Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 605–619 | Cite as

Using network theory to prioritize management in a desert bighorn sheep metapopulation

  • Tyler G. Creech
  • Clinton W. Epps
  • Ryan J. Monello
  • John D. Wehausen
Research Article

Abstract

Connectivity models using empirically-derived landscape resistance maps can predict potential linkages among fragmented animal and plant populations. However, such models have rarely been used to guide systematic decision-making, such as identifying the most important habitat patches and dispersal corridors to protect or restore in order to maximize regional connectivity. Combining resistance models with network theory offers one means of prioritizing management for connectivity, and we applied this approach to a metapopulation of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in the Mojave Desert of the southwestern United States. We used a genetic-based landscape resistance model to construct network models of genetic connectivity (potential for gene flow) and demographic connectivity (potential for colonization of empty habitat patches), which may differ because of sex-biased dispersal in bighorn sheep. We identified high-priority habitat patches and corridors and found that the type of connectivity and the network metric used to quantify connectivity had substantial effects on prioritization results, although some features ranked highly across all combinations. Rankings were also sensitive to our empirically-derived estimates of maximum effective dispersal distance, highlighting the importance of this often-ignored parameter. Patch-based analogs of our network metrics predicted both neutral and mitochondrial genetic diversity of 25 populations within the study area. This study demonstrates that network theory can enhance the utility of landscape resistance models as tools for conservation, but it is critical to consider the implications of sex-biased dispersal, the biological relevance of network metrics, and the uncertainty associated with dispersal range and behavior when using this approach.

Keywords

Colonization Connectivity Dispersal Extinction Fragmented population Gene flow Graph theory Habitat patch Landscape resistance 

Supplementary material

10980_2014_16_MOESM1_ESM.docx (4.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 4211 kb)

References

  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64(4):233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert EM, Fortuna MA, Godoy JA, Bascompte J (2013) Assessing the robustness of networks of spatial genetic variation. Ecol Lett 16:86–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleich VC, Wehausen JD, Ramey RR II, Rechel JL (1996) Metapopulation theory and mountain sheep: implications for conservation. In: McCullough DR (ed) Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Pres, CoveloGoogle Scholar
  4. Chardon J, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol 18(6):561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chetkiewicz C-LB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46(5):1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crooks KR, Sanjayan MA (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168(4):486–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cushman SA, Chase M, Griffin C (2010) Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in southern Africa. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer, Tachikawa, pp 349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1(1):269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dyer RJ, Nason JD (2004) Population graphs: the graph theoretic shape of genetic structure. Mol Ecol 13(7):1713–1727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epps CW, McCullough DR, Wehausen JD, Bleich VC, Rechel JL (2004) Effects of climate change on population persistence of desert-dwelling mountain sheep in California. Conserv Biol 18(1):102–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epps CW, Palsbøll PJ, Wehausen JD, Roderick GK, Ramey RR, McCullough DR (2005) Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecol Lett 8(10):1029–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epps CW, Palsbøll PJ, Wehausen JD, Roderick GK, McCullough DR (2006) Elevation and connectivity define genetic refugia for mountain sheep as climate warms. Mol Ecol 15(14):4295–4302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epps CW, Wehausen JD, Bleich VC, Torres SG, Brashares JS (2007) Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics. J Appl Ecol 44(4):714–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Epps CW, Wehausen JD, Palsbøll PJ, McCullough DR (2010) Using genetic tools to track desert bighorn sheep colonizations. J Wildl Manag 74(3):522–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epps CW, Wasser SK, Keim JL, Mutayoba BM, Brashares JS (2013) Quantifying past and present connectivity illuminates a rapidly changing landscape for the African elephant. Mol Ecol 22(6):1574–1588Google Scholar
  17. Fortuna MA, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Bascompte J (2006) Spatial network structure and amphibian persistence in stochastic environments. Proc R Soc B 273(1592):1429–1434PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankham R (2005) Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv 126(2):131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garroway CJ, Bowman J, Carr D, Wilson PJ (2008) Applications of graph theory to landscape genetics. Evol Appl 1(4):620–630PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Graves TA, Beier P, Royle JA (2013) Current approaches using genetic distances produce poor estimates of landscape resistance to interindividual dispersal. Mol Ecol 22(15):3888–3903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guillot G, Rousset F (2013) Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods Ecol Evol 4(4):336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63(1):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holsinger KE, Weir BS (2009) Genetics in geographically structured populations: defining, estimating and interpreting FST. Nat Rev Genet 10(9):639–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoyle M, James M (2005) Global warming, human population pressure, and viability of the world’s smallest butterfly. Conserv Biol 19(4):1113–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordán F, Báldi A, Orci KM, Rácz 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):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krausman PR, Sandoval AV, Etchberger RC (1999) Natural history of desert bighorn sheep. In: Valdez R, Krausman PR (eds) Mountain Sheep of North America. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  27. Laita A, Kotiaho J, Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecol 26(7):951–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull ESA 15(3):237–240Google Scholar
  29. Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20(2):427–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovich JE, Ennen JR (2011) Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, United States. BioScience 61(12):982–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(50):19885–19890PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89(10):2712–2724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McRae BH, Hall SA, Beier P, Theobald DM (2012) Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One 7(12):e52604Google Scholar
  34. Mills L (2007) Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics, and management. Blackwell Publishing, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  35. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17(6):1771–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48(6):1543–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moilanen A, Smith Andrew T, Hanski I (1998) Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. Am Nat 152(4):530–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J (2010) Node centrality in weighted networks: generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Netw 32(3):245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parks SA, McKelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2012) Effects of weighting schemes on the identification of wildlife corridors generated with least-cost methods. Conserv Biol 27:145–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21(7):959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perez-Espona S, Perez-Barberia FJ, McLeod JE, Jiggins CD, Gordon IJ, Pemberton JM (2008) Landscape features affect gene flow of Scottish Highland red deer (Cervus elaphus). Mol Ecol 17(4):981–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reed DH, Frankham R (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol 17(1):230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rozenfeld AF, Arnaud-Haond S, Hernández-García E, Eguíluz VM, Serrão EA, Duarte CM (2008) Network analysis identifies weak and strong links in a metapopulation system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(48):18824–18829PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48(3):668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M-J, McRae BH, Scribner KIM (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19(17):3576–3591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulé M (2012) Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett 5(2):123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Torres SG, Bleich VC, Wehausen JD (1994) Status of bighorn sheep in California, 1993. Desert Bighorn Council Trans 38:17–28Google Scholar
  48. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Littell JS, Shirk AJ, Landguth EL (2012) Population connectivity and genetic diversity of American marten (Martes americana) in the United States northern Rocky Mountains in a climate change context. Conserv Genet 14(2):529–541 Google Scholar
  50. Wehausen JD (1999) Rapid extinction of mountain sheep populations revisited. Conserv Biol 13(2):378–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whitlock MC, McCauley DE (1999) Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST ≠ 1/(4Nm + 1). Heredity 82(2):117–125Google Scholar
  52. Zeller K, McGarigal K, Whiteley A (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27(6):777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler G. Creech
    • 1
  • Clinton W. Epps
    • 1
  • Ryan J. Monello
    • 2
  • John D. Wehausen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.National Park ServiceBiological Resource Management DivisionFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.White Mountain Research StationUniversity of CaliforniaBishopUSA

Personalised recommendations