Landscape Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 303–314

Temporal variability of connectivity in agricultural landscapes: do farming activities help?

  • Jacques Baudry
  • Françoise Burel
  • Stéphanie Aviron
  • Manuel Martin
  • Annie Ouin
  • Guillaume Pain
  • Claudine Thenail


In landscapes where natural habitats have been severely fragmented by intensive farming, survival of many species depends on connectivity among habitat patches. Spatio-temporal structure of agricultural landscapes depends on interactions between the physical environment and farming systems, within a socio-economic and historical background. The question is how incentives in agricultural policies may influence connectivity? May they be used to manage the land for biodiversity conservation? We used simulations based on property field maps to compare connectivity on the same landscape during seven years of crop succession for two dairy farming systems, one being representative of conventional systems of western France, the second one representative of systems undergoing intensification of production. Connectivity is a measure of landscape structure and species characteristics based on individual area requirements and dispersal distance. Models used are based on weighed distances, considering differential viscosity for different land uses. The results show that, for a given farming system, physical and field patterns constraints are such that landscape connectivity remains the same over years, while it is significantly different between the two farming systems. This is consistent with the recent input of policies to promote environmentally friendly farming systems, and confirms that policies must encounter the landscape level. The analysis also demonstrates that the localisation of forest patches, resulting from long term land cover changes, plays a central role in connectivity and overrides changes in agricultural land uses.

connectivity farming system landscape structure simulations temporal variability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agger, P. and Brandt, J. 1988. Dynamics of small biotopes in Danish agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 1: 227–240.Google Scholar
  2. Altieri, M.A. 1980. The need for an agroecological approach to pest management. Environmental Management 4: 467–468.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, W.L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2: 111–135.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, C. and Petit, D., Eds. 2001. Hedgerows of the World: their Ecological Functions in Different Landscapes. IALE UK, 321 p.Google Scholar
  5. Barr, C.J. and Gillespie, M.K. 2000. Estimating hedgerow length and pattern characteristics in Great Britain using Countryside Survey data. Journal of Environmental Management 60(1): 23–32.Google Scholar
  6. Baudry, J., Bunce, R.G.H. and Burel, F. 2000. Hedgerow diversity: an international perspective on their origin, function, and management. Journal of Environmental Management 60: 7–22.Google Scholar
  7. Baudry, J., Burel, F., Thenail, C. and Le Coeur, D. 2000. A holistic landscape ecological study of the interactions between farming activities and ecological patterns in Brittany, France. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 119–128.Google Scholar
  8. Baudry, J. and Papy, F. 2001. The Role of Landscape Heterogeneity in the Sustainability of Cropping Systems. In: J. Nösberger, H.H. Geiger and P.C. Struik (eds). Crop Science-Progress and Prospects. Cab Publishing, Oxon, UK. pp. 243–259.Google Scholar
  9. Burel, F. 1996. Hedgerows and their role in agricultural landscapes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 15(2): 169–190.Google Scholar
  10. Charrier, S., Petit, S. and Burel, F. 1997. Movements of Abax parallelepipedus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in woody habitats of a hedgerow network landscape: a radio-tracing study. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 61: 133–144.Google Scholar
  11. Duby, G. and Wallon, A. (eds). 1975. Histoire de la France rurale-tome 1: la formation des campagnes Françaises. Seuil, Paris, 622 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Dunning, J.B., Danielson, B.J. and Pulliam, H.R. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169–175.Google Scholar
  13. Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8: 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez Ales, R., Martin, A., Ortega, F. and A.E.E. 1992. Recent changes in landscape structure and function in a Mediterranean region of SW Spain (1950-1984). Landscape Ecology 7(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
  15. Flamm, R.O. and Turner, M.G. 1994. Alternative model formulations for a stochastic simulation of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 9(1): 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilpin, M. and Hanski, I. (eds). 1991. Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations. Academic Press, London, UK 336 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Green, B.H. 1989. Agricultural impacts on the rural environment. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 793–802.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M.E. 1997. Metapopulation Biology, Ecology, Genetics and evolution. Academic press, San Diego, USA. p. 512.Google Scholar
  19. Knaapen, J.P., Scheffer, M. and Harms, B. 1992. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 23: 1–16.Google Scholar
  20. Le Coeur, D., Baudry, J., Burel, F. and Thenail, C. 2002. Why and how we should study field boundaries biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment.Google Scholar
  21. Leonard, P.L. and Cobham, R.O. 1977. The farming landscape of England and Wales: a changing scene. Landscape Planning 4: 205–216.Google Scholar
  22. Levins, R. 1970. Extinctions, Some mathematical questions in biology. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, M., Bastardie, F., Richard, D. and Burel, F. 2001. Boundary effects on animal movement in heterogeneous landscapes: the case of Abax ater (Coleoptera, carabidae). Comptes Rendu de l’Académie des Sciences Paris, Sciences de la vie 324: 1–7.Google Scholar
  24. Medley, K.E., Okey, B.W., Barrett, G.W., Lucas, M.F. and Renwick, W.H. 1995. Landscape change with agricultural intensification in a rural watershed, southwestern Ohio, U.S.A. Landscape Ecology 10: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meeus, J.H.A. 1990. The transformation of agricultural landscapes in western Europe. Milieu 6: 225–236.Google Scholar
  26. Meynier, A. 1966. La génèse du parcellaire breton. Norois: 595–609.Google Scholar
  27. Milan de la Peña, N., Butet, A., Delettre, Y., Morand, P. and Burel, F. 2003. Landscape context and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: carabidae) communities of hedgerows in Western France. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 94: 59–72.Google Scholar
  28. Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effect of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79: 2503–2515.Google Scholar
  29. Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95: 147–151.Google Scholar
  30. Ouin, A., Paillat, G., Butet, A. and Burel, F. 2000. Spatial dynamics of Apodemus sylvaticus in an intensive agricultural landscape. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 78: 159–165.Google Scholar
  31. Pain, G., Baudry, J. and Burel, F. 2000. Landpop: un outil d’étude de la structure spatiale des populations animales fragmentées. Géomatique 10: 89–106.Google Scholar
  32. Papy, F. 2001. Interdépendance des systèmes de culture dans l’exploitation agricole. E. Malézieux, G. Trébuil and M. Jaeger (eds). Modélisation des agro-écosystèmes et aide à la décision. Editions CIRAD-INRA, collection Repères, Montpellier, France, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
  33. Petit, S. and Burel, F. 1998. Connectivity in fragmented populations: Abax parallelepipedus in a hedgerow network landscape. Compte rendu Académie des Sciences Paris, Sciences de la vie 321: 55–61.Google Scholar
  34. Pither, J. and Taylor, P.D. 1998. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos: 166–174.Google Scholar
  35. Rackham, O. 1986. The History of the Countryside, J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., London, Melbourne, pp. 445.Google Scholar
  36. Ricketts, T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 157: 87–99.Google Scholar
  37. Schippers, P., Verboom, J., Knaapen, J.P. and van Apeldoorn, R.C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97–106.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, J.W., Boerner, R.E.J., DeMers, M.N. and Berns, L.A. 1994. Forty-eight years of landscape change on two continuous Ohio landscapes. Landscape Ecology 9(4): 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68: 571–573.Google Scholar
  40. Thenail, C. 2002. Relationships between farm characteristics and the variation of the density of hedgerows at the level of a micro-region of bocage landscape. Study case in Brittany, France. Agricultural System 71: 207–230.Google Scholar
  41. Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology, A reply. Oikos 95: 152–155.Google Scholar
  42. Turner II, B.L. and Meyer, W.B. 1994. Global land-use and land-cover change: an overview. W.B. Meyer and B.L. Turner II (eds). Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
  43. Vos, C.C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P.F.M. and Ter Braak, C.J.F. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157(1): 24–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiens, J.A., Stenseth, N.C., Van Horne, B. and Ims, R.A. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66: 369–380.Google Scholar
  45. Yu, K. 1996. Security patterns and surface model in landscape ecological planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36: 1–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Baudry
    • 1
  • Françoise Burel
    • 2
  • Stéphanie Aviron
    • 2
  • Manuel Martin
    • 2
  • Annie Ouin
    • 2
    • 3
  • Guillaume Pain
    • 1
    • 4
  • Claudine Thenail
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA – SAD ArmoriqueRennes CédexFrance
  2. 2.UMR 6553 Ecobio, CNRSUniversité de RennesRennes CedexFrance
  3. 3.INP-ENSAT Avenue de l’AgrobiopoleCastanet, Tolosan CedexFrance
  4. 4.Ecole Supérieure d’AgricultureAngers Cedex 01France

Personalised recommendations