The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on (amphibian) biodiversity patterns?

Landscape connectivity is a very recurrent theme in landscape ecology as it is considered pivotal for the long term conservation of any organism’s populations. Nevertheless, this complex concept is still surrounded by uncertainty and confusion, largely due to the separation between structural and functional connectivity. Amphibians are the most threatened vertebrates around the globe, in Europe mostly due to habitat alteration, and to their particular life cycle. Pond breeding amphibians are considered to be organised in metapopulations, enhancing the importance of landscape connectivity in this group of animals. We sampled the amphibian species present in two pond groups in Central Western Spain. We applied the graph theory framework to these two pond networks in order to determine the importance of each pond for the entire network connectivity. We related the pond importance for connectivity with the species richness present in each pond. We tested if connectivity (partially) determined the presence of the amphibian species sampled using logistic regression. The results show that the structural connectivity of the pond network impacts on the amphibian species richness pattern and that the importance of the pond for the connectivity of the network is an important factor for the presence of some species. Our results, hence, attest the importance of (structural) landscape connectivity determining the pattern of amphibian (functional) colonization in discrete ponds.

[1]  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.

[2]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  A Resistant‐Kernel Model of Connectivity for Amphibians that Breed in Vernal Pools , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[3]  Rafael Márquez,et al.  Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Anfibios y Reptiles de España , 2003 .

[4]  Richard T. T. Forman,et al.  Landscape graphs: Ecological modeling with graph theory to detect configurations common to diverse landscapes , 1993, Landscape Ecology.

[5]  F. Ayala,et al.  Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians , 2008 .

[6]  T. Lookingbill,et al.  The role of landscape connectivity in assembling exotic plant communities: a network analysis. , 2009, Ecology.

[7]  L. Fahrig,et al.  How should we measure landscape connectivity? , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[8]  Maria Rosa Miracle,et al.  Preface: conservation of european ponds-current knowledge and future needs , 2010, Limnetica.

[9]  B. Young,et al.  Response to Comment on "Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide" , 2005, Science.

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

[11]  H. Neville,et al.  Assessing connectivity in salmonid fishes with DNA microsatellite markers , 2006 .

[12]  Claire C. Vos,et al.  Genetic population differentiation and connectivity among fragmented Moor frog (Rana arvalis) populations in The Netherlands , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  Chris D. Thomas,et al.  Open Corridors Appear to Facilitate Dispersal by Ringlet Butterflies (Aphantopus hyperantus) between Woodland Clearings , 1996 .

[14]  N. Cox,et al.  European Red List of amphibians , 2009 .

[15]  Michel Baguette,et al.  Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) , 2006, Oecologia.

[16]  M. Smith,et al.  Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation : are all amphibian populations metapopulations? , 2005 .

[17]  C. Haddad,et al.  Habitat Split and the Global Decline of Amphibians , 2007, Science.

[18]  A. Elewa.  Migration of organisms : climate・geography・ecology , 2005 .

[19]  M. Knutson,et al.  AGRICULTURAL PONDS SUPPORT AMPHIBIAN POPULATIONS , 2004 .

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

[21]  M. Brabec,et al.  Spring migration distances of some Central European amphibian species , 2009 .

[22]  E. Schauber,et al.  Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on the Behavior and Demography of Gray‐Tailed Voles , 1997 .

[23]  David R. Bowne,et al.  Interpatch movements in spatially structured populations: a literature review , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[24]  María José Bernuz Benéitez,et al.  La colonización de medios acuáticos por anfibios como herramienta para su conservación: el ejemplo de Arribes del Duero , 2003 .

[25]  A. Bauer,et al.  Migration in amphibians and reptiles: An overview of patterns and orientation mechanisms in relation to life history strategies , 2005 .

[26]  Nicolas Ray,et al.  Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana) , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[27]  Frank Harary,et al.  Graph Theory , 2016 .

[28]  Regina Lindborg,et al.  HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY AFFECTS PRESENT PLANT SPECIES DIVERSITY , 2004 .

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

[30]  D. Wake,et al.  Amphibian Declines: Judging Stability, Persistence, and Susceptibility of Populations to Local and Global Extinctions , 1994 .

[31]  D. Bailey,et al.  Effects of habitat amount and isolation on biodiversity in fragmented traditional orchards , 2010 .

[32]  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.

[33]  Marcus Vinícius Vieira,et al.  Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence , 2010, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[34]  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..

[35]  Nicolas Schtickzelle,et al.  Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[36]  D. Ray,et al.  Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[37]  Michel Baguette,et al.  Long distance dispersal and landscape occupancy in a metapopulation of the cranberry fritillary butterfly , 2003 .

[38]  Ferenc Jordán,et al.  Graph theory in action: evaluating planned highway tracks based on connectivity measures , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[39]  J. Gross,et al.  Graph Theory and Its Applications , 1998 .

[40]  Kevin R. Crooks,et al.  Connectivity Conservation: Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature , 2006 .

[41]  Patrick C Phillips,et al.  Network thinking in ecology and evolution. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[42]  Ferenc Jordán,et al.  Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[43]  A. Calhoun,et al.  Pond-Breeding Amphibian Species Richness and Habitat Selection in a Beaver-Modified Landscape , 2007 .

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

[45]  A. Novaro,et al.  Functional connectivity defined through cost-distance and genetic analyses: a case study for the rock-dwelling mountain vizcacha (Lagidium viscacia) in Patagonia, Argentina , 2007, Landscape Ecology.