A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks

Environmental Modelling and Software

Volumn 38, Issue , 2012, Pages 316-327

  Foltête, Jean Christophe ^a   Clauzel, Céline ^a   Vuidel, Gilles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE FRANCHE COMTÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Connectivity metrics; Field observations; Landscape graph; Least cost distance; Network analysis

Indexed keywords

CONNECTIVITY ANALYSIS; CONNECTIVITY METRICS; CONNECTIVITY PROPERTIES; FIELD OBSERVATIONS; GRAPH-BASED; LANDSCAPE GRAPH; LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT; LEAST-COST DISTANCE; POINT DATA;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; ECOLOGY; ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS;

TOPOLOGY;

CONNECTIVITY; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; NETWORK ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; RESEARCH WORK; SOFTWARE; TOPOLOGY;

EID: 84864808392     PISSN: 13648152     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Béliste M. Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 2005, 86(8):1988-1995.
2. Bodin O., Norberg J. A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:31-44.
3. Bodin O., Saura S. Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol. Model. 2010, 221:2393-2405.
4. Bunn A.G., Urban D.L., Keitt T.H. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J. Environ. Manage. 2000, 59:265-278.
5. Calabrese J.M., Fagan W.F. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2(10):529-536.
6. Coulon A., Cosson J.F., Angibault J.M., Cargnelutti B., Galan M., Morellet N., Petit E., Aulagnier S., Hewison A.J.M. Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual based approach. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13:2841-2850.
7. Dale M.R.T., Fortin M.J. From graphs to spatial graphs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2010, 41:21-38.
8. ESRI (Environmental Services Research Incorporation) ArcGIS 2006, vol. 9.2. Redland, CA.
9. Estrada E., Bodin O. Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol. Appl. 2008, 18:1810-1825.
10. Fall A., Fortin M.J., Manseau M., O'Brien D. Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 2007, 10:448-461.
11. Fog K. Migration in the tree frog Hyla arborea. Ecology and Conservation of the European Tree Frog. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Hyla arborea 1993, 55-64. Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. A.H.P. Stumpel, U. Tester (Eds.).
12. Foltête J.C., Clauzel C., Tournant P., Vuidel G. Integrating graph-based connectivity metrics into species distribution models. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 27:557-569.
13. Freeman L.C. Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc. Network 1979, 1:215-239.
14. 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.
15. 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). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101:310-320.
16. Huisman M., Van Duijn M.A.J. Software for social network analysis. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis 2005, 270-316. Cambridge University Press, New York. P.J. Carrington, J. Scott, S. Wasserman (Eds.).
17. Jungnickel D. Graphs. Networks and Algorithms 2008, Springer, Berlin. third ed.
18. Laita A., Kotiaho J.S., Mönkkönen M. Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity?. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26:951-967.
19. Luque S., Saura S., Fortin M.J. Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 27:153-157.
20. Manel S., Schwartz M.K., Luikart G., Taberlet P. Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18:189-197.
21. McRae B.H., Dickson B.G., Keitt T.H., Shah V.B. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology. Ecology 2008, 89:2712-2724.
22. Minor E.S., Urban D.L. A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22:297-307.
23. Moilanen A. On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48:1543-1547.
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-Hortal L., Saura S. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Lands. Ecol. 2006, 21:959-967.
26. Pellet J., Hoehn S., Perrin N. Multiscale determinants of tree frog (Hyla arborea L.) calling ponds in western Switzerland. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13:2227-2235.
27. Pereira M., Segurado P., Neves N. Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: a case study with pond turtles. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100:67-76.
28. Pinto N., Keitt T.H. Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24:256-266.
29. Ray N. Pathmatrix: a geographical information system tool to compute effective distances among samples. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2005, 5:177-180.
30. Rayfield B., Fortin M.J., Fall A. Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 2011, 92:847-858.
31. 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? Landsc. Ecol 2011, 26:673-682.
32. Ricotta C., Stanisci A., Avena G.C., Blasi C. Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach. Community Ecol. 2000, 1(1):89-94.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Saura S., Torné J. ConeforSensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24:135-139.
36. Sawyer S.C., Epps C.W., Brashares J.S. Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48:668-678.
37. Shapiro L.G., Stockman G.C. Computer Vision 2001, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.
38. De Smith M.J., Goodchild M.F., Longley P.A. Geospatial Analysis, a Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Techniques and Software Tools 2007, Wichelsea Press, Leicester (UK).
39. Tannier C., Foltête J.C., Girardet X. Assessing the capacity of different urban forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105:128-139.
40. Taylor P., Fahrig L., With W. Landscape connectivity: a return to basics. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 29-43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
41. Theobald D.M. Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 416-443. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjakan (Eds.).
42. Urban D.L., Keitt T.H. Landscape connectivity: a graph theoretic approach. Ecology 2001, 82:1205-1218.
43. Urban D.L., Minor E.S., Treml E.A., Schick R.S. Graph models of land mosaics. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:260-273.
44. Verbeylen G., De Bruyn L., Adriaensen F., Matthysen E. Does matrix resistance influence red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape?. Landsc. Ecol. 2003, 18:791-805.
45. Vogt P., Ferrari J.R., Lookingbill T.R., Gardner R.H., Riiters K.H., Ostapowicz K. Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9:64-71.
46. Vos C., Stumpel A.H.P. Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 11:203-214.
47. Zetterberg A., Mörtberg U.M., Balfors B. Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95:191.