Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity

Maintaining and restoring landscape connectivity is currently a central concern in ecology and biodiversity conservation, and there is an increasing demand of user-driven tools for integrating connectivity in landscape planning. Here we describe the new Conefor Sensinode 2.2 (CS22) software, which quantifies the importance of habitat patches for maintaining or improving functional landscape connectivity and is conceived as a tool for decision-making support in landscape planning and habitat conservation. CS22 is based on graph structures, which have been suggested to possess the greatest benefit to effort ratio for conservation problems regarding landscape connectivity. CS22 includes new connectivity metrics based on the habitat availability concept, which considers a patch itself as a space where connectivity occurs, integrating in a single measure the connected habitat area existing within the patches with the area made available by the connections between different habitat patches. These new metrics have been shown to present improved properties compared to other existing metrics and are particularly suited to the identification of critical landscape elements for connectivity. CS22 is distributed together with GIS extensions that allow for directly generating the required input files from a GIS layer. CS22 and related documentation can be freely downloaded from the World Wide Web.

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

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

[3]  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.

[4]  Erik Matthysen,et al.  The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model , 2003 .

[5]  D. Wascher,et al.  Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation , 2004 .

[6]  Patrick N. Halpin,et al.  Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[7]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Biodiversity conservation planning tools , 2006 .

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

[9]  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 .

[10]  Dieter Jungnickel,et al.  Graphs, Networks, and Algorithms , 1980 .

[11]  David M. Theobald,et al.  Connectivity Conservation: Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks , 2006 .

[12]  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.

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

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

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

[16]  Colin A. Russell,et al.  Spatial Control of Rabies on Heterogeneous Landscapes , 2006, PloS one.

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

[20]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

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

[22]  Sahotra Sarkar,et al.  LQGraph: A software package for optimizing connectivity in conservation planning , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[23]  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.

[24]  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.