Landscape Ecology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 585–593 | Cite as

Improving inferences about functional connectivity from animal translocation experiments

  • Matthew G. BettsEmail author
  • Kevin J. Gutzwiller
  • Matthew J. Smith
  • W. Douglas Robinson
  • Adam S. Hadley



Functional connectivity reflects the ease with which an organism can access different locations within its environment. Because functional connectivity can significantly influence dispersal, habitat selection, and ultimately the viability of populations, it is central to understanding and predicting biological responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Currently, no consensus exists on how to measure functional connectivity.

Objectives and methods

Species-centered approaches such as translocation experiments have recently been advocated because they enable strong inferences about functional connectivity. The use of these types of experiments is increasing rapidly, but to date there has been no synthesis of the wide range of methods available to minimize possible study design problems. Here, we review the recent literature on translocation experiments and highlight potential confounds that may lead to inappropriate conclusions from translocation studies.


We report several approaches that can limit the degree to which these confounds affect inferences. We briefly describe paired and repeated-measures designs that use mixed models to address lack of spatial and temporal independence as means for coping with confounds.


Such approaches to the design and analyses of translocation experiments should facilitate high-quality measurements of landscape functional connectivity. We encourage investigators to continue functional connectivity research that capitalizes on the advantages of translocations while applying rigorous study designs.


Animal movement Dispersal Fragmentation Functional connectivity Matrix Structural connectivity 



This research was supported by funding from NSF-DEB-1457837 to MGB and ASH, and NSF-DEB-1050954 to MGB and WDR. KJG thanks Baylor University for financial support. We are grateful to M. Bélisle and three anonymous reviewers for advice about the manuscript.


