Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 7, pp 1433–1447 | Cite as

Evaluating habitat connectivity methodologies: a case study with endangered African wild dogs in South Africa

  • Craig R. Jackson
  • Kelly Marnewick
  • Peter A. Lindsey
  • Eivin Røskaft
  • Mark P. Robertson
Research Article



In fragmented landscapes, connectivity between subpopulations is vital for species’ persistence. Various techniques are used to assess the degree of connectivity between habitat patches, yet their performance is seldom evaluated. Models are regularly based on habitat selection by individuals in resident populations, yet dispersers may not require habitat which supports permanent residence.

Objectives and methods

Using a database of African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) occurrence records in north-eastern South Africa (n = 576), we developed and compared ecological niche models (ENM) for wild dogs packs and dispersers. Additionally, we used least cost path (LCP) and current flow models to assess connectivity. Results were further validated using occurrence records (n = 339) for cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus).

Results and conclusions

The ENM for wild dog packs identified large but isolated patches of suitable habitat, while the disperser ENM had greater suitability values for areas in between highly suitable patches. Without disperser-specific data, models omitted large areas which were confirmed to have provided connectivity. Although models derived from a potentially subjective cost layer have been criticised, the current flow model outperformed the other connectivity techniques and provided the most meaningful predictions for conservation planning. We identified five priority conservation areas for wild dogs, two of which had a greater feasibility for recolonisation. The scarcity of disperser-specific data promotes models using habitat data for resident individuals but here we illustrate the pitfalls thereof. Our study provides insights into the performance of these frequently employed techniques and how they may affect conservation management decisions.


Carnivores Circuitscape Current-flow Ecological niche model Fragmentation Least cost path (LCP) Maxent Metapopulation 

Supplementary material

10980_2016_342_MOESM1_ESM.docx (742 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 742 kb)


  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, Blust GD, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsca Urban Plan 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardillo M, Mace GM, Jones KE, Bielby J, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Sechrest W, Orme CDL, Purvis A (2005) Multiple causes of high extinction risk in large mammal species. Science 309:1239–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll C, Mcrae BH, Brookes A (2012) Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in Western North America. Conserv Biol 26:78–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Creel S, Creel NM (2002) The African Wild dog: behaviour, ecology and conservation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman SA, Mckelvey KS, Schwartz MK (2009) Use of empirically derived source–destination models to map regional conservation corridors. Conserv Biol 23:368–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalerum F, Somers MJ, Kunkel K, Cameron EZ (2008) The potential for large carnivores to act as biodiversity surrogates in southern Africa. Biodivers Conserv 17:2939–2949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies-Mostert HT, Kamler JF, Mills MGL, Jackson CR, Rasmussen GSA, Groom RJ, Macdonald DW (2012) Long-distance transboundary dispersal of African wild dogs among protected areas in southern Africa. Afr J Ecol 50:500–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies-Mostert HT, Mills MGL, Macdonald DW (2009) A critical assessment of South Africa’s managed metapopulation recovery strategy for African wild dogs and its value as a template for large carnivore conservation elsewhere. In: Hayward M, Somers M (eds) Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobson A, Lodge D, Alder J, Cumming GS, Keymer J et al (2006) Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology 87:1915–1924CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudik M, Ferrier S, Guisan A et al (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fagan WF, Calabrese JM (2006) Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 297–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuller TK, Kat PW, Bulger JB, Maddock AH, Ginsberg JR, Burrows R, McNutt JW, Mills MGL (1992) Population dynamics of African wilddogs. In: McCullough DR, Barrett H (eds) Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Science Publishers, London, pp 1125–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graves TA, Farley S, Goldstein MI, Servheen C (2007) Identification of functional corridors with movement characteristics of brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Landscape Ecol 22:765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilty JA, Merenlender AM (2004) Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in Northern California. Conserv Biol 18:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huck M, Jędrzejewski W, Borowik T, Miłosz-Cielma M, Schmidt K, Jędrzejewska B, Nowak S, Mysłajek RW (2011) Habitat suitability, corridors and dispersal barriers for large carnivores in Poland. Acta Theriol 56:91–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutcheson K (1970) A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. J Theor Biol 29:151–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson CR, Robertson MP (2011) Predicting the potential distribution of an endangered cryptic subterranean mammal from few occurrence records. J Nat Conserv 19:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee-Yaw JA, Davidson A, McRae BH, Green DM (2009) Do landscape processes predict phylogeographic patterns in the wood frog? Mol Ecol 18:1863–1874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindsey P, du Toit JT, Mills MG, Alexander R (2005a) The potential contribution of ecotourism to wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation. Biol Conserv 123:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindsey P, du Toit JT, Mills MGL (2004) The distribution and population status of African wild dogs Lycaon pictus outside protected areas in South Africa. S Afr J Wildl Res 34:143–151Google Scholar
  25. Lindsey PA, Du Toit JT, Mills MG (2005b) Attitudes of ranchers towards African wild dogs Lycaon pictus: conservation implications for wild dogs on private land. Biol Conserv 125:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindsey PA, Romañach SS, Davies-Mostert HT (2009) The importance of conservancies for enhancing the value of game ranch land for large mammal conservation in southern Africa. J Zool 277:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nat (Lond) 405:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masenga EH, Jackson CR, Mjingo EE, Jacobson A, Riggio J, Lyamuya RD, Fyumagwa RD, Borner M, Røskaft E (in press) Insights into long-distance dispersal by African wild dogs in East Africa. Afr J Ecol. doi:10.1111/aje.12244
  29. McNutt JW (1996) Sex-biased dispersal in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. Anim Behav 52:1067–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology and conservation. Ecology 10:2712–2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McRae BH, Kavanagh DM (2011). Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle. Available from (Accessed Nov 2012)
  32. Merrill T, Mattson DJ, Wright RG, Quigley HB (1999) Defining landscapes suitable for restoration of grizzly bears Ursus arctos in Idaho. Biol Conserv 87:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mucina L, Rutherford MC (2006) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland., Strelitzia 19South African National Biodiversity Institute, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  34. Newman MEJ (2005) A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc Netw 27:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Noss RF, Quigley HB, Hornocker MG, Merrill T, Paquet PC (1996) Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv Biol 10:949–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palomares F, Delibes M, Ferreras P, Fedriani JM, Calzada J, Revilla E (2000) Iberian Lynx in a fragmented landscape: predispersal, dispersal, and postdispersal habitats. Conserv Biol 14:809–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, SchapireR E (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ray N, Burgman MA (2006) Subjective uncertainties in habitat suitability maps. Ecol Model 195:172–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2010) Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. J Appl Ecol 47:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swanson A, Caro T, Davies-Mostert H, Mills MGL, Macdonald DW, Borner M, Masenga E, Packer C (2014) Cheetahs and wild dogs show contrasting patterns of suppression by lions. J Anim Ecol 83:1418–1427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorn M, Green M, Scott D, Marnewick K (2013) Characteristics and determinants of human-carnivore conflict in South African farmland. Biodivers Conserv 22:1715–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Dyk G, Slotow R (2003) The effects of fences and lions on the ecology of African wild dogs reintroduced to Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa. Afr Zool 38:79–94Google Scholar
  44. WAG-SA (2014) Minutes of the Wild dog advisory group of South Africa (WAG-SA) meetings. Johannesburg, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998) Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR (1998) Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:2126–2128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR (1999) Conserving the African wild dog Lycaon pictus. I. Diagnosing and treating the causes of decline. Oryx 33:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA)TrondheimNorway
  3. 3.Carnivore Conservation Programme, Endangered Wildlife TrustJohannesburgSouth Africa
  4. 4.Centre for Wildlife ManagementUniversity of PretoriaHatfieldSouth Africa
  5. 5.PantheraNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Mammal Research Institute, Department of Zoology and EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  7. 7.Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Zoology and EntomologyUniversity of PretoriaHatfieldSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations