Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying functionally connected habitat compartments with a novel regionalization technique

  • Research article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape ecologists have increasingly turned to the use of landscape graphs in which a landscape is represented as a set of nodes (habitat patches) connected by links representing inter-patch-dispersal. This study explores the use of a graph-based regionalization method, Graph-based REgionalization with Clustering And Partitioning (GraphRECAP), to detect structural groups of habitat patches (compartments) in a landscape graph such that the connections (i.e. the movement of individual organisms) within the groups are greater than those across groups. Specifically, we mapped compartments using habitat and dispersal data for ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) in an agricultural landscape in southern Madagascar using both GraphRECAP and the widely-used Girvan and Newman method. Model performance was evaluated by comparing compartment characteristics and three measures of network connectivity and traversability: the connection strength of habitat patches in the compartments (modularity), the potential ease of individual organism movements (Harary index), and the degree of alternative route presence (Alpha index). Compartments identified by GraphRECAP had stronger within-compartment connections, greater traversability, more alternative routes, and a larger minimum number of habitat patches within compartments, all of which are more desirable traits for ecological networks. Our method could thus facilitate the study of ecosystem resilience and the design of nature reserves and landscape networks to promote the landscape-scale dispersal of species in the fragmented habitats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bellisario B, Cerfolli F, Nascetti G (2010) Spatial network structure and robustness of detritus-based communities in a patchy environment. Ecol Res 25(4):813–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18(4):182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Norberg J (2007) A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 22:31–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Tengö M, Norman A, Lundberg J, Elmqvist T (2006) The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecol Appl 16(2):440–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet forwindows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard

  • Brooks CP (2003) A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102(2):256–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Yuan B (2006) Detecting functional modules in the yeast protein–protein interaction network. Bioinformatics 22(18):2283–2290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clobert J, Le Galliard JF, Cote J, Meylan S, Massot M (2009) Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol Lett 12(3):197–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2012) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Devi BSS, Murthy MSR, Debnath B, Jha CS (2013) Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory. Ecol Model 251:279–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn R, Dudbridge F, Sanderson CM (2005) The use of edge-betweenness clustering to investigate biological function in protein interaction networks. BMC Bioinformatics 6:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economo EP, Keitt TH (2010) Network isolation and local diversity in neutral metacommunities. Oikos 119(8):1355–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foltête J-C, Clauzel C, Vuidel G (2012) A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environ Modell Softw 38:316–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato S (2010) Community detection in graphs. Phys Rep 486(3–5):75–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1977) Set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1):44–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilarranz LJ, Bascompte J (2012) Spatial network structure and metapopulation persistence. J Theor Biol 297:11–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(12):7821–7826

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glover F (1990) Tabu search: a tutorial. Interfaces 20(4):74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo D (2009) Flow mapping and multivariate visualization of large spatial interaction data. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15(6):1041–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guo D, Jin H (2011) iRedistrict: geovisual analytics for redistricting optimization. J Vis Lang Comput 22(4):279–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1997) Metapopulation dynamics from concepts and observations to predictive models. In: Hanski I, Gilpin M (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 69–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief-history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42(1–2):3–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holvorcem CGD, Tambosi LR, Ribeiro MC, Costa S, Bernardo Mesquita CA (2011) Anchor areas to improve conservation and increase connectivity within the Brazilian “Mesopotamia of Biodiversity”. Nat Conserv 9(2):225–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordán F, Baldi A, Orci KM, Racz I, Varga Z (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecol 18(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr JT, Deguise I (2004) Habitat loss and the limits to endangered species recovery. Ecol Lett 7(12):1163–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer JA (1995) Landscape ecology and biogeography. Prog Phys Geogr 19(1):18–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer JA (2012) Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Prog Phys Geog 36(3):400–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laita A, Mönkkönen M, Kotiaho JS (2010) Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biol Conserv 143(5):1212–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre NE, Strauss RE (2013) A new, multi-scaled graph visualization approach: an example within the playa wetland network of the Great Plains. Landscape Ecol 28(4):769–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertl-Millhollen AS, Blumenfeld-Jones K, Raharison SM, Tsaramanana DR, Rasamimanana H (2011) Tamarind tree seed dispersal by ring-tailed lemurs. Primates 52(4):391–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Urban DL (2007) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17(6):1771–1782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Urban DL (2008) A graph-theory frarmework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22(2):297–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(23):8577–8582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69(2):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin MJ (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130(1):70–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ono N, Fujiwara Y, Yuta K (2005) Artificial metabolic system: An evolutionary model for community organization in metabolic networks. In: Capcarrère MS, Freitas AA, Bentley PJ, Johnson CG, Timmis J (eds) Proceedings on Advances in artificial life, 8th European Conference, ECAL 2005, Canterbury, U.K., September 5–9, 2005, Lecture Notes of Computer Science, vol 3630. Springer, Berlin, pp 716–724

  • Pimm SL (1979) The structure of food webs. Theor Popul Biol 16(2):144–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reunanen P, Fall A, Nikula A (2012) Spatial graphs as templates for habitat networks in boreal landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 21(14):3569–3584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezende EL, Albert EM, Fortuna MA, Bascompte J (2009) Compartments in a marine food web associated with phylogeny, body mass, and habitat structure. Ecol Lett 12(8):779–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricotta CA, Stanisci A, Avena GC, Blasi C (2000) Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics a graph theoretical approach. Community Ecol 1(1):89–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio L, Saura S (2012) Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements: an analysis of simulated and real landscape data. Ecol Complex 11:28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):523–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulê M (2012) Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett 5(2):123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vergara PM, Perez-Hernandez CG, Hahn IJ, Soto GE (2013) Deforestation in central Chile causes a rapid decline in landscape connectivity for a forest specialist bird species. Ecol Res 28(3):481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziolkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Radeloff VC, Kozak J (2012) Potential habitat connectivity of European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Carpathians. Biol Conserv 146(1):188–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina to the lead author. This work was also supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0748813. The lead author would like to thank Hai Jin’s help with programming. The authors would especially like to thank Dr. Örjan Bodin for the generous offer of the dataset of his published work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Room 127, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Peng Gao, John A. Kupfer, Diansheng Guo & Ting L. Lei

Authors
  1. Peng Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John A. Kupfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diansheng Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ting L. Lei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peng Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, P., Kupfer, J.A., Guo, D. et al. Identifying functionally connected habitat compartments with a novel regionalization technique. Landscape Ecol 28, 1949–1959 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9938-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9938-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation