A new, multi-scaled graph visualization approach: an example within the playa wetland network of the Great Plains

We employed a sliding-window approach at multiple scales (window sizes and dispersal distances) to calculate seven standard graph-theoretical metrics within a subset of a large, freshwater wetland network. In contrast to most graph analyses, which quantify connectivity at a single (global) scale or at a patch-level scale, a multi-scaled, sliding-window approach provides an assessment that bridges these two approaches to examine patch clusters. As a case study we focused on a subset of a habitat patch network in a ~20,000 km2 area encompassing 2,782 playa wetlands in the panhandle of Texas. Playas are seasonal wetlands of the southern Great Plains of North America that form a network of regional habitat resources for wildlife. The large size of this network meant that global metrics failed to capture localized properties, so we used contour mapping to visualize continuous surfaces as functions of playa density, linkage density, and other topological traits at different window sizes and dispersal distances. This technique revealed spatial patterns in the components (i.e., the network properties of regions of the landscape at a given dispersal scale), with the spatial scale of habitat clustering varying with the size of the sliding window and dispersal distance. Using a tool familiar to landscape ecology (sliding-window methodology) in a novel way (to examine ecological networks at multiple scales), our approach provides a way to represent ecologically determined local-scale graph properties and illustrates how a multi-scaled approach is useful in examining habitat connectivity to investigate graph properties.

[1]  Thomas C. Tacha,et al.  Habitat use by sandhill cranes wintering in Western Texas , 1985 .

[2]  Harold L. Schramm,et al.  Playa lakes: prairie wetlands of the Southern High Plains , 1989 .

[3]  D. Haukos,et al.  The importance of playa wetlands to biodiversity of the Southern High Plains , 1994 .

[4]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Detecting Critical Scales in Fragmented Landscapes , 1997 .

[5]  L. Fahrig,et al.  On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity , 2000 .

[6]  Carlo Ricotta,et al.  Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach , 2000 .

[7]  Timothy H. Keitt,et al.  Landscape connectivity: A conservation application of graph theory , 2000 .

[8]  Almo Farina,et al.  Landscape Ecology in Action , 2000, Springer Netherlands.

[9]  J. Gibbs Wetland Loss and Biodiversity Conservation , 2000 .

[10]  Timothy H. Keitt,et al.  LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: A GRAPH‐THEORETIC PERSPECTIVE , 2001 .

[11]  Loren M. Smith Playas of the Great Plains , 2003 .

[12]  Sarah M. Nusser,et al.  Scale-dependent habitat use in three species of prairie wetland birds , 1999, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  F. Jordán,et al.  Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation , 2003, Landscape Ecology.

[14]  Loren M. Smith,et al.  Influence of agricultural landscape structure on a Southern High Plains, USA, amphibian assemblage , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[15]  C. Johnson,et al.  DETERMINING NATURAL SCALES OF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[16]  D. Naugle,et al.  Vulnerability of Northern Prairie Wetlands to Climate Change , 2005 .

[17]  Jon Norberg,et al.  A Network Approach for Analyzing Spatially Structured Populations in Fragmented Landscape , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[18]  Jordi Bascompte,et al.  Spatial network structure and amphibian persistence in stochastic environments , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory , 2006 .

[20]  S. Saura,et al.  Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[21]  Dean L Urban,et al.  Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. , 2007, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[22]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Spatial Graphs: Principles and Applications for Habitat Connectivity , 2007, Ecosystems.

[23]  Dean L Urban,et al.  A Graph‐Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape Connectivity and Conservation Planning , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[24]  Peter Vogt,et al.  Mapping functional connectivity , 2009 .

[25]  J. J. Dinsmore,et al.  Local and landscape-level influences on wetland bird communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA , 2001, Wetlands.

[26]  Robert S Schick,et al.  Graph models of habitat mosaics. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[27]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  From Graphs to Spatial Graphs , 2010 .

[29]  Rosemary W.H. Carroll,et al.  Prairie Wetland Complexes as Landscape Functional Units in a Changing Climate , 2010 .

[30]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: Integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments , 2010 .

[31]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: A guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation , 2011 .

[32]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. , 2011, Ecology.

[33]  L. Johnson Occurrence, function, and conservation of playa wetlands: The key to biodiversity of the southern great plains , 2011 .

[34]  A. Laita,et al.  Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? , 2011, Landscape Ecology.

[35]  M. Simpson Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States , 2011 .