Use of Linkage Mapping and Centrality Analysis Across Habitat Gradients to Conserve Connectivity of Gray Wolf Populations in Western North America

Centrality metrics evaluate paths between all possible pairwise combinations of sites on a landscape to rank the contribution of each site to facilitating ecological flows across the network of sites. Computational advances now allow application of centrality metrics to landscapes represented as continuous gradients of habitat quality. This avoids the binary classification of landscapes into patch and matrix required by patch-based graph analyses of connectivity. It also avoids the focus on delineating paths between individual pairs of core areas characteristic of most corridor- or linkage-mapping methods of connectivity analysis. Conservation of regional habitat connectivity has the potential to facilitate recovery of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a species currently recolonizing portions of its historic range in the western United States. We applied 3 contrasting linkage-mapping methods (shortest path, current flow, and minimum-cost-maximum-flow) to spatial data representing wolf habitat to analyze connectivity between wolf populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming). We then applied 3 analogous betweenness centrality metrics to analyze connectivity of wolf habitat throughout the northwestern United States and southwestern Canada to determine where it might be possible to facilitate range expansion and interpopulation dispersal. We developed software to facilitate application of centrality metrics. Shortest-path betweenness centrality identified a minimal network of linkages analogous to those identified by least-cost-path corridor mapping. Current flow and minimum-cost-maximum-flow betweenness centrality identified diffuse networks that included alternative linkages, which will allow greater flexibility in planning. Minimum-cost-maximum-flow betweenness centrality, by integrating both land cost and habitat capacity, allows connectivity to be considered within planning processes that seek to maximize species protection at minimum cost. Centrality analysis is relevant to conservation and landscape genetics at a range of spatial extents, but it may be most broadly applicable within single- and multispecies planning efforts to conserve regional habitat connectivity.

[1]  H. Possingham,et al.  Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools , 2009, Environmental Conservation.

[2]  A. Davidson,et al.  Do landscape processes predict phylogeographic patterns in the wood frog? , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[3]  Richard M Cowling,et al.  Conservation planning in a changing world. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[4]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[5]  Stephen P. Borgatti,et al.  Centrality and network flow , 2005, Soc. Networks.

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

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

[8]  R. Wayne,et al.  Genetics and wolf conservation in the American West: lessons and challenges , 2011, Heredity.

[9]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity Conservation: Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics , 2006 .

[10]  Yvan Richard,et al.  Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap‐crossing ability using radio‐tracking data , 2010 .

[11]  Katherine J. LaJeunesse Connette,et al.  Conservation Biology , 2009, The Quarterly review of biology.

[12]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[13]  T. Fuller,et al.  Wolf Population Dynamics , 2003 .

[14]  Paul Beier,et al.  Forks in the Road: Choices in Procedures for Designing Wildland Linkages , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[15]  Aric Hagberg,et al.  Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function using NetworkX , 2008, Proceedings of the Python in Science Conference.

[16]  Douglas W. Smith,et al.  Habitat Selection by Recolonizing Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States , 2006 .

[17]  Michael K. Phillips,et al.  Defining Recovery Goals and Strategies for Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case Study , 2006 .

[18]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Corridors for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process , 2006 .

[19]  Viral B. Shah,et al.  Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. , 2008, Ecology.

[20]  Ernesto Estrada,et al.  Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[21]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[22]  U. Brandes A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality , 2001 .

[23]  Ravindra K. Ahuja,et al.  Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications , 1993 .

[24]  M Cabeza,et al.  Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[26]  Guido Rossum,et al.  Python Reference Manual , 2000 .

[27]  D. Pletscher,et al.  Characteristics of dispersal in a colonizing wolf population in the central Rocky Mountains , 1999 .

[28]  R. Wayne,et al.  A novel assessment of population structure and gene flow in grey wolf populations of the Northern Rocky Mountains of the United States , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[29]  Steven J. Phillips,et al.  Optimizing dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae using network flow. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[30]  Neil J. Anderson,et al.  Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. , 2009, Ecology.

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

[32]  Lehtomäki Joona,et al.  ZONATION Framework and Software for Conservation Prioritization , 2013 .

[33]  Mark E. J. Newman A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks , 2005, Soc. Networks.

[34]  Egerváry Research Group on Combinatorial Optimization , 1999 .

[35]  Maria Tengö,et al.  The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[36]  B. Cade,et al.  A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists , 2003 .

[37]  L. Freeman,et al.  Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow , 1991 .