Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 2311–2325 | Cite as

Landscape metrics as a framework to measure the effect of landscape structure on the spread of invasive insect species

  • Audrey LustigEmail author
  • Daniel B. Stouffer
  • Crile Doscher
  • Susan P. Worner
Research Article



With accelerated land-use change throughout the world, increased understanding of the relative effects of landscape composition and configuration on biological system and bioinvasion in particular, is needed to design effective management strategies. However, this topic is poorly understood in part because empirical studies often fail to account for large gradients of habitat complexity and offer insufficient or even no replication across habitats.


The aim of this study was to disentangle the independent and interactive effects of landscape composition and landscape configuration on the establishment and spread of invasive insect species.


We explore a spatially-explicit, mechanistic modeling framework that allows for systematic investigation of the impact of changes in landscape composition and landscape configuration on establishment and spread of invasive insect species. Landscape metrics are used as an indicators of invasive insect establishment and spread.


We showed that the presence of an Allee effect leads to a balance between the effectiveness of spread and invasion success. Spread is maximized at an intermediate dispersal level and inhibited at both low and high levels of dispersal. The landscape, by either increasing or mitigating the dispersal abilities of a species, can lead to a rate of spread under a dispersal threshold for which density and spread is at the highest.


Our study proposes that change in landscape structure is an additional explanation of the highly variable spread dynamics observed in natural and anthropogenic landscapes. Consequently, a landscape-scale perspective could significantly improve spread risk assessment and the design of control or containment strategies.


Invasive insects Heterogeneous landscape Landscape metrics Population dynamics Invasive spread Spatially-explicit stochastic models 



Thanks are due to all involved, including Ursula Torres, Mariona Roige and Marona Rovira Capdevila for their help with the interpretation of the results. Work was supported by Bio-Protection Research Centre, Canterbury, New Zealand.


  1. Bartoń K (2016) MuMIn: multi-model inference, version 1.15.6. URL:
  2. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H, Dai B, Eigen adn Grothendieck G (2015) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using ’Eigen’ and S4, version 1.1-10.
  3. 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(6):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bocedi G, Palmer SC, Pe’er G, Heikkinen RK, Matsinos YG, Watts K, Travis JM (2014) Rangeshifter: a platform for modelling spatial eco-evolutionary dynamics and species’ responses to environmental changes. Methods Ecol Evol 5(4):388–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley BA (2010) Assessing ecosystem threats from global and regional change: hierarchical modeling of risk to sagebrush ecosystems from climate change, land use and invasive species in Nevada, USA. Ecography 33(1):198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown GP, Phillips BL, Webb JK, Shine R (2006) Toad on the road: use of roads as dispersal corridors by cane toads (Bufo marinus) at an invasion front in tropical Australia. Biol Conserv 133(1):88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) Lost in time, lonely, and single: reproductive asynchrony and the Allee effect. Am Nat 164(1):25–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486(7401):59–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaplin-Kramer R, O’Rourke ME, Blitzer EJ, Kremen C (2011) A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol Lett 14(9):922–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Christen D, Matlack G (2006) The role of roadsides in plant invasions: a demographic approach. Conserv Biol 20(2):385–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, Marquéz JRG, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ewers RM, Thorpe S, Didham RK (2007) Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88(1):96–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14(2):101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Garden J, Mcalpine C, Peterson A, Jones D, Possingham H (2006) Review of the ecology of Australian urban fauna: a focus on spatially explicit processes. Aust Ecol 31(2):126–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner RH (1999) RULE: map generation and a spatial analysis program. Landscape ecological analysis. Springer, New York, pp 280–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardner RH, Urban DL (2007) Neutral models for testing landscape hypotheses. Lands Ecol 22(1):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. González-Moreno P, Pino J, Gassó N, Vilá M (2013) Landscape context modulates alien plant invasion in Mediterranean forest edges. Biol Invas 15(3):547–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. González-Moreno P, Diez JM, Ibáñez I, Font X, Vilà M (2014) Plant invasions are context-dependent: multiscale effects of climate, human activity and habitat. Divers Distrib 20(6):720–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8(9):993–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski IA, Gaggiotti OE (2004) Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  22. Harper KA, Macdonald SE, Burton PJ, Chen J, Brosofske KD, Saunders SC, Euskirchen ES, Roberts D, Jaiteh MS, Esseen PA (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19(3):768–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hastings A, Cuddington K, Davies KF, Dugaw CJ, Elmendorf S, Freestone A, Harrison S, Holland M, Lambrinos J, Malvadkar U (2005) The spatial spread of invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecol Lett 8(1):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heimpel GE, Asplen MK (2011) A ‘Goldilocks’ hypothesis for dispersal of biological control agents. BioControl 56(4):441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrando-Pérez S, Delean S, Brook BW, Bradshaw CJ (2012) Density dependence: an ecological Tower of Babel. Oecologia 170(3):585–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Huntley B, Barnard P, Altwegg R, Chambers L, Coetzee BW, Gibson L, Hockey PA, Hole DG, Midgley GF, Underhill LG, Willis SG (2010) Beyond bioclimatic envelopes: dynamic species’ range and abundance modelling in the context of climatic change. Ecography 33(3):621–626Google Scholar
  27. Jaeger JA (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Lands Ecol 15(2):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jankovic M, Petrovskii S (2013) Gypsy moth invasion in North America: a simulation study of the spatial pattern and the rate of spread. Ecol Complex 14:132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson DM, Liebhold AM, Tobin PC, Bjørnstad ON (2006) Allee effects and pulsed invasion by the gypsy moth. Nature 444(7117):361–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jonsen ID, Taylor PD (2000) Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88(3):553–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonsson M, Straub CS, Didham RK, Buckley HL, Case BS, Hale RJ, Gratton C, Wratten SD (2015) Experimental evidence that the effectiveness of conservation biological control depends on landscape complexity. J Appl Ecol 52(5):1274–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jules ES, Kauffman MJ, Ritts WD, Carroll AL (2002) Spread of an invasive pathogen over a variable landscape: a nonnative root rot on Port Orford cedar. Ecology 83(11):3167–3181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. La Morgia V, Malenotti E, Badino G, Bona F (2011) Where do we go from here? Dispersal simulations shed light on the role of landscape structure in determining animal redistribution after reintroduction. Lands Ecol 26(7):969–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liebhold A, Bascompte J (2003) The allee effect, stochastic dynamics and the eradication of alien species. Ecol Lett 6(2):133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lustig A, Stouffer DB, Roigé M, Worner SP (2015) Towards more predictable and consistent landscape metrics across spatial scales. Ecol Indic 57:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lustig A, Worner SP, Pitt JPW, Doscher C, Stouffer DB, Senay SD (2017) A modelling framework for the establishment and spread of invasive species in heterogeneous environments. Ecol Evol  10.1002/ece3.2915
  37. Margosian ML, Garrett KA, Hutchinson JS (2009) Connectivity of the American agricultural landscape: assessing the national risk of crop pest and disease spread. BioScience 59(2):141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin PH, Canham CD, Marks PL (2008) Why forests appear resistant to exotic plant invasions: intentional introductions, stand dynamics, and the role of shade tolerance. Front Ecol Environ 7(3):142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGarigal K, Cushman S, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps.
  40. Meier ES, Dullinger S, Zimmermann NE, Baumgartner D, Gattringer A, Hülber K (2014) Space matters when defining effective management for invasive plants. Divers Distrib 20(9):1029–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Morel-Journel T, Girod P, Mailleret L, Auguste A, Blin A, Vercken E (2015) The highs and lows of dispersal: how connectivity and initial population size jointly shape establishment dynamics in discrete landscapes. Oikos 0:01–009Google Scholar
  43. Mundt CC, Sackett KE, Wallace LD (2011) Landscape heterogeneity and disease spread: experimental approaches with a plant pathogen. Ecol Appl 21(2):321–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nesslage GM, Maurer BA, Gage SH (2007) Gypsy moth response to landscape structure differs from neutral model predictions: implications for invasion monitoring. Biol Invas 9(5):585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pitt JPW (2008) Modelling the spread of invasive species across heterogeneous landscapes. PhD thesis, Lincoln University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  46. Pitt JPW, Worner SP, Suarez AV (2009) Predicting argentine ant spread over the heterogeneous landscape using a spatially explicit stochastic model. Ecol Appl 19(5):1176–1186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2010) Invasive species, environmental change and management, and health. Ann Rev Environ Res 35:25–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Radeloff VC, Mladenoff DJ, Boyce MS (2000) The changing relation of landscape patterns and jack pine budworm populations during an outbreak. Oikos 90(3):417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richter R, Dullinger S, Essl F, Leitner M, Vogl G (2013) How to account for habitat suitability in weed management programmes? Biol Invas 15(3):657–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rigot T, van Halder I, Jactel H (2014) Landscape diversity slows the spread of an invasive forest pest species. Ecography 37(7):648–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robledo-Arnuncio JJ, Klein EK, Muller-Landau HC, Santamaría L (2014) Space, time and complexity in plant dispersal ecology. Mov Ecol 2(1):16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Saupe D (1988) Algorithms for random fractals. The science of fractal images. Springer, New York, pp 71–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schurr FM, Pagel J, Cabral JS, Groeneveld J, Bykova O, O’Hara RB, Hartig F, Kissling WD, Linder HP, Midgley GF, Schröder B (2012) How to understand species’ niches and range dynamics: a demographic research agenda for biogeography. J Biogeogr 39(12):2146–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sebert-Cuvillier E, Simon-Goyheneche V, Paccaut F, Chabrerie O, Goubet O, Decocq G (2008) Spatial spread of an alien tree species in a heterogeneous forest landscape: a spatially realistic simulation model. Landsc Ecol 23(7):787–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sharov AA, Liebhold AM (1998) Model of slowing the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) with a barrier zone. Ecol Appl 8(4):1170–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shigesada N, Kawasaki K (1997) Biological invasions: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith R, Tan C, Srimani JK, Pai A, Riccione KA, Song H, You L (2014) Programmed Allee effect in bacteria causes a tradeoff between population spread and survival. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 111(5):1969–1974CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Sutherland WJ, Freckleton RP, Godfray HCJ, Beissinger SR, Benton T, Cameron DD, Carmel Y, Coomes DA, Coulson T, Emmerson MC (2013) Identification of 100 fundamental ecological questions. J Ecol 101(1):58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thies C, Haenke S, Scherber C, Bengtsson J, Bommarco R, Clement LW, Ceryngier P, Dennis C, Emmerson M, Gagic V, Hawro V (2011) The relationship between agricultural intensification and biological control: experimental tests across europe. Ecol Appl 21(6):2187–2196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Tobin PC, Blackburn LM (2007) Slow the spread: a national program to manage the gypsy moth. General Technical Report-Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service (NRS-6)Google Scholar
  61. Tobin PC, Liebhold AM, Anderson E (2015) Estimating spread rates of non-native species: the gypsy moth as a case study. In: Venette RC (ed) Pest Risk Modelling and Mapping for Invasive Alien Species. CAB International and USDA, Wallingford, pp 131–144Google Scholar
  62. Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batary P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87(3):661–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Vilà M, Ibáñez I (2011) Plant invasions in the landscape. Landsc Ecol 26(4):461–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang L, Jackson DA (2014) Shaping up model transferability and generality of species distribution modeling for predicting invasions: implications from a study on Bythotrephes longimanus. Biol Invas 16:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang Z, Wu J, Shang H, Cheng J (2011) Landscape connectivity shapes the spread pattern of the rice water weevil: a case study from Zhejiang, China. Environ Manag 47(2):254–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. With KA (2002) The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conserv Biol 16(5):1192–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. With KA (2004) Assessing the risk of invasive spread in fragmented landscapes. Risk Anal 24(4):803–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. With KA, King AW (1999a) Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landsc Ecol 14(1):73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. With KA, King AW (1999b) Extinction thresholds for species in fractal landscapes. Conserv Biol 13(2):314–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang QH, Schlyter F (2004) Olfactory recognition and behavioural avoidance of angiosperm nonhost volatiles by conifer-inhabiting bark beetles. Agric For Entomol 6(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bio-Protection Research CentreLincoln UniversityCanterburyNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  3. 3.Faculty of Environment, Society and DesignLincoln UniversityCanterburyNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations