Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Connectivity measures: a review

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the central problems in contemporary ecology and conservation biology is the drastic change of landscapes induced by anthropogenic activities, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation. For many wild living species, local extinctions of fragmented populations are common and recolonization is critical for regional survival. Successful recolonization depends on the availability of dispersing individuals and the degree of landscape connectivity. The obvious implications of landscape connectivity for conservation biology have led to a proliferation of connectivity measures. However, general relationships between landscape connectivity and landscape structure are lacking, and so are the relationships between different connectivity metrics. Consequently, there is a need to develop landscape metrics that more accurately characterize the landscape with an emphasis on the underlying processes. Here we review various definitions of landscape connectivity, explain their mathematical connotations, and make some unifying conclusions and suggestions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler FR, Nuernberger B (1994) Persistence in patchy irregular landscapes. Theor Popul Biol 45:41–75. doi:10.1006/tpbi.1994.1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson GS, Danielson BJ (1997) The effects of landscape composition and physiognomy on metapopulation size: the role of corridors. Landsc Ecol 12:261–271. doi:10.1023/A:1007933623979

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen HP, Halle S, Ims RA (1996a) Optimal width of movement corridors for root voles: not too narrow and not too wide. J Appl Ecol 33:63–70. doi:10.2307/2405016

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen HP, Ims RA, Stenseth NC (1996b) Discontinuous habitat corridors: effects on male root vole movements. J Appl Ecol 33:555–560. doi:10.2307/2404984

    Google Scholar 

  • Ault TR, Johnson CR (1998) Spatially and temporally predictable fish communities on coral-reefs. Ecol Monogr 68:25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars MA (1979) Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44:125–140. doi:10.1007/BF00346411

    Google Scholar 

  • Bascompte J, Solé R (1996) Habitat fragmentation and extinction thresholds in explicit models. J Anim Ecol 65:465–473. doi:10.2307/5781

    Google Scholar 

  • Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995. doi:10.1890/04-0923

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AF, Henein K, Merriam G (1994) Corridor use and the elements of corridor quality: chipmunks and fencerows in a farmland mosaic. Biol Conserv 68:155–166. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(94)90347-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevers M, Flather C (1999) Numerically exploring habitat fragmentation effects on populations using cell-based coupled map lattices. Theor Popul Biol 65:465–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner J (1994) Widlife’s roads to nowhere? New Sci 143:30–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Brachet S, Olivieri I, Godelle B, Klein E, Frascaria-Lacoste N, Gouyon P (1999) Dispersal and metapopulation viability in a heterogeneous landscape. J Theor Biol 198:479–495. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1999.0926

    Google Scholar 

  • Briers RA (2002) Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biol Conserv 103:77–83. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00123-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooker L, Brooker M, Cale P (1999) Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat: measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use and dispersal mortality. Conserv Ecol 3:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Mönkkönen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357. doi:10.1086/376887

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowne DR, Bowers MA (2004) Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review. Landsc Ecol 19:1–20. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000018357.45262.b9

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn AG (2000) Landscape connectivity: a focal species approach using graph theory. Master’s Project Report, Duke University, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manage 59:265–278. doi:10.1006/jema.2000.0373

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M (2003) Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecol Lett 6:665–672. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00475.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellón TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00332.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L). Landsc Ecol 18:561–573. doi:10.1023/A:1026062530600

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK (2000) Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81:2211–2226

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK, Forman RTT (1998) A conceptional model of land conversion processes–predictions and evidence from a microlandscape experiment with grassland insects. Oikos 82:66–84. doi:10.2307/3546918

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson BJ, Hubbard MW (2000) The influence of corridors on the movement behavior of individual Peromyscus polionotus in experimental landscapes. Ecology 15:323–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson D (1994) Are habitat corridors conduits for animals and plants in a fragmented landscape? A review of the scientific evidence. English Nature Research Report 94. English Nature, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98081.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Demers MN, Simpson JW, Boerner REJ, Silva A, Berns L, Artigas F (1995) Fencerows, edges, and implications of changing connectivity illustrated by two contiguous Ohio landscapes. Conserv Biol 9:1159–1168. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.9051159.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak DF, Marino PC, Kareiva PM (1992) Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: implications for conservation. Theor Popul Biol 41:315–336. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(92)90032-O

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorner B, Lertzman K, Fall J (2002) Landscape pattern in topographically complex landscapes: issues and techniques for analysis. Landsc Ecol 17:729–743. doi:10.1023/A:1022944019665

    Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P, Studer M, Marchand I, Jakob S (1990) Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol Conserv 54:193–207. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(90)90051-P

    Google Scholar 

  • Dytham C (1995) The effect of habitat destruction pattern on species persistence: a cellular model. Oikos 74:340–344. doi:10.2307/3545665

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768. doi:10.2307/2937372

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (1992) Relative importance of spatial and temporal scales in a patchy environment. Theor Popul Biol 41:300–314. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(92)90031-N

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010050.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Neel MC (2007) Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landsc Ecol 22:1315–1323. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9121-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer M (2001) Landscape dynamics can accelerate metapopulation extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 16:225–226. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02175-9

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzGibbon SI, Putland DA, Goldizen AW (2007) The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling in an urban Australian landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:1513–1525. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9139-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1983) Corridors in a landscape: their ecological structure and function. Ekol CSSR 2:375–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines MS, McGlenaghan LR (1980) Dispersal in small mammals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:163–196. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001115

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:19–28. doi:10.1007/BF02275262

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelling M, Macdonald DW, Mathews F (2007) Are hedgerows the route to increased farmland small mammal density? Use of hedgerows in British pastoral habitats. Landsc Ecol 22:1019–1032. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9088-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Girvetz EH, Greco SE (2007) How to define a patch: a spatial model for hierarchically delineating organism-specific habitat patches. Landsc Ecol 22:1131–1142. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9104-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landsc Ecol 18:687–699. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000004184.03500.a8

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002a) Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis. Can J Zool 80:25–34. doi:10.1139/z01-196

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002b) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.11824.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Grashof-Bokdam C (1997) Forest species in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands–effects of habitat fragmentation. J Veg Sci 8:21–28. doi:10.2307/3237238

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves TA, Farley S, Goldstein MI, Servheen C (2007) Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landsc Ecol 22:765–772. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9082-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Green DG (1994) Connectivity and complexity in landscapes and ecosystems. Pac Conserv Biol 1:194–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems (NY, Print) 1:143–156. doi:10.1007/s100219900011

  • Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107. doi:10.2307/2265659

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (1999) Corridor use predicted from behaviours at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153:215–227. doi:10.1086/303163

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (2000) Corridor length and patch colonization by a butterfly, Junonia coenia. Conserv Biol 14:738–745. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99041.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999a) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999b) Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87:209–219. doi:10.2307/3546736

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Ahlo J, Moilanen A (2000) Estimating the parameters of survival and migration of individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81:239–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L (1991) Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biol J Linn Soc 42:89–103. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00553.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 13:167–186. doi:10.1023/A:1007965018633

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings A (1980) Disturbance, coexistence, history, and competition for space. Theor Popul Biol 18:363–373. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(80)90059-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein S, Gombert J, Hovestadt T, Poethke H-J (2003) Movement patterns of the bush cricket Platycleis albopunctata in different types of habitat: matrix is not always matrix. Ecol Entomol 28:432–438. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.2003.00531.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Heino M, Hanski I (2001) Evolution of migration rate in a spatially realistic metapopulation model. Am Nat 157:495–511. doi:10.1086/319927

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henein K, Merriam G (1990) The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landsc Ecol 4:157–170. doi:10.1007/BF00132858

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess GR (1996) Linking extinction to connectivity and habitat destruction in metapopulation models. Am Nat 148:226–236. doi:10.1086/285922

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjermann DO, Ims RA (1996) Landscape ecology of the wart-biter Decticus verrucivorus in a patchy landscape. J Anim Ecol 65:768–780. doi:10.2307/5675

    Google Scholar 

  • Hof J, Flather CH (1996) Accounting for connectivity and spatial correlation in the optimal placement of wildlife habitat. Ecol Modell 88:143–155. doi:10.1016/0304-3800(95)00082-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter MD (2002) Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation, and the ecology of insects. Agric For Entomol 4:159–166. doi:10.1046/j.1461-9563.2002.00152.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxel GA, Hastings A (1998) Population size dependence, competitive coexistence and habitat destruction. J Anim Ecol 67:446–453. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00208.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Ims RA, Andreassen HP (1999) Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation and connectivity on root vole demography. J Anim Ecol 68:839–852. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.1999.00336.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AR, Milne BT, Wiens JA (1992a) Diffusion in fractal landscapes: simulations and experimental studies of tenebrionid beetle movements. Ecology 73:1968–1993. doi:10.2307/1941448

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AR, Wiens JA, Milne BT, Crist TO (1992b) Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landsc Ecol 7:63–75. doi:10.1007/BF02573958