  1. Aben J, Adriaensen F, Thijs KW, Pellikka P, Siljander M, Lens L, Matthysen E (2012) Effects of matrix composition and configuration on forest bird movements in a fragmented Afromontane biodiversity hot spot. Anim Conserv 15:658–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aben J, Strubbe D, Adriaensen F, Palmer SC, Travis JM, Lens L, Matthysen E (2014) Simple individual-based models effectively represent Afrotropical forest bird movement in complex landscapes. J Appl Ecol 51:693–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker VJ, Van Vuren DH (2004) Gap-crossing decisions by the red squirrel, a forest-dependent small mammal. Conserv Biol 18:689–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995Google Scholar
  6. Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin MJ (2001) Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893–1904Google Scholar
  7. Betts MG, Fahrig L, Hadley AS, Halstead KE, Bowman J, Robinson WD, Wiens JA, Lindenmayer DB (2014) A species-centered approach for uncovering generalities in organism responses to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecography 37:517–527Google Scholar
  8. Bonte D, Van Dyck H, Bullock JM, Coulon A, Delgado M, Gibbs M, Travis JM (2011) Costs of dispersal. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87:290–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Boscolo D, Candia-Gallardo C, Awade M, Metzger JP (2008) Importance of interhabitat gaps and stepping-stones for lesser woodcreepers (Xiphorhynchus fuscus) in the Atlantic forest, Brazil. Biotropica 40:273–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bovet J (1984) Strategies of homing behavior in the red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 16:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowman J, Fahrig L (2002) Gap crossing by chipmunks: an experimental test of landscape connectivity. Can J Zool 80:1556–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bridge ES, Thorup K, Bowlin MS, Chilson PB, Diehl PH, Fléron RW, Wikelski M, philip H (2011) Technology on the move: recent and forthcoming innovations for tracking migratory birds. Bioscience 61:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bridgman LJ, Benitez VV, Graña Grilli M, Mufato N, Acosta D, Guichón ML (2012) Short perceptual range and yet successful invasion of a fragmented landscape: the case of the red-bellied tree squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus) in Argentina. Landsc Ecol 27:633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown JR, Bishop CA, Brooks RJ (2009) Effectiveness of short-distance translocation and its effects on western rattlesnakes. J Wildl Manag 73:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler H, Malone B, Clemann N (2005) The effects of translocation on the spatial ecology of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) in a suburban landscape. Wildl Res 32:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bélisle M, St. Clair C (2001) Cumulative effects of barriers on the movements of forest birds. Conserv Ecol 5:9Google Scholar
  17. Castellon TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Conradt L, Bodsworth EJ, Roper TJ, Thomas CD (2000) Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci 267:1505–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cushman SA, Lewis JS (2010) Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears. Landsc Ecol 25:1613–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Desrochers A, Bélisle M, Morand-Ferron J, Bourque J (2011) Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs. Landsc Ecol 26:47–58Google Scholar
  21. Desrochers A, Hannon S, Bélisle M, St Clair CC (1999) Movement of songbirds in fragmented forests: can we “scale up” from behaviour to explain occupancy patterns in the landscape? Int Ornitholog Congr 22:2447–2464Google Scholar
  22. Doherty PF, Grubb TC (2002) Survivorship of permanent-resident birds in a fragmented forested landscape. Ecology 83:844–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duggan JM, Heske EJ, Schooley RL (2012) Gap-crossing decisions by adult Franklin’s ground squirrels in agricultural landscapes. J Mammal 93:1231–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscape. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellis RD, McWhorter TJ, Maron M (2012) Integrating landscape ecology and conservation physiology. Landsc Ecol 27:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Etherington TR, Holland EP (2013) Least-cost path length versus accumulated-cost as connectivity measures. Landsc Ecol 28:1223–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eycott AE, Stewart GB, Buyung-Ali LM, Bowler DE, Watts K, Pullin AS (2012) A meta-analysis on the impact of different matrix structures on species movement rates. Landsc Ecol 27:1263–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fletcher RJ, Maxwell CW, Andrews JE, Helmey-Hartman WL (2013) Signal detection theory clarifies the concept of perceptual range and its relevance to landscape connectivity. Landsc Ecol 28:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:349–350CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gillies CS, Beyer HL, St. Clair CC (2011) Fine-scale movement decisions of tropical forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Ecol Appl 21:944–954Google Scholar
  31. Gillies CS, St. Clair CC (2008) Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19774–19779Google Scholar
  32. Gillies CS, St. Clair CC (2010) Functional responses in habitat selection by tropical birds moving through fragmented forest. J Appl Ecol 47:182–190Google Scholar
  33. Gobeil JF, Villard MA (2002) Permeability of three boreal forest landscape types to bird movements as determined from experimental translocations. Oikos 98:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hadley AS, Betts MG (2009) Tropical deforestation alters hummingbird movement patterns. Biology. Lett. 5:207–210Google Scholar
  35. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harju SM, Olson CV, Dzialak MR, Mudd JP, Winstead JB (2013) A flexible approach for assessing functional landscape connectivity, with application to greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Plos One 8:e82271CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heidinger IMM, Poethke HJ, Bonte D, Hein S (2009) The effect of translocation on movement behaviour-A test of the assumptions of behavioural studies. Behav Process 82:12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huste A, Clobert J, Miaud C (2006) The movements and breeding site fidelity of the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) in an urban park near Paris (France) with management recommendations. Amphib-Reptil 27:561–568Google Scholar
