Skip to main content

Measuring landscape connectivity: On the importance of within-patch connectivity

Landscape Ecology volume 34, pages 2261–2278 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Context

Many connectivity metrics have been used to measure the connectivity of a landscape and to evaluate the effects of land-use changes and potential mitigation measures. However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how to accurately quantify landscape connectivity.

Objectives

A number of metrics only measure between-patch connectivity, i.e. the connectivity between different habitat patches, which can produce misleading results. This paper demonstrates that the inclusion of within-patch connectivity is important for accurate results.

Methods

The behavior of two metrics is compared: the Connectance Index (CONNECT), which measures only between-patch connectivity, and the effective mesh size (meff), which includes both within-patch and between-patch connectivity. The connectivity values of both metrics were calculated on a set of simulated landscapes. Twenty cities were then added to these landscapes to calculate the resulting changes in connectivity.

Results

We found that when using CONNECT counter-intuitive results occurred due to not including within-patch connectivity, such as scenarios where connectivity increased with increasing habitat loss and fragmentation. These counter-intuitive results were resolved when using meff. For example, landscapes with low habitat amount may be particularly sensitive to urban development, but this is not reflected by CONNECT.

Conclusions

Applying misleading results from metrics like CONNECT can have detrimental effects on natural ecosystems, because reductions in within-patch connectivity by human activities are neglected. Therefore, this paper provides evidence for the crucial need to consider the balance between within-patch connectivity and between-patch connectivity when calculating the connectivity of landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  • Bierwagen BG (2005) Predicting ecological connectivity in urbanizing landscapes. Environ Plan B 32(5):763–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierwagen BG (2007) Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: the importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosyst 10(1):29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan L, Hillel O, Elmqvist T, Werner P, Holman N, Mader A, Calcaterra E (2014) User’s Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (also known as the City Biodiversity Index). Singapore: National Parks Board, Singapore. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/biodiversity/singapore-index/users-manual-on-the-singapore-index-on-cities-biodiversity.ashx%3Fla%3Den%20

  • Deslauriers MR, Asgary A, Nazarnia N, Jaeger JAG (2018) Implementing the connectivity of natural areas in cities as an indicator in the City Biodiversity Index (CBI) (+ Corrigendum). Ecolog Indic 94:99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (2015) ArcGIS 10.3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2017) Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJ, Burrell NS, Reichert BE, Vasudev D, Austin JD (2016) Divergent perspectives on landscape connectivity reveal consistent effects from genes to communities. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 1(2):67–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca CR, Ganade G (1996) Asymmetries, compartments and null interactions in an Amazonian ant-plant community. J Anim Ecol 65(3):339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH (1999) RULE: map generation and a spatial analysis program. In: Klopatek JM, Gardner RH (eds) Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 280–303

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH (2017) Characterizing categorical map patterns using neutral landscape models. In: Gergel SE, Turner MG (eds) Learning landscape ecology: a practical guide to concepts and techniques. Springer Verlag, New York, pp 83–103

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Girvetz EH, Greco SE (2007) How to define a patch: a spatial model for hierarchically delineating organism-specific habitat patches. Landsc Ecol 22:1131–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landsc Ecol 18:687–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger JAG (2000) Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15(2):115–130. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008129329289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J (2002) Landschaftszerschneidung. Eine transdisziplinäre Studie gemäß dem Konzept der Umweltgefährdung [Landscape fragmentation. A transdisciplinary study according to the concept of environmental threat]. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, p 447

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger JAG (2007) Effects of the configuration of road networks on landscape connectivity. In: Irwin CL, Nelson D, McDermott KP (eds) Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on ecology and transportation (ICOET). Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 267–280

  • Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23:879–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol 18:165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landsc Ecol 26(7):951–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006) Measuring landscapes: A planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magle SB, Theobald DM, Crooks KR (2009) A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landsc Ecol 24(2):267–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malanson GP (2003) Dispersal across continuous and binary representations of landscapes. Ecol Model 169:17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Ene E (2012) FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

  • Merriam G (1984) Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt J and Agger P (eds) Proceedings of the first international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning, Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeuRuc, Roskilde, vol. I, pp 5–15

  • Moser B, Jaeger JAG, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Eiselt B (2007) Modification of the effective mesh size for measuring landscape fragmentation to solve the boundary problem. Landsc Ecol 22(3):447–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc Ecol 21:959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92(4):847–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K, Vogt P, Soille P, Estreguil C (2009) Landscape patterns from mathematical morphology on maps with contagion. Landsc Ecol 24:699–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roch L, Jaeger JAG (2014) Monitoring an ecosystem at risk: what is the degree of grassland fragmentation in the Canadian Prairies? (+ Corrigendum). Environ Monit Assess 186:2505–2534 + 3299–3301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3557-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard ST (2010) Continuous versus binary representations of landscape heterogeneity in spatially-explicit models of mobile populations. Ecol Model 221:2409–2414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000a) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landsc Ecol 15:633–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000b) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90(1):7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, Larson CR, Wylie BK, Van Driel JN (2001) Completion of the 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:650–662

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yodzis P (1980) The connectance of real ecosystems. Nature 284:544–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziółkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T (2014) Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments. Landsc Ecol 29:1551–1570

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful to Nicolas Dziemian for writing code in Excel for automated calculation of meff for large numbers of landscapes and to Naghmeh Nazarnia, Marco Burelli, Jonathan Cole, and Judith Plante for helpful comments and technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University Montréal, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Suite 1255, Montréal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Ariel G. Spanowicz & Jochen A. G. Jaeger

  2. Loyola Sustainability Research Centre, Concordia University Montréal, 7141 Sherbrooke St. West, Montréal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada

    Jochen A. G. Jaeger

Authors
  1. Ariel G. Spanowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jochen A. G. Jaeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen A. G. Jaeger.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 136 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spanowicz, A.G., Jaeger, J.A.G. Measuring landscape connectivity: On the importance of within-patch connectivity. Landscape Ecol 34, 2261–2278 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00881-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00881-0

Keywords

  • Between-patch connectivity
  • CONNECT
  • Connectance
  • Connectedness
  • Effective mesh size
  • Fragmentation per se
  • Habitat connectivity
  • Inter-patch connectivity
  • Intra-patch connectivity
  • Landscape metrics