A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape

Graph structures and habitat availability metrics are two recent and complementary approaches for analysing landscape connectivity. They have gained rapid popularity and provided significant conceptual improvements for decision making in conservation planning. We present a further methodological development of the habitat availability concept and metrics by partitioning them into three separate fractions that quantify the different ways in which individual landscape elements can contribute to overall habitat connectivity and availability in the landscape, including stepping stone effects. These fractions are derived from the same concept, are measured in the same units and can be directly compared and combined within a unifying framework. This avoids the problematic and, so far, usual combination of metrics coming from different backgrounds and the arbitrary weighting of connectivity considerations in a broader context of conservation alternatives. We analyse how the relative importance of each fraction varies with species traits. In addition, we show how the critical patches differ for each of the fractions by analysing various forest habitats in the province of Lleida (NE Spain). We discuss the conceptual and conservation implications of this approach, which can be adapted to different degrees of ecological and spatial detail within the graph while still maintaining a coherent framework for the identification of critical elements in the landscape network.

[1]  Joao Antonio Pereira,et al.  Linked: The new science of networks , 2002 .

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

[3]  M. I G U E,et al.  Would climate change drive species out of reserves ? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods , 2004 .

[4]  Jochen A. G. Jaeger Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[5]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Comparative Approaches for Assessing Network Vulnerability , 2008 .

[6]  Robert S. Schick,et al.  Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network , 2007 .

[7]  Kevin R. Crooks,et al.  The future of connectivity conservation , 2006 .

[8]  Miguel Delibes,et al.  Effects of Matrix Heterogeneity on Animal Dispersal: From Individual Behavior to Metapopulation‐Level Parameters , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[9]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Fragmented landscapes, road mortality and patch connectivity: modelling influences on the dispersal of Eurasian lynx , 2004 .

[10]  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 .

[11]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  SIMPLE CONNECTIVITY MEASURES IN SPATIAL ECOLOGY , 2002 .

[12]  M. Araújo,et al.  Apples, Oranges, and Probabilities: Integrating Multiple Factors into Biodiversity Conservation with Consistency , 2002 .

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

[14]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

[15]  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.

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

[17]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  How much does an individual habitat fragment contribute to metapopulation dynamics and persistence? , 2003, Theoretical population biology.

[18]  Santiago Saura,et al.  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) , 2006, European Journal of Forest Research.

[19]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Population Dynamics , 2005 .

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

[21]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Connectivity Conservation: Introduction: evaluating and quantifying the conservation dividends of connectivity , 2006 .

[22]  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..

[23]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  Entropy increase of fragmented habitats: a sign of human impact? , 2005 .

[24]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Land Ownership and Land‐Cover Change in the Southern Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula , 1996 .

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

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

[27]  Mark D. McDonnell,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Spatially Cohesive Reserve Design , 2002 .

[28]  I. Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics: Does it help to have more of the same? , 1989, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[30]  John A. Wiens,et al.  Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity , 2003 .

[31]  N C Andreasen,et al.  Correlating and predicting psychiatric symptom ratings: Spearman's r versus Kendall's tau correlation. , 1999, Journal of psychiatric research.

[32]  Karin Frank,et al.  A Formula for the Mean Lifetime of Metapopulations in Heterogeneous Landscapes , 2002, The American Naturalist.

[33]  Thorsten Wiegand,et al.  RULE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF SUITABLE HABITAT AND PATCH CONNECTIVITY FOR THE EURASIAN LYNX , 2002 .

[34]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology , 2001 .

[35]  Athanasios S. Kallimanis,et al.  Metapopulation Extinction Risk under Spatially Autocorrelated Disturbance , 2005 .

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

[37]  M. Pascual,et al.  Ecological networks : Linking structure to dynamics in food webs , 2006 .

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

[39]  Mar Cabeza,et al.  Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design , 2003 .

[40]  S. Strogatz Exploring complex networks , 2001, Nature.

[41]  Justin M. Calabrese,et al.  A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics , 2004 .

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

[43]  Maile C. Neel,et al.  Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae) , 2008 .

[44]  Bai-Lian Li,et al.  Weighted mean patch size: a robust index for quantifying landscape structure , 1997 .

[45]  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.

[46]  A. Lesne Complex Networks: from Graph Theory to Biology , 2006 .

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

[48]  O. Ovaskainen,et al.  Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. , 2001, Theoretical population biology.

[49]  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.

[50]  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.

[51]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  INDEPENDENT EFFECTS OF FOREST COVER AND FRAGMENTATION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST BREEDING BIRDS , 1999 .

[52]  T. Spies,et al.  Patterns and processes in forest landscapes : multiple use and sustainable management , 2008 .

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

[54]  Joseph R. Ferrari,et al.  Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[55]  Karin Frank,et al.  A new method for conservation planning for the persistence of multiple species. , 2006, Ecology letters.

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