Connectivity of Wetlands

  • Tracy A. G. RittenhouseEmail author
  • William E. PetermanEmail author
Reference work entry


Connectivity implies connection or movement of resources across the landscape. Wetlands are dynamic ecosystems imbedded within or at the edges of larger systems and thus wetlands are natural “connectors” between upland and aquatic systems. Although many ecological processes have been used to describe wetland connectivity, here the focus is the movement of water and animals within and among wetlands as these are known agents of connectivity. Prior to these examples, a brief discussion of how connectivity has been used in the legal protection of wetlands demonstrates why connectivity is important to the conservation of wetlands.


Animal movements Amphibians Buffer zone Hydrology Metapopulations Isolated wetlands Water Wildlife 


  1. Amezaga JM, Santamaría L, Green AJ. Biotic wetland connectivity – supporting a new approach for wetland policy. Acta Oecola. 2002;23:213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquiloni L, Ilhéu M, Gherardi F. Habitat use and dispersal of the invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii in ephemeral water bodies of Portugal. Mar Freshw Behav Physiol. 2005;38:225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baguette M, Van Dyck H. Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22:1117–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin RF, Calhoun AJK, deMaynadier PG. Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: a case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). J Herpetol. 2006;40:442–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinson MM. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along environmental gradients. Wetlands. 1993;13:65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag. 2002;30:492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll C, McRae BH, Brookes A. Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America. Conserv Biol. 2012;26:78–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Charney ND. Evaluating expert opinion and spatial scale in an amphibian model. Ecol Model. 2012;242:37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Compton BW, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Gamble LR. A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:788–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cosentino BJ, Schooley RL, Phillips CA. Connectivity of agroecosystems: dispersal costs can vary among crops. Landsc Ecol. 2011;26:371–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeAngelis DL, Mooij WM. Individual-based modeling of ecological and evolutionary processes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2005;36:147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downing DM, Winer C, Wood LD. Navigating through clean water act jurisdiction: a legal review. Wetlands. 2003;23:475–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eigenbroda F, Stephen SJ, Hecnarb J, Fahrig L. The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biol Conserv. 2008;141:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Euliss NH, LaBaugh JW, Fredrickson LH, Mushet DM, Laubhan MK, Swanson GA, Winter TC, Rosenberry DO, Nelson RD. The wetland continuum: a conceptual framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands. 2004;24:448–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2007;16:265–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furukawa K, Wolanski E, Mueller H. Currents and sediment transport in mangrove forests. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 1997;44:301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gagne SA, Fahrig L. Effect of landscape contect on anuran communitites in breeding ponds in the National Capital Regions, Canada. Landsc Ecol. 2007;22:205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamble LR, McGarigal K, Compton BW. Fidelity and dispersal in the pond-breeding amphibian, Ambystoma opacum: implications for spatio-temporal population dynamics and conservation. Biol Conserv. 2007;139:247–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbs JP, Shriver WG. Can road mortality limit populations of pool-breeding amphibians? Wetl Ecol Manag. 2005;13:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haig SM, Mehlman DW, Oring LW. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conserv Biol. 1998;12:749–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamer AJ, McDonnell MJ. Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world: a review. Biol Conserv. 2008;141:2432–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harper EB, Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conserv Biol. 2008;22:1205–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson ML, Gaines MS. Evolution of dispersal: theoretical models and empirical tests using birds and mammals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1990;21:449–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson WC, Werner B, Guntenspergen GR, Voldseth RA, Millett B, Naugle DE, Tulbure M, Carroll RWH, Tracy J, Olawsky C. Prairie wetland complexes as landscape functional units in a changing climate. BioScience. 2010;60:128–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan D, Munoz-Carpena R, Wan Y, Hedgepeth M, Zheng F, Roberts R, Rossmanith R. Linking river, floodplain, and vadose zone hydrology to improve restoration of a coastal river affected by saltwater intrusion. J Environ Qual. 2010;39:1570–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kusler J. The SWANCC decision and state regulation of wetlands. Association of State Wetland Managers. 2001.
  27. Lafleur PM, Hember RA, Admiral SW, Roulet NT. Annual and seasonal variability in evapotranspiration and water table at a shrub-covered bog in southern Ontario, Canada. Hydrol Process. 2005;19:3533–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsh DM, Trenham PC. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:40–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McRae BH. Isolation by resistance. Evolution. 2006;60:1551–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Menon NN, Balchand AN, Menon NR. Hydrobiology of the Cochin backwater system – a review. Hydrobiologia. 2000;430:149–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peacock C. Rivers, floodplains and wetlands: connectivity and dynamics. 2003. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, p. 64.Google Scholar
  32. Peterson A, Richgels KD, Johnson PJ, McKenzie V. Investigating the dispersal routes used by an invasive amphibian, Lithobates catesbeianus, in human-dominated landscapes. Biol Invasions. 2013;15:2179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest-associated salamander: migration behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biol Conserv. 2006;131:14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rittenhouse TAG, Semlitsch RD. Distribution of amphibians in terrestrial habitat surrounding wetlands. Wetlands. 2007;27:153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roe JH, Brinton AC, Georges AG. Temporal and spatial variation in landscape connectivity for a freshwater turtle in a temporally dynamic wetland system. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:1288–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Roelke DL, Spatharis S, Mitrovic SM. A new hydrology: effects on ecosystem form and functioning. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2012;69:1377–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Safner T, Miaud C, Gaggiotti O, Decout S, Rioux D, Zundel SP, Manuel SP. Combining demography and genetic analysis to assess the population structure of an amphibian in a human-dominated landscape. Conserv Genet. 2011;12:161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS. Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol. 2011;48:668–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt PR. DU comments on clean water draft guidance. Ducks unlimited. 2011.
  40. Semlitsch RD. Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. J Wildl Manag. 2008;72:260–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Semlitsch RD, Bodie JR. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:1219–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Semlitsch RD, Jensen JB. Core habitat, not buffer zone. Nat Wetl Newsl. 2001;23:5–11.Google Scholar
  43. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Evans JS, Goldberg CS, Robinson S, Spear SF, Dezzani R, Delmelle E, Vierling L, Waits LP. Putting the “landscape” in landscape genetics. Heredity. 2007;98:128–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos. 1993;68:571–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tiner RW. Geographically isolated wetlands of the United States. Wetlands. 2003;23:494–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward JV, Tockner K, Schiemer F. Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regul Rivers Res Manage. 1999;15:125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wright CK. Spatiotemporal dynamics of prairie wetland networks: power-law scaling and implications for conservation planning. Ecology. 2010;91:1924–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Zedler JB, Kercher S. Causes and consequences of invasive plants in wetlands: opportunities, opportunists, and outcomes. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2004;23:431–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeller K, McGarigal K, Whiteley A. Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol. 2012;27:777–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.School of Environment and Natural ResourcesThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations