find internally well-connected compartments of habitat patches that contribute to a spatial compartmentalization of species populations. We demonstrate the utility of these methods using an agricultural landscape with scattered dry-forest patches in southern Madagascar, inhabited by the ring-tailed lemur, Lemur catta. We suggest that these methods are particularly suitable in landscapes where species’ traversability is not fully inhibited by fragmentation, but merely limited. These methods are potentially highly relevant in studying spatial aspects of resilience and in the design of natural reserves.


Landscape fragmentation Compartments Graphs Network analysis Madagascar Lemur catta Spatial resilience Natural reserves 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscape. Landsc Ecol 18:17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, Moberg F, Nyström M (2003) Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. AMBIO: A J Human Environ 32:389–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodin Ö, TengÖ M, Norman A, Lundberg J, Elmqvist T (2006) The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecol Appl 16(2):440–451Google Scholar
  4. Bogaert J (2003) Lack of Agreement on Fragmentation Metrics Blurs Correspondence between Fragmentation Experiments and Predicted Effects. Conserv Ecol 7:r6Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Shirey PR (1990) LS sets, lambda sets and other cohesive subsets. Social Networks 12:337–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks CP (2003) A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruinderink GG, Van Der Sluis T, Lammertsma D, Opdam P, Pouwels R (2003) Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in Northwestern Europe. Conserv Biol 17:549–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manage 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degenne A, Forsé M (1999) Introducing social networks. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmqvist T (2004) The forgotten dry forest of southern Madagascar. Plant Talk:29–31Google Scholar
  13. Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Fron Ecol Environ 1:488–494Google Scholar
  14. Freeman L (1979) Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarifications. Social Networks 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeman LC (2004) The development of social network analysis – a study in the sociology of science. Empirical Press, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  16. Garant D, Kruuk LEB, Wilkin TA, McCleery RH, Sheldon BC (2005) Evolution driven by differential dispersal within a wild bird population. Nature 433:60–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilpin ME, Hanski I, (eds) (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  18. Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:7821–7826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystem 1:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 13:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jolly A, Pride E (1999) Troop histories and range inertia of Lemur catta at Berenty, Madagascar: A 33-year perspective. Int J Primatol 20:359–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1(1):4Google Scholar
  24. Krause AE, Frank KA, Mason DM, Ulanowicz RE, Taylor WW (2003) Compartments revealed in food-web structure. Nature 426:282–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee JT, Thompson S (2005) Targeting sites for habitat creation: an investigation into alternative scenarios. Landsc Urban Plan 71:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leibold MA, Norberg J (2004) Biodiversity in metacommunities: Plankton as complex adaptive systems? Limnol Oceanogr 49:1278–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levin SA (2000) Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons. Perseus PublishingGoogle Scholar
  28. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lillesand TM, Keifer RW (1994) Remote sensing and image interpretation, 4 edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Loreau M, Mouquet N, Holt RD (2003) Meta-ecosystems: a theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecol Lett 6:673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luczkovich JJ, Borgatti SP, Johnson JC, Everett MG (2003) Defining and measuring trophic role similarity in food webs using regular equivalence. J Theoret Biol 220:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meffe GK, Nielsen LA, Knight RL, Schenborn DA, (2002) Ecosystem management: adaptive, community-based conservation. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Melian CJ, Bascompte J (2004) Food web cohesion. Ecology 85:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69Google Scholar
  35. Nystrom M, Folke C (2001) Spatial resilience of coral reefs. Ecosystems 4:406–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Postma E, Van Noordwijk AJ (2005) Gene flow maintains a large genetic difference in clutch size at a small spatial scale. Nature 433:65–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson GR, Holt RD, Gaines MS, Hamburg SP, Johnson ML, Fitch HS, Martinko EA (1992) Diverse and contrasting effects of habitat fragmentation. Science 257:524–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roshier DA, Robertson AI, Kingsford RT, Green DG (2001) Continental-scale interactions with temporal resources may explain the paradox of large populations of desert waterbirds in Australia. Landsc Ecol 16:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seidman SB (1983) LS sets and cohesive subsets of graphs and hypergraphs. Social Networks 5:92–96Google Scholar
  41. Sussman RW (1991) Demography and social organization of free-ranging Lemur catta in the Beza-Mahafaly reserve, Madagascar. Am J Primatol 84:43–58Google Scholar
  42. Sutherland GD, Harestad AS, Price K, Lertzman KP (2000) Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv Ecol 4(1):16Google Scholar
  43. Tengö M (2004) Management practices for dealing with uncertainty and change: social-ecological systems in Tanzania and Madagascar. Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  44. Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landsc Ecol 16:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis – methods and applications. Cambride University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Verbeylen G, Bruyn LD, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landsc Ecol 18:791–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. With KA, King AW (1999) Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landsc Ecol 14:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Systems EcologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations