Advertisement

Connectivity as the Amount of Reachable Habitat: Conservation Priorities and the Roles of Habitat Patches in Landscape Networks

  • Santiago Saura
  • Begoña de la Fuente
Chapter

Abstract

Landscape connectivity plays an important role in sustaining ecological processes at different spatial and temporal scales (e.g., Connectivity conservation, Cambridge, 2006). Landscape connectivity can help to counteract some of the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation and to facilitate species range shifts in response to climate change. Therefore, maintaining or enhancing landscape connectivity is a key part of current biodiversity conservation efforts. A variety of metrics for analyzing connectivity have been developed, ranging from some derived from or used within metapopulation models (Nature 404:755–758, 2000; Ecology 84:1131–1145, 2002) to others based on network analysis (graph theory) (Community Ecol 1:89–94, 2000; Ecology 82:1205–1218, 2001; Ecol Appl 18:1810–1825, 2008; Ecography 33:523–537, 2010; Biol Conserv 144:44–55, 2011; Ecology 92:847–858, 2011). In particular, graph-based approaches have gained increasing popularity in ecological research and applied conservation planning in recent years (Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536, 2004; Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103, 2007; Ecol Lett 12:260–273, 2009; Landsc Urban Plan 100:67–76, 2011; Landsc Ecol 27:185–198, 2012; Funct Ecol 28:990–998, 2014). Graphs are just a data structure, and, similarly to vector or raster data structures in geographical information systems, different outcomes of variable quality can be obtained through their use. A crucial issue is how to measure and analyze connectivity in order to capture important aspects and provide meaningful guidance for conservation decisions. Through this lab, students will.

Keywords

Habitat Patch Habitat Area Landscape Connectivity Connectivity Metrics Focal Patch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through DECOFOR (AGL2009–07140) and GEFOUR (AGL2012-31099) projects. The capercaillie habitat data were provided by Instituto Catalán de Ornitología (ICO) with support from Generalitat de Catalunya (Departament d’Agricultura, Ramaderia, Pesca, Alimentació i Medi Natural) and CatalunyaCaixa (Obra Social). We thank all volunteers that made possible the collection of the information for the Catalan Breeding Bird Atlas.

References and Recommended Readings1

  1. Awade M, Boscolo D, Metzger JP (2012) Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landsc Ecol 27:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bodin Ö, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Model 221:2393–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manage 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536. Reviews and compares approaches for analyzing connectivity as well as their advantages and limitations, emphasizing practitioner needs. After evaluating the tradeoff between information content and data requirements, concludes that graph-based approaches may possess the greatest benefit to effort ratio for conservation problems requiring connectivity analysis at broad scales. Google Scholar
  5. Canut J, García-Ferré D, Afonso I (eds) (2011) Manual de conservación y manejo del hábitat del urogallo pirenaico. Serie de Manuales de Gestión de Especies Amenazadas. Ministerio Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, MadridGoogle Scholar
  6. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Estrada E, Bodin Ö (2008) Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol Appl 18:1810–1825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Estrada J, Pedrocchi V, Brotons L et al (eds) (2004) Atles dels ocells nidificants de Catalunya 1999–2002. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  9. *Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis, and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144:44–55. An elegant, well-structured synthesis of different ways a landscape graph can be constructed to represent a habitat mosaic and various research questions that can be addressed using a graph-based approach. Google Scholar
  10. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755–758CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jordán F, Baldi A, Orci KM et al (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landsc Ecol 18:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Menoni E (1991) Ecologie et dynamique des populations du grand tétras dans les Pyrénées. Doctoral thesis. Université Paul Sabatier de ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  13. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 84:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. *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. First scrutiny of the behavior and performance of a wide set of graph metrics in the prioritization of habitat patches and links in reaction to spatial changes. It proposed that to adequately inform conservation decisions, intrapatch and interpatch connectivity should be integrated in a single measure. The analytical expression for such an index (IIC) is provided. Read this paper only after having completed the exercises in Parts 1 and 2. Google Scholar
  15. Pereira M, Segurado P, Neves N (2011) Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: a case study with pond turtles. Landsc Urban Plan 100:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ricotta C, Stanisci A, Avena GC et al (2000) Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach. Community Ecol 1:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodríguez-Pérez J, García D, Martínez D (2014) Spatial networks of fleshy-fruited trees drive the flow of avian seed dispersal through a landscape. Funct Ecol 28:990–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saura S (2008) Evaluating forest landscape connectivity through Conefor Sensinode 2.2. In: Lafortezza R, Chen J, Sanesi G et al (eds) Patterns and processes in forest landscapes: multiple use and sustainable management. Springer, New York, pp 403–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. *Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103. This paper extended the developments in Pascual-Hortal and Saura (2006) to networks with weighted links and proposed a new metric (PC) based on a probabilistic definition and connection model. Advantages of PC are discussed with an application for a forest bird species in NE Spain. Google Scholar
  21. *Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537. Presents an integrated analytical framework that quantifies the different roles played by habitat patches and links as connectivity providers. This approach helps avoid arbitrary weighting of connectivity considerations when taking conservation decisions. Google Scholar
  22. Saura S, Estreguil C, Mouton C et al (2011) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Indic 11:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K et al (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. *Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landsc Ecol 15:633–641. The first study to note problems with certain connectivity metrics that indicate higher connectivity in more fragmented landscapes and zero connectivity in any landscape containing just one habitat patch even if that patch fills all the landscape. Google Scholar
  25. *Urban DL, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218. Seminal classic paper on the use of a graph-theoretical approach for the study of landscape connectivity. It inspired and stimulated much of the research and subsequent developments that came later in the field. Google Scholar
  26. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA et al (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETSI MontesUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Servicio Territorial de Medio Ambiente de SegoviaJunta de Castilla y LeónSegoviaSpain

Personalised recommendations