Landscape Ecology

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 963–978 | Cite as

Quantifying landscape connectivity through the use of connectivity response curves

Research Article


Habitat connectivity is an essential component of biodiversity conservation. Simulated landscapes were manipulated to quantify the impact of changes to the amount, fragmentation and dispersion of habitat on a widely applied landscape connectivity metric, the probability of connectivity index. Index results for different landscape scenarios were plotted against the dispersal distances used for their calculation to create connectivity response curves for each scenario. Understanding index response to controlled changes in landscape structure at a range of spatial scales can be used to give context to comparison of alternative landscape management scenarios. Increased amounts of habitat, decreased fragmentation and decreased inter-patch distances resulted in increased connectivity index values. Connectivity response curves demonstrated increases in assessed connectivity for scenarios with continuous corridors or “stepping stone” connectors. The sensitivity of connectivity response curves to controlled changes in landscape structure indicate that this approach is able to detect and distinguish between different types of landscape changes, but that delineation of habitat and method of quantifying dispersal probability incorporate assumptions that must be recognized when interpreting results to guide landscape management. Representing landscape connectivity in this manner allows for the impacts of alternative landscape management strategies to be compared visually through comparative plots, or statistically through the parameters that describe connectivity response curves.


Landscape connectivity Graph theory Landscape metrics 


  1. Acuna MP, Estades CF (2011) Plantation clearcut size and the persistence of early-successional wildlife populations. Biol Conserv 144:1577–1584. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ, Ellingsen KE, McArdle BH (2006) Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol Lett 9:683–693. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00926.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Awade M, Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2012) Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landscape Ecol 27:185–198. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9667-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9108-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Diamond AW, Taylor PD (2006) Independent effects of fragmentation on forest songbirds: an organism-based approach. Ecol Appl 16:1076–1089PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225. doi:10.1017/s1464793104006645 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brudvig LA, Damschen EI, Tewksbury JJ, Haddad NM, Levey DJ (2009) Landscape connectivity promotes plant biodiversity spillover into non-target habitats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:9328–9332Google Scholar
  8. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey AB (2003) Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan-McLeod ACA, Moy A (2007) Evaluating residual tree patches as stepping stones and short-term refugia for red-legged frogs. J Wildl Manag 71:1836–1844. doi:10.2193/2006-309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapin TG, Harrison DJ, Katnik DD (1998) Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conserv Biol 12:1327–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman SA, Shirk A, Landguth EL (2012) Separating the effects of habitat area, fragmentation and matrix resistance on genetic differentiation in complex landscapes. Landsc Ecol 27:369–380. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9693-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doerr VAJ, Barrett T, Doerr ED (2011) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01899.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flather CH, Bevers M (2002) Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. Am Nat 159:40–56. doi:10.1086/324120 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinam HL, St. Clair CCS (2008) High levels of habitat loss and fragmentation limit reproductive success by reducing home range size and provisioning rates of Northern saw-whet owls. Biol Conserv 141:524–535. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01919.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holyoak M (2008) Connectance and connectivity. In: Jorgensen SE, Fath B (eds) Encyclopedia of ecology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jenness J (2008) ArcGis tools; Conefor inputs tool. Jeness Enterprises, FlagstaffGoogle Scholar
  23. Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51:5–15. doi:10.1007/s10144-008-0120-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4 Google Scholar
  25. King AW, With KA (2002) Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecol Model 147:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koper N, Schmiegelow FKA, Merrill EH (2007) Residuals cannot distinguish between ecological effects of habitat amount and fragmentation: implications for the debate. Landscape Ecol 22:811–820. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9083-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laita A, Monkkonen M, Kotiaho JS (2010) Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biol Conserv 143:1212–1227. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Monkkonen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecol 26:951–967. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9620-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. Island Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol Evol 22:127–132. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Fischer J (2006) General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 131:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindenmayer D, Hobbs RJ, Montague-Drake R, Alexandra J, Bennett A, Burgman M, Cale P, Calhoun A, Cramer V, Cullen P, Driscoll D, Fahrig L, Fischer J, Franklin J, Haila Y, Hunter M, Gibbons P, Lake S, Luck G, MacGregor C (2008) A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation. Ecol Lett 11:78–91Google Scholar
  33. Loehle C (2007) Effect of ephemeral stepping stones on metapopulations on fragmented landscapes. Ecol Complex 4:42–47. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matisziw TC, Murray AT (2009) Connectivity change in habitat networks. Landscape Ecol 24:89–100. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9282-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matter SF, Roslin T, Roland J (2005) Predicting immigration of two species in contrasting landscapes: effects of scale, patch size and isolation. Oikos 111:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metzger J-P, Décamps H (1997) The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecol 18:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neel MC (2008) Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalms albens (Fabaceae). Biol Conserv 141:938–955. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen SE, Bayne EM, Schieck J, Herbers J, Boutin S (2007) A new method to estimate species and biodiversity intactness using empirically derived reference conditions. Biol Conserv 137:403–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 130:70–83. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perault DR, Lomolino MV (2000) Corridors and mammal community structure across a fragmented, old-growth forest landscape. Ecol Monogr 70:401–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pereira M, Segurado P, Neves N (2011) Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: a case study with pond turtles. Landsc Urban Plan 100:67–76. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perotto-Baldivieso HL, Melendez-Ackerman E, Garcia MA, Leimgruber P, Cooper SM, Martinez A, Calle P, Ramos Gonzales OM, Quinones M, Christen CA, Pons G (2009) Spatial distribution, connectivity, and the influence of scale: habitat availability for the endangered Mona Island rock iguana. Biodivers Conserv 18:905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rubio L, Rodriguez-Freire M, Mateo-Sanchez MC, Estreguil C, Saura S (2012) Sustaining forest landscape connectivity under different land cover change scenarios. For Syst 21:223–235Google Scholar
  45. Rueda M, Hawkins BA, Morales-Castilla I, Vidanes RM, Ferrero M, Rodríguez MÁ (2013) Does fragmentation increase extinction thresholds? A European-wide test with seven forest birds. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:1282–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation—a review. Conserv Biol 5:18–32. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saura S, Torne J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saura S, Estreguil C, Mouton C, Rodríguez-Freire M (2011a) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Ind 11:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saura S, Vogt P, Velazquez J, Hernando A, Tejera R (2011b) Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses. For Ecol Manag 262:150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saura S, Bodin Ö, Fortin M-J (2014) Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J Appl Ecol 51:171–182. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith AC, Koper N, Francis CM, Fahrig L (2009) Confronting collinearity: comparing methods for disentangling the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 24:1271–1285. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9383-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swihart RK, Goheen JR, Schnelker SA, Rizkalla CE (2007) Testing the generality of patch and landscape-level predictors of tree squirrel occurrence at a regional scale. J Mammal 88:564–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tewksbury JJ, Levey DJ, Haddad NM, Sargent S, Orrock JL, Weldon A, Danielson BJ, Brinkerhoff J, Damschen EI, Townsend P (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:12923–12926PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tischendorf L, Grez A, Zaviezo T, Fahrig L (2005) Mechanisms affecting population density in fragmented habitat. Ecol Soc 10:13Google Scholar
  57. Trainor AM, Walters JR, Urban DL, Moody A (2013) Evaluating the effectiveness of a Safe Harbor Program for connecting wildlife populations. Anim Conserv 16:610–620. doi:10.1111/acv.12035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batary P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Frund J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis DA, Laurance W, Lindenmayer D, Scherber C, Sodhi N, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, van der Putten WH, Westphal C (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685Google Scholar
  59. Van Der Ree R, Bennett AF, Gilmore DC (2004) Gap-crossing by gliding marsupials: thresholds for use of isolated woodland patches in an agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 115:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459. doi:10.2307/2265819 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. With KA, Schrott GR, King AW (2006) The implications of metalandscape connectivity for population viabilityin migratory songbirds. Landscape Ecol 21:157–167. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-1786-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wulder MA, White JC, Andrew ME, Seitz NE, Coops NC (2009) Forest fragmentation, structure, and age characteristics as a legacy of forest management. For Ecol Manag 258:1938–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zuckerberg B, Porter WF (2010) Thresholds in the long-term responses of breeding birds to forest cover and fragmentation. Biol Conserv 143:952–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zwolak R (2009) A meta-analysis of the effects of wildfire, clearcutting, and partial harvest on the abundance of North American small mammals. For Ecol Manag 258:539–545. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies ProgramThompson Rivers UniversityKamloopsCanada

Personalised recommendations