Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements: An analysis of simulated and real landscape data

Ecological Complexity

Volumn 11, Issue , 2012, Pages 28-37

  Rubio, Lidón ^a   Saura, Santiago ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LLEIDA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Fragmentation; Habitat availability metrics; Landscape connectivity; Network analysis; Neutral landscape models; Stepping stones

Indexed keywords

AVES;

EID: 84864307028     PISSN: 1476945X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2012.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Andrén H. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 1994, 71:355-366.
2. Arroyo-Rodríguez V., Mandujano S. Conceptualization and measurement of habitat fragmentation from the primates' perspective. Int. J. Primatol. 2009, 30:497-514.
3. Baranyi G., Saura S., Podani J., Jordán F. Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11:1301-1310.
4. Baum K.A., Haynes K.J., Dillemuth F.P., Cronin J.T. The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 2004, 85:2671-2676.
5. Bodin ö., Norberg J. A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:31-44.
6. Bodin ö., Saura S. Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221:2393-2405.
7. 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.
8. Brooks C.P. Quantifying population substructure: extending the graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 2006, 87:864-872.
9. Bunn A.G., Urban D.L., Keitt T.H. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J. Environ. Manage. 2000, 59:265-278.
10. Calabrese J.M., Fagan W.F. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2:529-536.
11. Crooks K.R., Sanjayan M. Connectivity Conservation 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. Crooks K.R., Sanjayan M. Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 1-19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
13. Erös T., Schmera D., Schick R.S. Network thinking in riverscape conservation: a graph-based approach. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:184-192.
14. Estrada J., Pedrocchi V., Brotons L., Herrando S. Atles dels ocells nidificants de Catalunya 1999-2002 2004, Institut català d'Ornitologia (ICO)/Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
15. Fahrig L. When does habitat fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival?. Ecol. Model. 1998, 105:65-74.
16. Fahrig L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34:487-515.
17. Fall A., Fortin M., Manseau M., O'Brien D. Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 2007, 10:448-461.
18. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16:265-280.
19. Galpern P., Manseau M., Fall A. Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:44-55.
20. Gardner R.H., Milne B.T., Turner M.G., O'Neill R.V. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 1987, 1:19-28.
21. Gonzalez A., Rayfield B., Lindo Z. The disentangled bank: how loss of habitat fragments and disassembles ecological networks. Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98:503-516.
22. Gurrutxaga M., Rubio L., Saura S. 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 Urban Plann. 2011, 101:310-320.
23. 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.
24. Jordán F., Magura T., Tothmeresz B., Vasas V., Kodobocz V. Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:1527-1539.
25. Lambeck R.J. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11:849-856.
26. Loehle C. Effect of ephemeral stepping stones on metapopulations on fragmented landscapes. Ecol. Complex. 2007, 4:42-47.
27. Manning A.D., Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B. Scattered trees are keystone structures - implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132:311-321.
28. Menoni, E., 1991. Ecologie et dynamique des populations du grand tétras dans les Pyrénées. Doctoral thesis. Université Paul Sabatier de Toulouse.
29. Minor E.S., Lookingbill T.R. A multiscale network analysis of protected-area connectivity for mammals in the United States. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:1549-1558.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Pascual-Hortal L., Saura S., Brotons L., Camprodon J. Identificación de las zonas de hábitat críticas para la conservación de la conectividad del paisaje para la avifauna forestal amenazada en Cataluña y propuesta de medidas de gestión forestal. Informe de proyecto de conservación para la Fundación Territorio y Paisaje 2006, Universidad de Lleida y Centro Tecnológico Forestal de Cataluña.
34. Pautasso M., Moslonka-Lefebvre M., Jeger M.J. The number of links to and from the starting node as a predictor of epidemic size in small-size directed networks. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7:424-432.
35. Pereira M., Segurado P., Neves N. Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: a case study with pond turtles. Landscape Urban Plann. 2011, 100:67-76.
36. Phillips S.J., Anderson R.P., Schapire R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190:231-259.
37. Ribeiro R., Carretero M.A., Sillero N., Alarcos G., Ortiz-Santaliestra M., Lizana M., Llorente G.A. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on (amphibian) biodiversity patterns?. Landscape Ecol. 2011, 26:673-682.
38. Rippa D., Maselli V., Soppelsa O., Fulgione D. The impact of agro-pastoral abandonment on the Rock Partridge Alectoris graeca in the Appenines. Ibis 2011, 153:721-734.
39. Roberge J-M., Mikusiński G., Svensson S. The white-backed woodpecker: umbrella species for forest conservation planning?. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:2479-2494.
40. Robertson O.J., Radford J.Q. Gap-crossing decisions of forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Aust. Ecol. 2009, 34:435-446.
41. Saura S. Evaluating forest landscape connectivity through Conefor Sensinode 2.2 software. Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes: Multiple Use and Sustainable Management 2008, 403-422. Springer. R. Lafortezza, J. Chen, G. Sanesi, T.R. Crow (Eds.).
42. Saura S., Martínez-Millán J. Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random clusters method. Landscape Ecol. 2000, 15:661-678.
43. 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 Plann. 2007, 83:91-103.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. Saura S., Vogt P., Velázquez J., Hernando A., Tejera R. Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses. For. Ecol. Manage. 2011, 262:150-160.
47. Suter W., Graf R.F., Hess R. Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) and avian biodiversity: testing the umbrella-species concept. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16:778-788.
48. Sutherland G.D., Harestad A.S., Price K., Lertzman K.P. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv. Ecol. 2000, 4. art16.
49. Swift T.L., Hannon S.J. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence and applications. Biol. Rev. 2010, 85:35-53.
50. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., Henein K., Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 1993, 68:571-573.
51. Taylor P.D., Fahrig L., With K.A. Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 29-43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
52. Uezu A., Beyer D.D., Metzger J.P. Can agroforest woodlots work as stepping stones for birds in the Atlantic forest region?. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17:1907-1922.
53. Urban D., Keitt T. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 2001, 82:1205-1218.
54. With K.A. The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11:1069-1080.
55. With K.A., Crist T.O. Critical thresholds in species' responses to landscape structure. Ecology 1995, 76:2446-2459.
56. With K.A., King A.W. The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. Oikos 1997, 79:219-229.