Abstract
Landscape ecologists have increasingly turned to the use of landscape graphs in which a landscape is represented as a set of nodes (habitat patches) connected by links representing inter-patch-dispersal. This study explores the use of a graph-based regionalization method, Graph-based REgionalization with Clustering And Partitioning (GraphRECAP), to detect structural groups of habitat patches (compartments) in a landscape graph such that the connections (i.e. the movement of individual organisms) within the groups are greater than those across groups. Specifically, we mapped compartments using habitat and dispersal data for ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) in an agricultural landscape in southern Madagascar using both GraphRECAP and the widely-used Girvan and Newman method. Model performance was evaluated by comparing compartment characteristics and three measures of network connectivity and traversability: the connection strength of habitat patches in the compartments (modularity), the potential ease of individual organism movements (Harary index), and the degree of alternative route presence (Alpha index). Compartments identified by GraphRECAP had stronger within-compartment connections, greater traversability, more alternative routes, and a larger minimum number of habitat patches within compartments, all of which are more desirable traits for ecological networks. Our method could thus facilitate the study of ecosystem resilience and the design of nature reserves and landscape networks to promote the landscape-scale dispersal of species in the fragmented habitats.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bellisario B, Cerfolli F, Nascetti G (2010) Spatial network structure and robustness of detritus-based communities in a patchy environment. Ecol Res 25(4):813–821
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18(4):182–188
Bodin Ö, Norberg J (2007) A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 22:31–44
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):440–451
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet forwindows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard
Brooks CP (2003) A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102(2):256–278
Chen J, Yuan B (2006) Detecting functional modules in the yeast protein–protein interaction network. Bioinformatics 22(18):2283–2290
Clobert J, Le Galliard JF, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12(3):197–209
De Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2012) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York
Devi BSS, Murthy MSR, Debnath B, Jha CS (2013) Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory. Ecol Model 251:279–287
Dunn R, Dudbridge F, Sanderson CM (2005) The use of edge-betweenness clustering to investigate biological function in protein interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics 6:1–14
Economo EP, Keitt TH (2010) Network isolation and local diversity in neutral metacommunities. Oikos 119(8):1355–1363
Foltête J-C, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Modell Softw 38:316–327
Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fortunato S (2010) Community detection in graphs. Phys Rep 486(3–5):75–174
Freeman LC (1977) Set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41
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):44–55
Gilarranz LJ, Bascompte J (2012) Spatial network structure and metapopulation persistence. J Theor Biol 297:11–16
Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(12):7821–7826
Glover F (1990) Tabu search: a tutorial. Interfaces 20(4):74–94
Guo D (2009) Flow mapping and multivariate visualization of large spatial interaction data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15(6):1041–1048
Guo D, Jin H (2011) iRedistrict: geovisual analytics for redistricting optimization. J Vis Lang Comput 22(4):279–289
Hanski I (1997) Metapopulation dynamics from concepts and observations to predictive models. In: Hanski I, Gilpin M (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 69–91
Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief-history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42(1–2):3–16
Holvorcem CGD, Tambosi LR, Ribeiro MC, Costa S, Bernardo Mesquita CA (2011) Anchor areas to improve conservation and increase connectivity within the Brazilian “Mesopotamia of Biodiversity”. Nat Conserv 9(2):225–231
Jordán F, Baldi A, Orci KM, Racz I, Varga Z (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecol 18(1):83–92
Kerr JT, Deguise I (2004) Habitat loss and the limits to endangered species recovery. Ecol Lett 7(12):1163–1169
Kupfer JA (1995) Landscape ecology and biogeography. Prog Phys Geogr 19(1):18–34
Kupfer JA (2012) Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Prog Phys Geog 36(3):400–420
Laita A, Mönkkönen M, Kotiaho JS (2010) Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biol Conserv 143(5):1212–1227
McIntyre NE, Strauss RE (2013) A new, multi-scaled graph visualization approach: an example within the playa wetland network of the Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 28(4):769–782
Mertl-Millhollen AS, Blumenfeld-Jones K, Raharison SM, Tsaramanana DR, Rasamimanana H (2011) Tamarind tree seed dispersal by ring-tailed lemurs. Primates 52(4):391–396
Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17(6):1771–1782
Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory frarmework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22(2):297–307
Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(23):8577–8582
Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69(2):1–15
O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130(1):70–83
Ono N, Fujiwara Y, Yuta K (2005) Artificial metabolic system: An evolutionary model for community organization in metabolic networks. In: Capcarrère MS, Freitas AA, Bentley PJ, Johnson CG, Timmis J (eds) Proceedings on Advances in artificial life, 8th European Conference, ECAL 2005, Canterbury, U.K., September 5–9, 2005, Lecture Notes of Computer Science, vol 3630. Springer, Berlin, pp 716–724
Pimm SL (1979) The structure of food webs. Theor Popul Biol 16(2):144–158
Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92(4):847–858
Reunanen P, Fall A, Nikula A (2012) Spatial graphs as templates for habitat networks in boreal landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 21(14):3569–3584
Rezende EL, Albert EM, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J (2009) Compartments in a marine food web associated with phylogeny, body mass, and habitat structure. Ecol Lett 12(8):779–788
Ricotta CA, Stanisci A, Avena GC, Blasi C (2000) Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics a graph theoretical approach. Community Ecol 1(1):89–94
Rubio L, Saura S (2012) Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements: an analysis of simulated and real landscape data. Ecol Complex 11:28–37
Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33(3):523–537
Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulê M (2012) Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett 5(2):123–133
Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273
Vergara PM, Perez-Hernandez CG, Hahn IJ, Soto GE (2013) Deforestation in central Chile causes a rapid decline in landscape connectivity for a forest specialist bird species. Ecol Res 28(3):481–492
Ziolkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Radeloff VC, Kozak J (2012) Potential habitat connectivity of European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Carpathians. Biol Conserv 146(1):188–196
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina to the lead author. This work was also supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0748813. The lead author would like to thank Hai Jin’s help with programming. The authors would especially like to thank Dr. Örjan Bodin for the generous offer of the dataset of his published work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, P., Kupfer, J.A., Guo, D. et al. Identifying functionally connected habitat compartments with a novel regionalization technique. Landscape Ecol 28, 1949–1959 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9938-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9938-1