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen ID, Taylor PD (2000) Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88:553–562. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.880312.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan F, Magura T, Tóthmérész B, Vasas V, Kodobocz V (2007) Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph. Landsc Ecol 22:1527–1539. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9149-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816. doi:10.2307/2937376

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva PM, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56:234–238. doi:10.1007/BF00379695

    Google Scholar 

  • Keymer JE, Marquet PA, Velasco-Hernandez JX, Levin SA (2000) Extinction thresholds and metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes. Am Nat 156:478–494. doi:10.1086/303407

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausmeier CA (1998) Extinction in multispecies and spatially explicit models of habitat destruction. Am Nat 152:303–310. doi:10.1086/286170

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knaapen JP, Scheffer M, Harms B (1992) Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 23:1–16. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(92)90060-D

    Google Scholar 

  • Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, O’Neill RV, Coleman PR (1987) Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48:321–324. doi:10.2307/3565520

    Google Scholar 

  • Laan R, Verboom B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 54:251–262. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(90)90055-T

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1974) Dispersion and population interactions. Am Nat 108:207–225. doi:10.1086/282900

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)81094-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (1993) Ecological principles for the design of wildlife corridors. Conserv Biol 7:627–630. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07030627.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Mader HJ (1984) Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biol Conserv 29:81–96. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(84)90015-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Mader HJ, Schell C, Kornacker P (1990) Linear barriers to arthropod movements in the landscape. Biol Conserv 54:209–222. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(90)90052-Q

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquet PA, Velasco-Hernández JX (1997) A source-sink patch occupancy metapopulation model. Rev Chil Hist Nat 70:371–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthysen E, Adriaensen F, Dhondt AA (1995) Dispersal distances of nuthatches, Sitta europea, in a highly fragmented forest habitat. Oikos 72:375–381. doi:10.2307/3546123

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauremooto JR, Wratten SD, Worner SP, Fry GLA (1995) Permeability of hedgerows to predatory carabid beetles. Agric Ecosyst Environ 52:141–148. doi:10.1016/0167-8809(94)00548-S

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch CE, Cain ML (1989) Analyzing discrete movement data as a correlated random walk. Ecology 70:383–388. doi:10.2307/1937543

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G (1984) Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt J, Agger P (eds) Proceedings of first international seminar on methodology in landscape ecology research and planning, vol I. Roskilde Universitessforlag GeoRue, Roskilde, Denmark, pp 5–15

  • Merriam G (1991) Corridors and connectivity: animal populations in heterogeneous environments. In: Saunders D, Hobbs RJ (eds) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, pp 133–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G, Saunders DA (1993) Corridors in restoration of fragmented landscapes. In: Saunders D, Hobbs RJ (eds) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, pp 71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger J-P, Décamps H (1997) The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecol 18:1–12. doi:10.1016/S1146-609X(97)80075-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel N, Burel F, Legendre P, Butet A (2007) Role of habitat and landscape in structuring small mammal assemblages in hedgerow networks of contrasted farming landscapes in Brittany, France. Landsc Ecol 22:1241–1253. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9103-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effect of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950116.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Kendall WL (1995) The use of multi-state capture-recapture models to address questions in evolutionary ecology. J Appl Stat 22:835–846. doi:10.1080/02664769524658

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1993) Wildlife corridors. In: Smith DS, Hellmund PC (eds) Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp 43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockinger E, Smith HG (2007) Do corridors promote dispersal in grassland butterflies and other insects? Landsc Ecol 23:27–40. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9167-6

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Milne BT, Turner MG, Gardner RH (1988) Resource utilization scales and landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 2:63–69. doi:10.1007/BF00138908

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbach R (1986) Dynamics of fractal networks. Science 231:814–819. doi:10.1126/science.231.4740.814

    Google Scholar 

  • Pain G, Baudry J, Burel F (2000) Landpop: un outil d’étude de la structure spatiale des populations animales fragmentées. Geomatique 10:89–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Pither J, Taylor PD (1998) An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83:166–174. doi:10.2307/3546558

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole KG (1997) Dispersal patterns of lynx in the northwest territories. J Wildlife Manage 61:497–505. doi:10.2307/3802607

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 157:87–99. doi:10.1086/320863

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687. doi:10.2307/1313208

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus M, Hartway C, Kareiva PM (1997) Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conserv Biol 11:1298–1306. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96151.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakai HF, Noon BR (1997) Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation. J Wildlife Manage 61:343–350. doi:10.2307/3802590

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (1991) Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Arnold GW (1993) The Kellerberrin project on fragmented landscapes: a review of current information. Biol Conserv 64:185–192. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(93)90320-Z

