Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: Integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 221, Issue 19, 2010, Pages 2393-2405

  Bodin, Örjan ^a   Saura, Santiago ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Conservation management; Graph theory; Land use planning; Landscape ecology; Landscape fragmentation; Network analysis

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION; NETWORK ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEMS; ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; GRAPH THEORY; LAND USE; PLANNING;

NETWORK SECURITY;

CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; DISPERSAL; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT MANAGEMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; NUMERICAL METHOD; PATCH DYNAMICS; VULNERABILITY;

CATALONIA; MADAGASCAR; SPAIN;

EID: 77955772006     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.06.017     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andersson E., Bodin Ö. Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 2009, 32:123-132.
2. Bascompte, J., 2009. Ecological systems. In: Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Complexity and System Science. Springer, New York.
3. Bascompte J., Jordano P., Olesen J.M. Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 2006, 312:431-433.
4. Bodin, Ö., 2009. Ecological topology and networks. In: Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer, New York, pp. 2728-2744.
5. Bodin Ö., Norberg J. A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:31-44.
6. Bodin Ö., Tengö M., Norman A., Lundberg J., Elmqvist T. The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecol. Appl. 2006, 16:440-451.
7. Bunn A.G., Urban D.L., Keitt T.H. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J. Environ. Manage. 2000, 59:265-278.
8. Calabrese J.M., Fagan W.F. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2:529-536.
9. Estrada E., Bodin Ö. Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18:1810-1825.
10. Estrada, J., Pedrocchi, V., Brotons, L., Herrando, S., 2004. Atles dels Ocells Nidificants de Catalunya 1999-2002. Institut Català d'Ornitologia (ICO)/Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
11. Fall A., Fortin M.-J., Manseau M., O'Brien D. Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystem 2007, 10:448-461.
12. Freeman L.C. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 1977, 40:35-41.
13. Fu, W., Liu, S., DeGloria, S.D., Dong, S., Beazley, R., 2010. Characterizing the "fragmentation-barrier" effect of road networks on landscape connectivity: a case study in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Landsc. Urban Plann. 83, 91-103.
14. Hanski I. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 1994, 63:151-162.
15. Hanski I., Ovaskainen O. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 2000, 404:755-758.
16. Jordán F., Baldi A., Orci K.M., Racz I., Varga Z. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landsc. Ecol. 2003, 18:83-92.
17. Keitt T.H., Urban D.L., Milne B.T. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Ecol. 1997, 1:4.
18. Laita A., Mönkkönen M., Kotiaho J.S. Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143:1212-1227.
19. McRae B.H., Beier P. Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:19885-19890.
20. Menoni, E., 1991. Ecologie et dynamique des populations du grand tetras dans les Pyrenees. PhD Thesis, Universite Paul Sabatier de Toulouse, France.
21. Mills L.S., Allendorf F.W. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10:1509-1518.
22. Minor E.S., Urban D.L. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17:1771-1782.
23. Neel M.C. Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae). Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141:938-955.
24. O'Brien D., Manseau M., Fall A., Fortin M.-J. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 130:70-83.
25. Pascual M., Dunne J.A. Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food Webs 2006, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
26. Pascual-Hortal L., Saura S. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21:959-967.
27. Pascual-Hortal L., Saura S. Integrating landscape connectivity in broad-scale forest planning through a new graph-based habitat availability methodology: application to capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Catalonia (NE Spain). Eur. J. For. Res. 2008, 127:23-31.
28. Perotto-Baldivieso H., Meléndez E., García M.A., Leimgruber P., Cooper S.M., Martínez A., Calle P., Ramos O., Quiñones M., Christen C., Pons G. Spatial distribution, connectivity, and the influence of scale: habitat availability for the endangered Mona Island rock iguana. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18:905-917.
29. Phillips S.J., Williams P., Midgley G., Archer A. Optimizing dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae using network flow. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18:1200-1211.
30. Saura S., Pascual-Hortal L. 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. 2007, 83:91-103.
31. Saura S., Torné J. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Modell. Software 2009, 24:135-139.
32. 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, doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x.
33. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K., Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68:571-573.
34. Urban D., Keitt T. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 2001, 82:1205-1218.
35. Urban D.L., Minor E.S., Treml E.A., Schick R.S. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:260-273.
36. Vasas V., Magura T., Jordán F., Tóthmérész B. Graph theory in action: evaluating planned highway tracks based on connectivity measures. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24:581-586.
37. Visconti P., Elkin C. Using connectivity metrics in conservation planning - when does habitat quality matter?. Divers. Distrib. 2009, 15:602-612.
38. Wang J. Application of the one-migrant-per-generation rule to conservation and management. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:332-343.
39. Wasserman S., Faust K. Social Network Analysis - Methods and Applications 1994, Cambride University Press, Cambridge.