Landscape Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 561–573 | Cite as

Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.)

  • J. Paul Chardon
  • Frank Adriaensen
  • Erik Matthysen
Article

Abstract

In spatial studies of populations, Euclidean distance is commonly used to measure the structural connectivity between habitat patches. The role of the matrix on patch connectivity is thereby ignored. However, the importance of the matrix for (dispersal) movement is increasingly being acknowledged. Our study compared the cost-distance measure with the Euclidean distance. The cost-distance is a simple GIS-calculated connectivity measure that incorporates the resistance of the landscape matrix to movement behaviour. We used presence-absence data from a field study on the Speckled wood butterfly in two Belgian landscapes. Logistic regression revealed that the cost-distance measure had a significantly better predictive power than the Euclidean distance. This result was consistent for all the six sets of different matrix resistance values. In our study the cost-distance proves to be a better connectivity measure than the Euclidean distance.

Belgium Butterfly Connectivity Cost-distance Effective distance GIS Landuse type Resistance value Spatial configuration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adriaensen F., Chardon J.P., De Blust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H. and Matthysen E. 2003. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett A.F., Henein K. and Merriam G. 1994. Corridor use and the elements of corridor quality: chipmunks and fencerows in a farmland mosaic. Biological Conservation 68: 155-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowne D.R., Peles J.D. and Barrett G.W. 1999. Effects of landscape spatial structure on movement patterns of the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Landscape Ecology 14: 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooker L., Brooker M. and Cale P. 1999. Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat: measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use and dispersal mortality. Conservation Ecology [online] 3 (1): 4.Google Scholar
  5. Bunn A.G., Urban D.L. and Keitt T.H. 2000. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management 59: 265-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cassady St. Clair C., Bélisle M., Desrochers A. and Hannon S. 1998. Winter responses of forest birds to habitat corridors and gaps. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2): 13.Google Scholar
  7. Christofides N. 1975. Graph theory. An algorithmic approach.London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Conradt L., Roper T.J. and Thomas C.D. 2001. Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterflies. Oikos 95: 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conradt L., Bodsworth E.J., Roper T.J. and Thomas C.D. 2000. Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B. 267: 1505–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Danielson B.J. and Hubbard M.W. 2000. The influence of corridors on the movement behavior of individual Peromyscus polionotus in experimental landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 323-331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies N.B. 1978. Territorial defence in the Speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria: the resident always wins. Animal Behaviour 26: 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson D. 1994. Are habitat corridors conduits for animals and plants in a fragmented landscape? A review of the scientific evidence. English Nature Research Report 94. English Nature, Peterborough. 89 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Debinski D.M. and Holt R.D. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342-355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dover J.W. and Fry G.L.A. 2001. Experimental simulation of some visual and physical components of a hedge and the effects on butterfly behaviour in an agricultural landscape. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 100: 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eastman J.R. 1992. IDRISI user's guide. Clark University, Worcester.Google Scholar
  16. ESRI, 1994. PC ARC/INFO. Environmental Systems Research Institute.Redlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  17. ESRI, 1996. ArcView. Environmental Systems Research Institute.Redlands, California.Google Scholar
  18. Fahrig L. and Merriam G. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66: 1762–1768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferreras P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foppen R.P.B., Chardon J.P. and Liefveld W. 2000. Understanding the role of sink patches in source-sink metapopulations: Reed warbler in an agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology 14: 1881–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Genstat 5 Committee, 1993. Genstat 5 release 3. Reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Gustafson E.J. and Gardner R.H. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77: 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haddad N.M. 1999. Corridor use predicted from behaviours at habitat boundaries. American Naturalist 153: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanski I. 1999a. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 266 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Hanski I. 1999b. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87: 209–219.Google Scholar
  27. Hill J.K., Collingham Y.C., Thomas C.D., Blakeley D.S., Fox R., Moss D. and Huntley B. 2001. Impacts of landscape structure on butterfly range expansion. Ecology Letters 4: 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jongman R.H.G., Ter Braak C.J.F. and Van Tongeren O.F.R. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Jonsen I.D. and Taylor P.D. 2000. Fine-scale movement behaviors of calopterygid damselflies are influenced by landscape structure: an experimental manipulation. Oikos 88: 553–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knaapen J.P., Scheffer M. and Harms B. 1992. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 23: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maes D. and Van Dyck H. 1999. Dagvlinders in Vlaanderen. Ecologie, verspreiding en behoud. Stichting Leefmilieu, Antwerpen, Belgium. 480 pp.Google Scholar
  32. McCullagh P. and Nelder J.A. 1989. Generalized linear models (second edition). Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  33. Moilanen A. and Hanski I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79: 2503–2515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moilanen A. and Hanski I. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95: 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moilanen A. and Nieminen M. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 84: 1131–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Opdam P., Foppen F. and Vos C. 2002. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petit S. and Burel F. 1998. Effects of landscape dynamics on the metapopulation of a ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidea) in a hedgerow network. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 69(3): 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pither J. and Taylor P.D. 1998. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83: 166–174.Google Scholar
  39. Pollard E. and Yates T.J. 1993. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 274 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Ricketts T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158: 87–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ries L. and Debinski D.M. 2001. Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 840–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roland J., Keyghobadi N. and Fownes S. 2000. Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81: 1642–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schippers P., Verboom J., Knaapen J.P. and Van Apeldoorn R.C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schultz C.B. and Crone E.E. 2001. Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82: 1879–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shreeve T.G. 1985. The population biology of the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria (L.) (Lepidoptera: Satyridae). Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, UK. 226 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Sutcliffe O.L. and Thomas C.D. 2001. Open corridors appear to faciliate dispersal by ringlet butterflies (Aphantopus hyperantus) between woodland clearings. Conservation Biology 10: 1359–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tischendorf L. and Fahrig L. 2000. On the use and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tischendorf L. and Fahrig L. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95: 152–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tischendorf L., Irmler U. and Hingst R. 1998. A simulation experiment on the potential of hedgerows as movement corridors for forest carabids. Ecological Modeling 106: 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Apeldoorn R.C., Oostenbrink W.T., Van Winden A. and Van Der Zee F.F. 1992. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, in an agricultural landscape. Oikos 65: 265–274.Google Scholar
  51. Van Dyck H., Matthysen E. and Dhondt A.A. 1997. The effect of wing colour on male behavioural strategies in the speckled wood butterfly. Animal Behaviour 53: 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verbeylen G., De Bruyn L., Adriaensen F. and Matthysen E. Does matrix resistence influence Red squirrel (Sciurus Vulgaris, L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape?in press.Google Scholar
  53. Verboom B. and Van Apeldoorn R.C. 1990. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L.). Landscape Ecology 4: 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verboom J., Foppen R., Chardon P., Opdam P. and Luttikhuizen P. 2001. Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persitent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biological Conservation 100: 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vermeulen H.J.W. 1995. Road-side verges: habitat and corridor for carabid beetles of poor sandy and open areas. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  56. Vos C.C. and Chardon J.P. 1998. Effects of habitat fragmentation and road density on the distribution pattern of the moor frog Rana arvalis. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vos C.C., Verboom J., Opdam P.F.M. and Ter Braak C.J.F. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. American Naturalist 157: 24–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Vos C.C., Baveco J.M., Chardon J.P. and Goedhart P. Modelling movements in agricultural landscape mosaics; calibrating a movement model on radio tracking data.submitted.Google Scholar
  59. Walker R. and Craighead L. 1997. Least-cost-path corridor analysis analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. Proceedings ESRI European User Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  60. Warren M.S. 1992. Butterfly populations. In: Dennis R.L.H. (Ed.), The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain, pp. 73–92. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  61. Whitcomb R.F., Robbins C.F., Lynch J.F., Whitcomb B.L., Klimkiewicz M.K. and Bystrak D. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. In: Burgess R.L. and Sharpe D.M (Eds.), Forest island dynamics in man-dominated landscapes, pp. 125–206. Springer Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  62. Wickman P.O. and Wiklund C. 1983. Territorial defence and its seasonal decline in the Speckled wood (Pararge aegeria). Animal Behaviour 31: 1206–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. With K.A., Cadaret S.J. and Davis C. 1999. Movement responses to patch structure in experimental fractal landscapes. Ecology 80: 1340–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zollner P.A. 2000. Comparing the landscape level perceptual abilities of forest sciurids in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15(6): 523–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Paul Chardon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frank Adriaensen
    • 2
  • Erik Matthysen
    • 2
  1. 1.ALTERRA, Department of Landscape EcologyWageningen University Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Laboratory of Animal EcologyUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations