Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: A transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe)

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 101, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 310-320

  Gurrutxaga, Mikel ^a   Rubio, Lidón ^b   Saura, Santiago ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LLEIDA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Conefor Sensinode; Eco regional planning; Graph theory; Landscape connectivity; Landscape ecology; Probability of connectivity

Indexed keywords

APPLICATION PROGRAMS; CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FORESTRY; GRAPH THEORY; OPEN SYSTEMS; REGIONAL PLANNING;

CONEFOR SENSINODE; FOREST PROTECTED AREAS; FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARES; FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY; LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITIES; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH; TRANSNATIONAL NETWORKS;

OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE;

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; GRAPHICAL METHOD; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; INDEX METHOD; LANDSCAPE; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; MATRIX; NATIVE SPECIES; PRIORITIZATION; PROTECTED AREA; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPECIES DIVERSITY;

CANTABRIAN MOUNTAINS; SPAIN;

EID: 79956277235     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.036     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Adriaensen F., Chardon J.P., De Blust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H., Matthysen E. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape Urban Plan. 2003, 64:233-247.
2. Alexander S.M., Waters N.M., Paquet P.C. Traffic volume and highway permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Can. Geogr. 2005, 49:321-331.
3. Baranyi G., Saura S., Podani J., Jordán F. Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol. Indicators 2011, 11(5):1301-1310.
4. Beier P., Majka D.A., Spencer W.D. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22:836-851.
5. Beier P., Penrod K.L., Luke C., Spencer W.D., Cabañero C. South Coast missing linkages: restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the United States. Connectivity Conservation 2008, 555-586. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M.A. Sanjayan (Eds.).
6. Bennett G. Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use: Lessons Learned From Ecological Networks 2004, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland/Cambridge, UK.
7. Bennett G., Mulongoy K.J. Review of Experience With Ecological Networks, Corridors and Buffer Zones 2006, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
8. Bodin Ö., Norberg J. A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:31-44.
9. Bodin Ö., Saura S. Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221:2393-2405.
10. Bolck M., de Togni G., van der Sluis T., Jongman R.H.G. From models to reality: design and implementation process. Ecological Networks and Greenways. Concept, Design, Implementation 2004, 128-150. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R.H.G. Jongman, G. Pungetti (Eds.).
11. Bowman J., Jaeger J.A.G., Fahrig L. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 2002, 83:2049-2055.
12. Bruinderink G.G., Sluis T.V.D., Lammertsma D., Opdam P., Pouwels R. Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in Northwestern Europe. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17:549-557.
13. Carroll C., Noss R.F., Paquet P.C., Schumaker N.H. Extinction debt of protected areas in developing landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:1110-1120.
14. Clevenger A.P., Wierzchowski J., Chruszcz B., Gunson K. GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16:503-514.
15. Clevenger A.P., Wierzchowski J. Maintaining and restoring connectivity in landscapes fragmented by roads. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 502-535. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
16. Coffin A.W. From roadkill to road ecology: a review of the ecological effects of roads. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15:396-406.
17. D'Alessandro E., Carranza M.L., Saura S., Loy A. Modello di rete ecologica per la lontra in Italia. Estimo e Territorio 2009, 4(31-38). (in Italian).
18. D'Alessandro E., Carranza M.L., Saura S., Loy A., Paura B. Riqualificazione territoriale e areale della lontra in Italia. Estimo e Territorio 2009, 12:23-30. (in Italian).
19. EEA GISCO Administrative Boundaries (NUTS) v9 Generalised Using the 1km Reference Grid for the Land Cover Accounts Project (LEAC) 2002, The European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
20. EEA Biogeographical Regions in Europe 2009, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
21. EEA Corine Land Cover 2000 (CLC2000) 250m - Version 12/2009 2009, The European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
22. EEA Distribution of Natura 2000 Sites Across the 27 EU Member States 2009, The European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
23. Epps C.W., Wehausen J.D., Bleich V.C., Torres S.G., Brashares J.S. Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44:714-724.
24. Erös T., Schmera D., Schick R.S. Network thinking in riverscape conservation: a graph-based approach. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:184-192.
25. European Commission Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005 2005, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
26. European Commission, 2010. TEN-T priority projects: progress report 2010. Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, Brussels.
27. Fall A., Fortin M.J., Manseau M., O'Brien D. Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 2007, 10:448-461.
28. Fahrig L. Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21:1003-1015.
29. Ferrari J., Lookingbill T., Neel M. Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:1315-1323.
30. Figueira W., Crowder L. Defining patch contribution in source-sink metapopulations: the importance of including dispersal and its relevance to marine systems. Popul. Ecol. 2006, 48:215-224.
31. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16:265-280.
32. Forman R.T.T., Sperling D., Bissonette J.A., Clevenger A.P., Cutshall C.D., Dale V.H., Fahrig L., France R.L., Goldman C.R., Heanue K., Jones J., Swanson F., Turrentine T., Winter T.C. Road Ecology. Science and Solutions 2003, Island Press, Washington.
33. Fu W., Liu S., Degloria S.D., Dong S., Beazley R. Characterizing the " fragmentation-barrier" effect of road networks on landscape connectivity: a case study in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Landscape Urban Plan. 2010, 95:122-129.
34. García-Feced C., Saura S., Elena-Rosselló R. Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: a two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2011, 261:154-161.
35. Gurrutxaga M., Lozano P.J., del Barrio G. GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning. J. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 18:318-326.
36. Gurrutxaga M., Lozano P.J., del Barrio G. Assessing highway permeability for the restoration of landscape connectivity between protected areas in the Basque Country, Northern Spain. Landscape Res. 2010, 35:529-550.
37. Hodgson J.A., Thomas C.D., Wintle B.A., Moilanen A. Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics. J. Appl. Ecol. 2009, 46:964-969.
38. IUCN Rebuilding natural bridges in Southwestern Europe. Declaration of les Planes de Son (Spain). Mountain corridors in the Pyrenees. International Conference 2005.
39. Iuell B., Bekker G.J., Cuperus R., Dufek J., Fry G., Hicks C., Hlavác V., Keller V., Rosell C., Sangwine T., Tørsløv N., Wandall B. Wildlife and Traffic: A European Handbook for Identifying Conflicts and Designing Solutions 2003, Dutch Ministry of Transport, Delft.
40. Jongman R.H.G. Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landscape Urban Plan. 2002, 58:211-221.
41. Jongman R.H.G., Bouwma I.M., Van Doorn A. Indicative Map of the Pan-European Ecological Network in Western Europe Alterra 2006, (Wageningen).
42. Jongman R.H.G., Pungetti G. Ecological Networks and Greenways. Concept, Design, Implementation 2004, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
43. Jordán F., Magura T., Tóthmérész B., Vasas V., Ködöböcz V. Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:1527-1539.
44. Kettunen M., Terry A., Tucker G., Jones A. Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna - Guidance on the implementation of article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) 2007, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels.
45. Leibenath M., Blum A., Stutzriemer S. Transboundary cooperation in establishing ecological networks: the case of Germany's external borders. Landscape Urban Plan. 2010, 94:84-93.
46. Lookingbill T.R., Elmore A.J., Engelhardt K.A.M., Churchill J.B., Edward Gates J., Johnson J.B. Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143:974-983.
47. Matthysen E. Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. Ecography 2005, 28:403-416.
48. McRae B.H., Dickson B.G., Keitt T.H., Shah V.B. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 2008, 89:2712-2724.
49. Minor E.S., Urban D.L. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22:297-307.
50. Mitsova D., Shuster W., Wang X. A cellular automata model of land cover change to integrate urban growth with open space conservation. Landscape Urban Plan. 2011, 99:141-153.
51. Morzillo A.T., Ferrari J.R., Liu J. An integration of habitat evaluation, individual based modeling, and graph theory for a potential black bear population recovery in southeastern Texas, USA. Landscape Ecol. 2011, 26:69-81.
52. 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.
53. Opdam P., Wascher D. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 117:285-297.
54. Ovaskainen O., Hanski I. Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2001, 60:281-302.
55. 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. Landscape Ecol. 2006, 21:959-967.
56. 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.
57. Pinto N., Keitt T. Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol. 2009, 24:253-266.
58. Ray N. Pathmatrix: a geographical information system tool to compute effective distances among samples. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2005, 5:177-180.
59. Rayfield B., Fortin M., Fall A. The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol. 2010, 25:519-532.
60. Rothley K. Finding and filling the " cracks" in resistance surfaces for least-cost modeling. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10(4). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art4/.
61. Saura S., Estreguil C., Mouton C., Rodríguez-Freire M. Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990-2000). Ecol. Indicators 2011, 11:407-416.
62. 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. Landscape Urban Plan. 2007, 83:91-103.
63. Saura S., Rubio L. A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 2010, 33:523-537.
64. Saura S., Torné J. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Modell. Softw. 2009, 24:135-139.
65. Schadt S., Knauer F., Kaczensky P., Revilla E., Wiegand T., Trepl L. Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for Eurasian Lynx in Germany. Ecol. Appl. 2002, 12:1469-1483.
66. Shirk A.J., Wallin D.O., Cushman S.A., Rice C.G., Warheit K.I. Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol. Ecol. 2010, 19:3603-3619.
67. Sutherland G.D., Harestad A.S., Price K., Lertzman K. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv. Ecol. 2000, 4:16.
68. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K., Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68:571-573.
69. Theobald D.M. Exploring the functional connectivity of ladscape networks. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 416-443. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
70. Thorne J.H., Huber P.R., Girvetz E.H., Quinn J., McCoy M.C. Integration of regional mitigation assessment and conservation planning. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14:47.
71. Tischendorf L., Fahrig L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 2000, 90:7-19.
72. Urban D., Keitt T. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 2001, 82:1205-1218.
73. van der Grift E., Pouwels R. Restoring habitat connectivity across transport corridors: identifying high-priority locations for de-fragmentation with the use of an expert-based model. The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment 2006, 205-231. Springer, Berlin. J. Davenport, J.L. Davenport (Eds.).
74. Vasas V., Magura T., Jordán F., Tóthmérész B. Graph theory in action: evaluating planned highway tracks based on connectivity measures. Landscape Ecol. 2009, 24:581-586.
75. Verbeylen G., De Bruyn L., Adriaensen F., Matthysen E. Does matrix resistance influence red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape?. Landscape Ecol. 2003, 18:791-805.
76. Watts K., Handley P. Developing a functional connectivity indicator to detect change in fragmented landscapes. Ecol. Indicators 2010, 10:552-557.
77. Worboys G.L., Francis W.L., Lockwood M. Connectivity Conservation Management. A Global Guide 2010, Earthscan, London.