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2003) Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12490.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker N (1996) Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77:1210–1225. doi:10.2307/2265590

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer D, Aharony A (1991) Introduction to percolation theory, 2nd edn. Taylor and Francis, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson FJ, Kratz TK, Caine N, Woodmansee RG (1998) Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. Bioscience 38:92–98. doi:10.2307/1310614

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart J, Lawes MJ (1996) The effect of habitat patch connectivity on samango monkey (Cercopithecus mitis) metapopulation persistence. Ecol Modell 93:57–74. doi:10.1016/0304-3800(95)00211-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney S, Jurek M, Bednar M (2007) Using place names to interpret former floodplain connectivity in the Morava River, Czech Republic. Landsc Ecol 22:1007–1018. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9085-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573. doi:10.2307/3544927

    Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 101:18–25. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12567.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout HM, Anderson RA (1997) A comparison of corridors and intrinsic connectivity to promote dispersal in transient successional landscapes. Conserv Biol 11:620–627. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95270.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Lehman D, Yin C (1997) Habitat destruction, dispersal, and deterministic extinction in competitive communities. Am Nat 149:407–435. doi:10.1086/285998

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L (1997) Corridors as conduits for small animals: attainable distances depending on movement pattern, boundary reaction and corridor width. Oikos 79:603–611. doi:10.2307/3546904

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landsc Ecol 16:235–254. doi:10.1023/A:1011112719782

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000a) How should we measure landscape connectivity?. Landsc Ecol 15:633–641. doi:10.1023/A:1008177324187

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000b) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology: a reply. Oikos 95:152–155. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950117.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Irmler U, Hingst R (1998) A simulation experiment on the potential of hedgerows as movement corridors for forest carabids. Ecol Modell 106:107–118. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00186-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis JM, Dytham C (1999) Habitat persistence, habitat availability and the evolution of dispersal. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:723–728. doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0696

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis JM, French DR (2000) Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox. Ecol Lett 3:163–165. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00141.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Treml EA, Halpin PN, Urban DL, Pratson LF (2007) Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation. Landsc Ecol 23:19–36. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9138-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001131

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Ruscher CL (1988) Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA. Landsc Ecol 1:241–251. doi:10.1007/BF00157696

    Google Scholar 

  • van Langevelde F (2000) Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23:614–622. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.230512.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Verboom B, Van Apeldoorn RC (1990) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L). Landsc Ecol 4:171–176. doi:10.1007/BF00132859

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos CC, Chardon JP (1998) Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis. J Appl Ecol 35:44–56. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.00284.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos CC, Stumpel HP (1995) Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landsc Ecol 11:203–214. doi:10.1007/BF02071811

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Ter Braak CJF (2001) Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–41. doi:10.1086/317004

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walker RS, Novaro AJ, Branch LC (2007) Functional connectivity defined through cost-distance and genetic analyses: a case study for the rock-dwelling mountain vizcacha (Lagidium viscacia) in Patagonia, Argentina. Landsc Ecol 22:1303–1314. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9118-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallin H, Ekbom BS (1988) Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a field tracing study. Oecologia 77:39–43. doi:10.1007/BF00380922

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner JF, Merriam G (1990) Use of spatial elements in a farmland mosaic by a woodland rodent. Biol Conserv 54:263–276. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(90)90056-U

    Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival rate estimation from both live and dead encounters. Bird Study 46:S120–S139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegand T, Moloney KA, Naves J, Knauer F (1999) Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective. Am Nat 154:605–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Crawford CS, Gosz JR (1985) Boundary dynamics: a conceptual framework for studying landscape ecosystems. Oikos 45:412–427. doi:10.2307/3565577

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380. doi:10.2307/3544931

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Schooley RL, Weeks RD (1997) Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78:257–264. doi:10.2307/3546292

    Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459. doi:10.2307/2265819

    Google Scholar 

  • With KA, King AW (1999) Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landsc Ecol 14:73–82. doi:10.1023/A:1008030215600

    Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 78:151–169. doi:10.2307/3545811

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Illumination and the perception of remote habitat patches by white-footed mice. Anim Behav 58:489–500. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1186

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Grant no. A6087301 of the GA AV CR and No. LC06073 of the MSMT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology AS CR, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

    Pavel Kindlmann

  2. CNRS, UMR ECOBIO, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes Cedex, France

    Francoise Burel

Authors
  1. Pavel Kindlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francoise Burel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pavel Kindlmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kindlmann, P., Burel, F. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23, 879–890 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation