Landscape Ecology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 173–181 | Cite as

Connectivity or area: what drives plant species richness in habitat corridors?

  • Jan ThieleEmail author
  • Simon Kellner
  • Sascha Buchholz
  • Jens Schirmel
Research Article



The relative importance of habitat area and connectivity for species richness is often unknown. Connectivity effects may be confounded with area effects or they may be of minor importance as posited by the habitat-amount hypothesis.


We studied effects of habitat area and connectivity of linear landscape elements for plant species richness at plot level. We hypothesized that connectivity of linear landscape elements, assessed by resistance distance, has a positive effect on species richness beyond the effect of area and, further, that the relative importance of connectivity varies among groups of species with different habitat preferences and dispersal syndromes.


We surveyed plant species richness in 50 plots (25 m2) located on open linear landscape elements (field margins, ditches) in eight study areas of 1 km2 in agricultural landscapes of Northwest Germany. We calculated the area of linear landscape elements and assessed their connectivity using resistance distance within circular buffers (500 m) around the plots. Effects of area and connectivity on species richness were modelled with generalised linear mixed models.


Species richness did not increase with area. Resistance distance had significant negative effects on total richness and on the richness of typical species of grasslands and wetlands. Regarding dispersal syndromes, resistance distance had negative effects on the richness of species with short-distance, long-distance and aquatic dispersal. The significant effects of resistance distance indicated that species richness increased with connectivity of the network of linear landscape elements.


Connectivity is more important for plant species richness in linear landscape elements than area. In particular, the richness of plant species that are dispersal limited and confined to semi-natural habitats benefits from connective networks of linear landscape elements in agricultural landscapes.


Connectivity Corridor Dispersal Diversity Resistance distance Species richness 



We cordially thank Henrike Ruhmann and Alexander Terstegge for help with the fieldwork and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on the draft manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10980_2017_606_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)
10980_2017_606_MOESM2_ESM.csv (4 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (CSV 4 kb)


  1. Aavik T, Liira J (2010) Quantifying the effect of organic farming, field boundary type and landscape structure on the vegetation of field boundaries. Agric Ecosyst Environ 135:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brudvig LA (2016) Interpreting the effects of landscape connectivity on community diversity. J Veg Sci 27:4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaudron C, Perronne R, Bonthoux S, Di Pietro F (2016) Influence of management practices on plant assemblages of road-field boundaries in an agricultural landscape. Appl Veg Sci 19:644–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cousins SAO (2006) Plant species richness in midfield islets and road verges—the effect of landscape fragmentation. Biol Conserv 127:500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Damschen EI, Brudvig LA, Haddad NM, Levey DJ, Orrock JL, Tewksbury JJ (2008) The movement ecology and dynamics of plant communities in fragmented landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19078–19083CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Dembicz I, Moysiyenko II, Shaposhnikova A, Vynokurov D, Kozub L, Sudnik-Woejcikowska B (2016) Isolation and patch size drive specialist plant species density within steppe islands: a case study of kurgans in southern Ukraine. Biodivers Conserv 25:2289–2307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doerr V, Barrett T, Doerr E et al (2011a) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doerr V, Doerr E, Davies MJ (2011b) Dispersal behaviour of Brown Treecreepers predicts functional connectivity for several other woodland birds. Emu 111:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulißen D (1992) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scr Geobot 18. Goltze, Göttingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. ESRI (2010) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Evju M, Sverdrup-Thygeson A (2016) Spatial configuration matters: a test of the habitat amount hypothesis for plants in calcareous grasslands. Landscape Ecol 31:1891–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fournier DA, Skaug HJ, Ancheta J, Ianelli J, Magnusson A, Maunder M, Nielsen A, Sibert J (2012) AD Model Builder: using automatic differentiation for statistical inference of highly parameterized complex nonlinear models. Optim Methods Softw 27:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KHA (2010) Meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Haddad NM, Gonzalez A, Brudvig LA, Burt MA, Levey DJ, Damschen EI (2017) Experimental evidence does not support the Habitat Amount Hypothesis. Ecography 40:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 13:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helsen K, Hermy M, Honnay O (2013) Spatial isolation slows down directional plant functional group assembly in restored semi-natural grasslands. J Appl Ecol 50:404–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodgson JG, Grime JP, Hunt R, Thompson K (1995) The electronic comparative plant ecology. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2016) Habitat amount, not habitat configuration, best predicts population genetic structure in fragmented landscapes. Landscape Ecol 31:951–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakobsson S, Fukamachi K, Cousins SAO (2016) Connectivity and management enables fast recovery of plant diversity in new linear grassland elements. J Veg Sci 27:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalogirou S (2016) lctools: local correlation, spatial inequalities, geographically weighted regression and other tools. R package version 0.2-5.
  25. Koen EL, Garroway CJ, Wilson PJ, Bowman J (2010) The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PLoS ONE 5(7):e11785CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Ma M, Tarmi S, Helenius J (2002) Revisiting the species–area relationship in a semi-natural habitat: floral richness in agricultural buffer zones in Finland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Marini L, Öckinger E, Bergman KO, Jauker B, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Pöyry J, Smith HG, Steffan-Dewenter I, Bommarco R (2013) Contrasting effects of habitat area and connectivity on evenness of pollinator communities. Ecography 37:544–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60:1551–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Neel MC, McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2004) Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol 19:435–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quantum GIS Development Team (2014) Quantum GIS geographic information system. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.
  33. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  34. Rosenberg DK, Noon BR, Meslow EC (1997) Biological corridors: form, function and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Šálek M, Kučera T, Zimmermann K, Bartuškova I, Plátek M, Grill S, Konvička M (2015) Edges within farmland: management implications of taxon specific species richness correlates. Basic Appl Ecol 16:714–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skaug H, Fournier D, Bolker B, Magnusson A, Nielsen A (2016) Generalized linear mixed models using ‘AD Model Builder’. R package version Scholar
  37. Smart SM, Marrs RH, Le Duc MG, Thompson K, Bunce RGH, Firbank LG, Rossall MJ (2006) Spatial relationships between intensive land cover and residual plant species diversity in temperate farmed landscapes. J Appl Ecol 43:1128–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suárez-Esteban A, Fahrig L, Delibes M, Fedriani JM (2016) Can anthropogenic linear gaps increase plant abundance and diversity? Landscape Ecol 31:721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 99:12923–12926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Thiele J, Buchholz S, Schirmel J (2017) Using resistance distance from circuit theory to model dispersal through habitat corridors. J Plant Ecol. Google Scholar
  42. Turner MG, Gardner RH (2015) Landscape ecology in theory and practice—pattern and process. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. With KA (2016) Are landscapes more than the sum of their patches? Landscape Ecol 31:969–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Landscape EcologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.KielGermany
  3. 3.Department of EcologyTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB)BerlinGermany
  5. 5.Institute for Environmental ScienceUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany

Personalised recommendations