Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments

Landscape Ecology

Volumn 29, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1551-1570

  Ziółkowska, Elżbieta ^a   Ostapowicz, Katarzyna ^a   Radeloff, Volker C ^b   Kuemmerle, Tobias ^c  

^a JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Connectivity assessment; Conservation; Graph theory; Landscape representation; Least cost path modeling; Resistance surface

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929653328     PISSN: 09212973     EISSN: 15729761     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-014-0075-2     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Baranyi G, Saura S, Podani J, Jordán F (2011) Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol Indic 11:1301–1310
2. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851
3. Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL (2009) Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl 19:2067–2077
4. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995
5. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecol 18:17–40
6. Bodin O, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: Integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Model 221:2393–2405
7. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536
8. Carroll C, McRae BH, Brookes A (2011) Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America. Conserv Biol 26:78–87
9. Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol 18:561–573
10. Chipperfield JD, Dytham C, Hovestadt T (2011) An updated algorithm for the generation of neutral landscapes by spectral synthesis. PLoS One 6:e17040. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017040
11. De Rigo D (2013) Software uncertainty in integrated environmental modelling: the role of semantics and open science. Geophys Res Abstr 15:13292
12. ESRI [Environmental Systems Resource Institute] (2011) ArcMap 10.0. ESRI, Redlands, California
13. Estreguil C, De Rigo D, Caudullo G (2014) A proposal for an integrated modelling framework to characterise habitat pattern. Environ Model Softw 52:176–191
14. Etherington TR, Holland EP (2013) Least-cost path length versus accumulated-cost as connectivity measures. Landscape Ecol 28:1223–1229
15. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762–1768
16. Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Neel MC (2007) Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landscape Ecol 22:1315–1323
17. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280
18. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. University Press Cambridge, Cambridge
19. Gebauer K, Dickinson KJM, Whigham PA, Seddon PJ (2013) Matrix matters: differences of grand skink metapopulation parameters in native tussock grasslands and exotic pasture grasslands. PLoS One 8:e76076. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076076
20. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570
21. Henein K, Merriam G (1990) The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landscape Ecol 4:157–170
22. Keitt TH (2000) Spectral representation of neutral landscapes. Landscape Ecol 15:479–493
23. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890
24. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2012) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landscape Ecol 28:165–185
25. Kozak J, Estreguil C, Ostapowicz K (2008) European forest cover mapping with high resolution satellite data: the Carpathians case study. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinform 10:44–55
26. Kozak J, Ostapowicz K, Bytnerowicz A, Wyżga B (2013) The Carpathians: integrating nature and society towards sustainability, environmental science and engineering. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg
27. Kuemmerle T, Chaskovskyy O, Knorn J, Radeloff VC, Kruhlov I, Keeton WS, Hostert P (2009) Forest cover change and illegal logging in the Ukrainian Carpathians in the transition period from 1988 to 2007. Remote Sens Environ 113:1194–1207
28. Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Chaskovskyy O, Ostapowicz K, Halada L, Bashta A-T, Kruhlov I, Hostert P, Waller D, Radeloff VC (2010) European Bison habitat in the Carpathian Mountains. Biol Conserv 143:908–916
29. Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Akçakaya HR, Beaudry F, Van Deelen TR, Parnikoza I, Khoyetskyy P, Waller DM, Radeloff VC (2011) Cost-effectiveness of strategies to establish a European bison metapopulation in the Carpathians. J Appl Ecol 48:317–329
30. Laita A, Kotiaho JS, Mönkkönen M (2011) Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecol 26:951–967
31. Lechner AM, Reinke KJ, Wang Y, Bastin L (2013) Interactions between landcover pattern and geospatial processing methods: effects on landscape metrics and classification accuracy. Ecol Complex 15:71–82
32. Lehman MM, Ramil JF (2002) Software uncertainty. In: Bustard D, Liu W, Sterritt R (eds) Soft-Ware 2002. Computing in an imperfect World, vol 2311. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 477–514
33. Luque S, Saura S, Fortin M-J (2012) Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data. Landscape Ecol 27:153–157
34. Magrach A, Larrinaga AR, Santamaría L (2012) Effects of matrix characteristics and interpatch distance on functional connectivity in fragmented temperate rainforests. Conserv Biol 26:238–247
35. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724
36. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547
37. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145
38. Mortelliti A, Amori G, Boitani L (2010) The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163:535–547
39. Mubareka S, Estreguil C, Baranzelli C, Gomes CR, Lavalle C, Hofer B (2013) A land-use-based modelling chain to assess the impacts of natural water retention measures on Europe’s green infrastructure. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 27:1740–1763
40. Opermanis O, MacSharry B, Aunins A, Sipkova Z (2012) Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union. Biol Conserv 153:227–238
41. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21:959–967
42. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2007) 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 127:23–31
43. Pflüger FJ, Balkenhol N (2014) A plea for simultaneously considering matrix quality and local environmental conditions when analyzing landscape impacts on effective dispersal. Mol Ecol 23:2146–2156
44. Pinto N, Keitt TH (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24:253–266
45. Prugh LR (2009) An evaluation of patch connectivity measures. Ecol Appl 19:1300–1310
46. Python Software Foundation (2013) Python Language Reference, version 2.7. Python Software Foundation. Available from http://www.python.org. Accessed March 2014
47. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from www.R-project.org. Accessed March 2014
48. Rabinowitz A, Zeller KA (2010) A range-wide model of landscape connectivity and conservation for the jaguar, Panthera onca. Biol Conserv 143:939–945
49. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532
50. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2011) Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. Ecology 92:847–858
51. Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2010) Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap-crossing ability using radio-tracking data. J Appl Ecol 47:603–610
52. Rubio L, Saura S (2012) Assessing the importance of individual habitat patches as irreplaceable connecting elements: an analysis of simulated and real landscape data. Ecol Complex 11:28–37
53. Rubio L, Rodríguez-Freire M, Mateo-Sánchez M, Estreguil C, Saura S (2012) Sustaining forest landscape connectivity under different land cover change scenarios. For Syst 21:223–235
54. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007a) 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 83:91–103
55. Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L (2007b) 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. Available from www.conefor.org. Accessed March 2014
56. 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 33:523–537
57. Saura S, Torne J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139
58. Saura S, Torne J (2012) Conefor 2.6 user manual. Available from www.conefor.org. Accessed March 2014
59. Saura S, Estreguil C, Mouton C, Rodríguez-Freire M (2011) Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecol Indic 11:407–416
60. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678
61. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2011) Habitat quality of source patches and connectivity in fragmented landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 20:1611–1623
62. Stoddard ST (2010) Continuous versus binary representations of landscape heterogeneity in spatially-explicit models of mobile populations. Ecol Model 221:2409–2414
63. Szabó S, Novák T, Elek Z (2012) Distance models in ecological network management: a case study of patch connectivity in a grassland network. J Nat Conserv 20:293–300
64. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573
65. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecol 15:633–641
66. Trainor AM, Walters JR, Morris WF, Sexton J, Moody A (2013) Empirical estimation of dispersal resistance surfaces: a case study with red-cockaded woodpeckers. Landscape Ecol 28:755–767
67. Uezu A, Metzger JP, Vielliard JME (2005) Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic forest bird species. Biol Conserv 123:507–519
68. UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme] (2007) Carpathians environment outlook. United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva
69. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218
70. Visconti P, Elkin C (2009) Using connectivity metrics in conservation planning: when does habitat quality matter? Divers Distrib 15:602–612
71. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797
72. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Beier P, Cushman SA, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2014) Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol 29:541–557
73. Ziółkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Radeloff VC, Kozak J (2012) Potential habitat connectivity of European bison (Bison bonasus) in the Carpathians. Biol Conserv 146:188–196