Integrating regional-scale connectivity in habitat restoration: an application for amphibian conservation in eastern France

Abstract Habitat restoration is one way of reducing landscape fragmentation, which is seen as a threat to biodiversity. It consists in renovating disused or degraded habitat patches or in creating new habitat patches in suitable areas. Currently, most restoration measures draw on the local knowledge of experts for selecting the best locations. For amphibian metapopulations like the European tree frog ( Hyla arborea ), the search for such locations must include regional-scale connectivity in order to maintain their viability. We set up a systematic and cumulative protocol for adding new habitat patches to a pond network. Graph modelling is used to include regional-scale connectivity as a criterion to be maximized. Successive locations are tested systematically and connectivity is compared before and after the virtual addition of each new pond. The location that increases connectivity most is identified. The results show that the priority areas identified by the model are similar to those suggested by local experts from a wildlife conservation association. The two approaches are complementary because they are applied on two different scales. The patch addition method can identify strategic areas for improving global connectivity by taking into account the regional scale. Experts’ knowledge can target the precise location within the identified area for creating new habitats based on local factors of the surrounding context. In addition, our method can be also used to prioritize locations already decided on by landscape managers. Consequently, this protocol appears to be a useful tool for guiding habitat restoration in the field.

[1]  Jenny A. Hodgson,et al.  Habitat re‐creation strategies for promoting adaptation of species to climate change , 2011 .

[2]  N. Perrin,et al.  The contribution of patch topology and demographic parameters to population viability analysis predictions: the case of the European tree frog , 2006, Population Ecology.

[3]  Ferenc Jordán,et al.  Landscape metrics as indicators: Quantifying habitat network changes of a bush-cricket Pholidoptera transsylvanica in Hungary , 2011 .

[4]  Joshua B. Johnson,et al.  Influence of wetland networks on bat activity in mixed-use landscapes. , 2010 .

[5]  Aldina M. A. Franco,et al.  Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  S. Dong,et al.  Characterizing the "fragmentation-barrier" effect of road networks on landscape connectivity: a case study in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. , 2010 .

[7]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: A two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation , 2011 .

[8]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies , 2007 .

[9]  F. Kienast,et al.  Where movement happens: scale-dependent landscape effects on genetic differentiation in the European tree frog , 2011 .

[10]  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..

[11]  B. S. S. Devi,et al.  Forest patch connectivity diagnostics and prioritization using graph theory , 2013 .

[12]  J. Orestes Cerdeira,et al.  Species specific connectivity in reserve-network design using graphs , 2010 .

[13]  C. Damgaard,et al.  Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000) , 2011 .

[15]  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.

[16]  R. Forman.  Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions , 1995 .

[17]  Nicolas Perrin,et al.  Multiscale determinants of tree frog (Hyla arborea L.) calling ponds in western Switzerland , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[18]  P. Nikolakaki,et al.  A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches , 2004 .

[19]  Rampal S. Etienne,et al.  On optimal choices in increase of patch area and reduction of interpatch distance for metapopulation persistence , 2004 .

[20]  Renato Crouzeilles,et al.  The importance of using sustainable use protected areas for functional connectivity , 2013 .

[21]  Samuel A. Cushman,et al.  Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus , 2006 .

[22]  Robert A. Briers,et al.  Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures , 2002 .

[23]  D. Geneletti,et al.  Identifying priority areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in Chiapas (Mexico): an operational approach combining ecological and socioeconomic criteria. , 2010 .

[24]  J. Ragle,et al.  IUCN Red List of Threatened Species , 2010 .

[25]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study , 2007 .

[26]  John M. Anderies,et al.  Toward a network perspective of the study of resilience in social-ecological systems , 2006 .

[27]  Ulla Mörtberg,et al.  Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design , 2010 .

[28]  B. Schmidt,et al.  Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. , 2005 .

[29]  Santiago Saura,et al.  Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity , 2007 .

[30]  L. Fahrig.  Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity , 2003 .

[31]  Kristina D. Rothley,et al.  Working backwards to move forwards: Graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection , 2005 .

[32]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape , 2000, Nature.

[33]  Andreas Zetterberg,et al.  To model the landscape as a network : A practitioner’s perspective , 2013 .

[34]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Reserve Selection Using Nonlinear Species Distribution Models , 2005, The American Naturalist.

[35]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning , 2014 .

[36]  Suzana Dragicevic,et al.  Implications of error and uncertainty for an environmental planning scenario: A sensitivity analysis of GIS-based variables in a reserve design exercise , 2007 .

[37]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation , 1988, The American Naturalist.

[38]  Gilles Vuidel,et al.  A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[39]  A. Bennett,et al.  Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[40]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Assessing the capacity of different urban forms to preserve the connectivity of ecological habitats , 2011 .

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

[42]  Todd R. Lookingbill,et al.  A Multiscale Network Analysis of Protected‐Area Connectivity for Mammals in the United States , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[43]  N. Perrin,et al.  Density, climate and varying return points: an analysis of long-term population fluctuations in the threatened European tree frog , 2006, Oecologia.

[44]  R. Bugter,et al.  Microsatellite variation and population structure of a recovering Tree frog (Hyla arborea L.) metapopulation , 2006, Conservation Genetics.

[45]  Peter Vogt,et al.  Mapping Spatial Patterns with Morphological Image Processing , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[46]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Designing a graph-based approach to landscape ecological assessment of linear infrastructures , 2013 .

[47]  Paul Beier,et al.  Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits , 2012, PloS one.

[48]  R. Forman,et al.  ROADS AND THEIR MAJOR ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS , 1998 .

[49]  C. Vos.  A frog's-eye view of the landscape : quantifying connectivity for fragmented amphibian populations , 1999 .

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

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

[52]  S. Saura,et al.  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) , 2011 .

[53]  Charles S. ReVelle,et al.  Spatial attributes and reserve design models: A review , 2005 .

[54]  Pedro Segurado,et al.  Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: A case study with pond turtles , 2011 .

[55]  Jean-Christophe Foltête,et al.  Impact assessment of a high-speed railway line on species distribution: application to the European tree frog (Hyla arborea) in Franche-Comté. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[56]  Paul Opdam,et al.  Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes , 2006 .

[57]  Claire C. Vos,et al.  Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea) , 1996, Landscape Ecology.