Spatial graphs: Principles and applications for habitat connectivity

Ecosystems

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 448-461

  Fall, Andrew ^a,e   Fortin, Marie Josée ^b   Manseau, Micheline ^c   O'Brien, Dan ^d  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c PARKS CANADA   (Canada)

^d Cortex Consultants ^*  (Canada)

^e NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Delaunay triangulation; Landscape modeling; Least cost path; Patch; Voronoi; Woodland caribou

Indexed keywords

CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DEER; DISPERSAL; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT STRUCTURE; LAND MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; MOVEMENT; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

CANADA; MANITOBA; NORTH AMERICA;

ANIMALIA; RANGIFER TARANDUS; RANGIFER TARANDUS CARIBOU;

EID: 34548087596     PISSN: 14329840     EISSN: 14350629     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-007-9038-7     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalga S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E. 2003. The application of "least-cost" modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233-47
2. Andrén H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-66
3. Bélisle M. 2005. Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioural landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988-95
4. Bélisle M, Desrochers A. 2002. Gap-crossing decisions by forest birds: an empirical basis for parameterizing spatially-explicit, individual-based models. Landsc Ecol 17:219-31
5. Bélisle M, Desrochers A, Fortin M-J. 2001. Influence of forest cover on the movements of forest birds: a homing experiment. Ecology 82:1893-904
6. Brooks CP 2003. A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102(2):433-9
7. Brown WK, Theberge JB. 1990. The effect of extreme snowcover on feeding-site selection by woodland caribou. J Wildl Manage 54:161-8
8. Bunn AG, Urban DL, Keitt TH. 2000. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manage 59(4):265-78
9. Cain D, Riitters K, Orvis K. 1997. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landsc Ecol 12:199-212
10. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF. 2004. A comparison shoppers' guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529-36
11. COSEWIC. 2001. Species at Risk. Environment Canada, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Available at URL: http://www. speciesatrisk.gc.ca
12. Darby WR, Pruitt WO Jr. 1984. Habitat use, movements and grouping behaviour of woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, in southeastern Manitoba. Can Field Nat 98:184-90
13. Fahrig L, Merriam G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50-9
14. Fall A, Fall J. 2001. A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecol Model 141(1-3):1-18
15. Getis A, Boots B. 1978. Models of spatial processes: an approach to the study of point, line and area patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
16. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L. 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552-70
17. Gustafson EJ. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143-56
18. Harary F. 1972. Graph theory. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley
19. Jaeger JAG. 2000. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landsc Ecol 15:115-30
20. Jelenski D, Wu J. 1996. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 11:129-40
21. Keil JM, Gutwin CA. 1992. Classes of graphs which approximate the complete Euclidean graph. Disc Comput Geom 7(1):13-28
22. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BT. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology [online] 1(1):4. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4
23. McGarigal K, Marks BJ. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW 351
24. Manitoba Conservation. 2006. Manitoba's conservation and recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Available at URL: http://www.manitoba.ca/conservation
25. Manly BJF, McDonald L, Thomas D, McDonald TL, Erickson WP. 2002. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies, 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
26. Manseau M, Fall A, O'Brien D, Fortin M-J. 2002. National Parks and the protection of woodland caribou: a multi-scale landscape analysis method. Res Links 10(2):24-8
27. Manseau M, Rennie F, Mondor C. 2001. Determination of ecological boundaries for the establishment and management of Canadian National Park. In: Harmon D, Ed. Crossing Boundaries in Park Management. Proceedings of the 11th conference on research and resource management in parks and on public lands. Michigan: The George Wright Society, Hancock. pp 294-302
28. Marcot BG, Chinn PZ. 1982. Use of graph theory measures for assessing diversity of wildlife habitat. In: Lamberson R, Ed. Mathematical models of renewable resources. Proceedings of the 1st Pacific Coast conference on mathematical models of renewable resources. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University. pp 69-70
29. O'Brien DT, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin M-J. 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70-83
30. Okabe A, Boots B, Sugihara K, Chiu SN. 2000. Spatial tessellations- Concepts and applications of Voronoi diagrams, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley
31. Pickett STA, White PS, Eds. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Orlando (FL): Academic
32. Pither R, Manseau M, Clark J, Ball M, Wilson P. 2005. The relationship between landscape connectivity and genetic similarity among populations and individuals of woodland caribou in Manitoba. In: Ecological Society of America Conference, Montreal, August 2005
33. Qi Y, Wu J. 1996. Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices. Landsc Ecol 11(1):39-49
34. Reingold EM, Nievergelt J, Deo N. 1977. Combinatorial algorithms: theory and practice. Englewood (NJ): Prentice-Hall
35. Ricotta C, Stanisci A, Avena GC, Blasi C. 2000. Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach. Community Ecol 1(1):89-94
36. Schaefer JA. 1996. Canopy, snow and lichens on woodland caribou range in southeastern Manitoba. Rangifer Special Issue 9:239-44
37. Schippers P, Verboom J, Knaapen JP, van Apeldoorn RC. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19:97-106
38. Schumaker NH. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77(4):1210-25
39. Sutherland GD, Waterhouse FL, Fall A, O'Brien D, Harestad AS. 2006. A framework for landscape analysis of habitat supply and effects on populations of the northern spotted owl in British Columbia. Special Report, BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Research Branch, Victoria, BC
40. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571-2
41. Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Lands Ecol 16:235-54
42. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7-19
43. Urban D, Keitt T. 2001. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5):1205-18
44. Wagner HH, Fortin M-J. 2005. Spatial analysis of landscapes: concepts and statistics. Ecology 86:1975-87
45. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78:151-69