Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 251, Issue , 2013, Pages 279-287

  Shanthala Devi, B S ^a,b   Murthy, M S R ^a,c   Debnath, Bijan ^a   Jha, C S ^a  

^a INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION   (India)

^b JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (India)

^c INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR INTEGRATED MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT   (Nepal)

Author keywords

Connectivity indices; Fragmentation; Graph theory; Patch prioritization

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; COINCIDENCE PROBABILITIES; CONNECTIVITY INDICES; ECOLOGICAL FACTORS; FOREST HABITATS; FOREST PATCHES; FRAGMENTATION; GEO-SPATIAL; INTEGRAL INDEX; LANDSCAPE LEVEL; OPTIMAL THRESHOLD; PATCH SIZE; PRIORITIZATION; REMOTE SENSING DATA; SEED DISPERSAL; TROPICAL DECIDUOUS FOREST;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; GRAPH THEORY; OPTIMIZATION; REMOTE SENSING;

FORESTRY;

BIODIVERSITY; CONNECTIVITY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; DECIDUOUS FOREST; GRAPHICAL METHOD; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; OPTIMIZATION; PATCH SIZE; PRIORITIZATION; REMOTE SENSING; SEED DISPERSAL; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TROPICAL FOREST; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; FORESTRY; FRAGMENTATION; OPTIMIZATION; REMOTE SENSING;

EASTERN GHATS; INDIA;

EID: 84873851728     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.12.022     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baranyi G., Saura S., Podani J., Jordán F. Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecological Indicators 2011, 11:1301-1310.
2. Bodin O., Saura S. Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecological Modelling 2010, 221:2393-2405.
3. Bunn A.G., Urban D.L., Keitt T.H. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management 2000, 59:265-278.
4. Calabrese J.M., Fagan W.F. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2004, 2:529-536.
5. Capitan J.A., Jose A.C., Bascompte J. Species assembly in model ecosystems. II. Results of the assembly process. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2011, 269:344-355.
6. Champion H.G., Seth S.K. Revised Forest Types of India 1968, Govt. of India Publications, New Delhi.
7. Collinge S.K., Forman R.T.T. A conceptional model of land conversion processes-predictions and evidence from a microlandscape experiment with grassland insects. Oikos 1998, 82:66-84.
8. Collinge S.K. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 2000, 81:2211-2226.
9. Decout S., Manel S., Miaud C., Luque S. Integrative approach for landscape-based graph connectivity analysis: a case study with the common frog (Ranatemporaria) in human-dominated landscapes. Landscape Ecology 2012, 27(2):267-279.
10. Demers M.N., Simpson J.W., Boerner R.E.J., Silva A., Berns L., Artigas F. Fencerows, edges, and implications of changing connectivity illustrated by two contiguous Ohio landscapes. Conservation Biology 1995, 9:1159-1168.
11. Doak D.F., Marino P.C., Kareiva P.M. Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: implications for conservation. Theoretical Population Biology 1992, 41:315-336.
12. Dunn A.G., Majer J.D. Measuring connectivity patterns in a macro-corridor on the south coast of Western Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 2009, 10:51-57.
13. Eros T., Schmera D., Schick R.S. Network thinking in riverscape conservation: a graph-based approach. Biological Conservation 2011, 144:184-192.
14. Fahrig L. Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Functional Ecology 2007, 21:1003-1015.
15. Fall A., Fortin M.-J., Manseau M., O'Brien D. Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 2007, 10:448-461.
16. FSI Forest Survey of India 2011, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Dehradun.
17. Girvetz E.H., Greco S.E. How to define a patch: a spatial model for hierarchically delineating organism-specific habitat patches. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:1131-1142.
18. Green D.G. Connectivity and complexity in landscapes and ecosystems. Pacific Conservation Biology 1994, 1:194-200.
19. Gustafson E.J., Gardner R.H. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 1996, 77:94-107.
20. 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 Ecology 2007, 22(10):1527-1539.
21. Kindlmann P., Burel F. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecology 2008, 23:879-890.
22. Laita A., Kotiaho J.S., Mönkkönen M. Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity?. Landscape Ecology 2011, 26:951-967.
23. Li H.B., Wu J.G. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology 2004, 19:389-399.
24. Mas J.F., Pérez-Vega A., Clarke K.C. Assessing simulated land use/cover maps using similarity and fragmentation indices. Ecological Complexity 2012, 11:38-45.
25. 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.
26. Metzger J.P., Decamps H. The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecolgica 1997, 18:1-12.
27. Minor E.S., Urban D.L. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecological Applications 2007, 17:1771-1782.
28. NRSA Biodiversity Characterisation at Landscape Level in Eastern Ghats and East Coast using Satellite Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System 2007, Department of Space, National Remote Sensing Agency, ISBN: 978-81-7525-877-8.
29. 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 Ecology 2006, 21(7):959-967.
30. Pascual-Hortal L., Saura S. Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 83:176-186.
31. Pascual-Hortal L., Saura S. Integrating landscape connectivity in broad-scale forest planning through a new graph based habitat availability methodology: application to capercaillie (Tetraourogallus) in Catalonia (NE Spain). European Journal of Forest Research 2008, 127:23-31.
32. Peng J., Wang Y., Zhang Y., Wu J., Li W., Li Y. Evaluating the effectiveness of landscape metrics in quantifying spatial patterns. Ecological Indicators 2010, 10:217-223.
33. Pinto N., Keitt T. Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecology 2009, 24:253-266.
34. Pither J., Taylor P.D. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 1998, 83:166-174.
35. Roy A., Shanthala B.S., Devi, Debnath B., Murthy M.S.R. Geospatial model for identification of potential ecological corridor in Orissa. Special issue on Biodiversity and Landscape Ecology. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2010, 38(3):387-399.
36. Ruckelshaus M., Hartway C., Kareiva P.M. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conservation Biology 1997, 11:1298-1306.
37. Saura S., Pascual-Hortal L. CONEFOR SENSINODE 2. 2 User's Manual: Software for Quantifying the Importance of Habitat Patches for Maintaining Landscape Connectivity through Graphs and Habitat Availability Indices 2007, University of Leida, Leida, Spain.
38. 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 Planning 2007, 83:91-103.
39. Saura, S.,Torné, J., 2012. CONEFOR 2.6 User manual. Quantifying the importance of habitat patches and links for maintaining or enhancing landscape connectivity through spatial graphs and habitat availability (reachability) metrics, http://conefor.org/files/usuarios/Manual_Conefor_26.pdf.
40. Schumaker N. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 1996, 77:1210-1225.
41. Smith J.M., Matthew G.B., Graham J.F., Daniel G.K., Maryse C.B., Stephen P.F. Independent effects of connectivity predict homing success by northern flying squirrel in a forest mosaic. Landscape Ecology 2011, 26(5):709-721.
42. Sweeney S., Jurek M., Bednar M. Using place names to interpret former floodplain connectivity in the Morava River, Czech Republic. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:1007-1018.
43. Tiebout H.M., Anderson R.A. A comparison of corridors and intrinsic connectivity to promote dispersal in transient successional landscapes. Conservation Biology 1997, 11:620-627.
44. Tischendorf L., Fahrig L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 2000, 90:7-19.
45. With K.A., Gardner R.H., Turner M.G. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous landscapes. Oikos 1997, 78:151-169.