  40. Ibarra-Macias A, Robinson WD, Gaines MS (2011) Experimental evaluation of bird movements in a fragmented neotropical landscape. Biol Conserv 144:703–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Janin A, Lena JP, Joly P (2011) Beyond occurrence: body condition and stress hormone as integrative indicators of habitat availability and fragmentation in the common toad. Biol Conserv 144:1008–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jonsen I, Taylor PD (2000) Calopteryx damselfly dispersions arising from multiscale responses to landscape structure. Conserv Ecol 4:[online] URL:
  43. Kennedy CM, Campbell Grant EH, Neel MC, Fagan WF, Marra PP (2011) Landscape matrix mediates occupancy dynamics of Neotropical avian insectivores. Ecol Appl 21:1837–1850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy CM, Marra PP (2010) Matrix mediates avian movements in tropical forested landscapes: inference from experimental translocations. Biol Conserv 143:2136–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  46. Koen EL, Bowman J, Sadowski C, Walpole AA (2014) Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multispecies linkage maps. Methods Ecol Evol 5:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawes TJ, Anthony RG, Robinson WD, Forbes JT, Lorton GA (2013) Movements and settlement site selection of pygmy rabbits after experimental translocation. J Wildl Manag 77:1170–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magrach A, Larrinaga AR, Santamaria L (2012) Effects of matrix characteristics and interpatch distance on functional connectivity in fragmented temperate rainforests. Conserv Biol 26:238–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Mawdsley JR, O’Malley R, Ojima DS (2009) A review of climate-change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conserv Biol 23:1080–1089CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. McDonald WR, St. Clair CC (2004) The effects of artificial and natural barriers on the movement of small mammals in Banff National Park, Canada. Oikos 105Google Scholar
  51. Mimet A, Houet T, Julliard R, Simon L (2013) Assessing functional connectivity: a landscape approach for handling multiple ecological requirements. Methods Ecol Evol 4:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moore RP, Robinson WD, Lovette IJ, Robinson TR (2008) Experimental evidence for extreme dispersal limitation in tropical forest birds. Ecol Lett 11:960–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Nowakowski AJ, Otero Jiménez B, Allen M, Diaz-Escobar M, Donnelly MA (2013) Landscape resistance to movement of the poison frog, Oophaga pumilio, in the lowlands of northeastern Costa Rica. Anim Conserv 16:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prugh, LR (2009) An evaluation of patch connectivity measures. Ecol Appl 19:1300–1310Google Scholar
  55. Rivera JHV, Rappole JH, McShea WJ, Haas CA (1998) Wood thrush postfledging movements and habitat use in northern Virginia. Condor 100:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rizkalla CE, Swihart RK (2007) Explaining movement decisions of forest rodents in fragmented landscapes. Biol Conserv 140:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robinson SK, Thompson FR, Donovan TM, Whitehead DR, Faaborg J (1995) Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–1990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodenhouse NL, Sillett TS, Doran PJ, Holmes RT (2003) Multiple density-dependence mechanisms regulate a migratory bird population during the breeding season. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 270:2105–2110Google Scholar
  59. Rogers LL (1986) Effects of translocation distance on frequency of return by adult black bears. Wildl Soc Bull 14:76–80Google Scholar
  60. Santos SM, Lourenco R, Mira A, Beja P (2013) Relative effects of road risk, habitat suitability, and connectivity on wildlife roadkills: the case of tawny Owls (Strix aluco). Plos One 8:e79967CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Schumaker NH, Brookes A, Dunk JR, Dunk JR, Woodbridge B, Heinrichs JA, Lawler JJ, Carroll C, LaPlante D (2014) Mapping sources, sinks, and connectivity using a simulation model of northern spotted owls. Landsc Ecol 29:579–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Severns PM, McIntire EJB, Schultz CB (2013) Evaluating functional connectivity with matrix behavior uncertainty for an endangered butterfly. Landsc Ecol 28:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith MJ, Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Kehler DG, Bourgeois MC, Flemming SP (2011) Independent effects of connectivity predict homing success by northern flying squirrel in a forest mosaic. Landsc Ecol 26:707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith MJ, Forbes GJ, Betts MG (2013) Landscape configuration influences gap-crossing decisions of northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus). Biol Conserv 168:176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. St-Louis V, Forester JD, Pelletier D, Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Wulder MA, Cardille JA et al (2014) Circuit theory emphasizes the importance of edge-crossing decisions in dispersal-scale movements of a forest passerine. Landsc Ecol 29:831–841Google Scholar
  66. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tremblay MA, St Clair CC (2011) Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. J Appl Ecol 48:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Turcotte Y, Desrochers A (2003) Landscape-dependent response to predation risk by forest birds. Oikos 100:614–618Google Scholar
  69. Turgeon K, Robillard A, Gregoire J, Duclos V, Kramer DL (2010) Functional connectivity from a reef fish perspective: behavioral tactics for moving in a fragmented landscape. Ecology 91:3332–3342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Villard M-A, Haché S (2012) Conifer plantations consistently act as barriers to movement in a deciduous forest songbird: a translocation experiment. Biol Conserv 155:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Volpe N, Hadley AS, Robinson WD, Betts MG (2014) Functional connectivity experiments reflect routine movement behavior of a tropical hummingbird species. Ecol Appl 24: 2122–2131 Google Scholar
  72. Wilkinson EB, Branch LC, Miller DL (2013) Functional habitat connectivity for beach mice depends on perceived predation risk. Landsc Ecol 28:547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wilson RF, Marsh H, Winter J (2007) Inportance of canopy connectivity for home range and movements of the rainforest arboreal ringtail possum (Hemibelideus lemuroides). Wildl Res 34:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew G. Betts
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kevin J. Gutzwiller
    • 2
  • Matthew J. Smith
    • 3
  • W. Douglas Robinson
    • 4
  • Adam S. Hadley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  3. 3.Cape Breton Highlands National ParkIngonishCanada
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations