Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511754821.019

17 - Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 May 2010

David M. Theobald

Edited by

Kevin R. Crooks and

M. Sanjayan

Show author details

Kevin R. Crooks: Affiliation:
Colorado State University
M. Sanjayan: Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Understanding landscape connectivity is an important research challenge for conservation science (Taylor et al. 1993). A relatively recent development in pursuit of this challenge is the differentiation between functional and structural connectivity of landscapes. Structural connectivity is based on the spatial arrangement of different types of habitat in a landscape, while functional connectivity recognizes the behavioral response of individuals, species, or ecological processes to the physical structure of the landscape (Baudry and Merriam 1988; Bennett 1999; Crooks and Sanjayan Chapter 1; Taylor et al. Chapter 2; Fagan and Calabrese Chapter 12). A number of conceptual and practical developments have contributed to the recognition of and ability to conduct analyses of functional landscape connectivity.

The patch–matrix–corridor conceptualization of landscapes (Forman and Godron 1986) that built on the theory of island biogeography (MacArthur and Wilson 1967) has strongly influenced work on landscape connectivity. Many researchers have recognized that island biogeography's assumption of islands of habitat distributed throughout a homogenous matrix of non-habitat (i.e., the so-called “inhospitable sea”) is overly simple and does not recognize an organism-centric perspective of the landscape that differentiates perception, mobility, and resource use by individuals and species (Johnson et al. 1992; Wiens 1994). For example, Vos and Stumpel (1995) examined the relationship between pond occupancy by tree frogs and distance to the nearest occupied pond, but the heterogeneity of the intervening landscape was ignored.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Connectivity Conservation , pp. 416 - 444
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511754821.019 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acosta, A., Blasi, C., Carranza, M. L., Ricotta, C., and Stanisci, A.. 2003. Quantifying ecological mosaic connectivity and hemeroby with a new topoecological index. Phytocoenologia 33:623–631CrossRef Google Scholar

Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., Blust, G., et al. 2003. The application of “least-cost” modeling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:233–247CrossRef Google Scholar

Ahuja, R. K., Magnanti, T. L., and Orlin, J. B.. 1993. Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Arnaud, J. F. 2003. Metapopulation genetic structure and migration pathways in the land snail Helix aspersa: influence of landscape heterogeneity. Landscape Ecology 18:333–346CrossRef Google Scholar

Baudry, J., and Merriam, H. G.. 1988. Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar of the International Association for Landscape Ecology, Munster, Germany, Pp. 23–28.Google Scholar

Bender, D. J., Tischendorf, L., and Fahrig, L.. 2003. Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landscape Ecology 18:17–39CrossRef Google Scholar

Bennett, A. F. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.Google Scholar

Berry, J. 1993. Beyond Mapping: Concepts, Algorithms and Issues in GIS. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Boone, R. B., and Hunter, M. L.. 1996. Using diffusion models to simulate the effects of land use on grizzly bear dispersal in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecology 11:51–64CrossRef Google Scholar

Boots, B. N. 1979. Weighting Thiessen polygons. Economic Geography 56:248–259CrossRef Google Scholar

Bueno, J. A., Tsihrintzis, V. A., and Alvarez, L.. 1995. South Florida greenways: a conceptual framework for the ecological reconnectivity of the region. Landscape and Urban Planning 33:247–266CrossRef Google Scholar

Bunn, A. G., Urban, D. L., and Keitt, T. H.. 2000. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management 59:265–278CrossRef Google Scholar

Cantwell, M. D., and Forman, R. T. T.. 1993. Landscape graphs: ecological modeling with graph theory to detect configurations common to diverse landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8:239–255CrossRef Google Scholar

Chardon, J. P., Adriaensen, F., and Matthysen, E.. 2003. Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L). Landscape Ecology 18:561–573CrossRef Google Scholar

Coulon, A., Cosson, J. F., Angibault, J. M., et al. 2004. Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Molecular Ecology 13: 2841–2850CrossRef Google Scholar

Cottenie, K., Michels, E., Nuytten, N., and DeMeester, L.. 2003. Zooplankton metacommunity structure: regional vs. local processes in highly interconnected ponds. Ecology 84:991–1000CrossRef Google Scholar

Cramer, P. C., and Portier, K. M.. 2001. Modeling Florida panther movements in response to human attributes of the landscape and ecological settings. Ecological Modelling 140:51–80CrossRef Google Scholar

Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502CrossRef Google Scholar

Dennis, R. L. H., Shreeve, T. G., and Dyck, H.. 2003. Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426Google Scholar

Douglas D. H. 1994. Least-cost path in GIS using an accumulated cost surface and slopelines. Cartographica 31:37–51CrossRef

Dyer, R. J., and Nason, J. D.. 2004. Population graphs: the graph theoretic shape of genetic structure. Molecular Ecology 13:1713–1727CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Eastman, J. R. 1989. Pushbroom algorithms for calculating distances in raster grids. Proceedings AUTOCARTO 9:288–297Google Scholar

Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2003. ArcGIS v8 help.Redlands, CA: ESRI.Google Scholar

Fagan, W. F. 2002. Connectivity, fragmentation, and extinction risk in dendritic metapopulations. Ecology 83:3243–3249CrossRef Google Scholar

Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515CrossRef Google Scholar

Ferreras, P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100:125–136CrossRef Google Scholar

Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land Mosaics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Forman, R. T. T., and Godron, M.. 1986. Landscape Ecology, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Gardner, R. H., and Gustafson, E. J.. 2004. Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecological Modelling 171:339–358CrossRef Google Scholar

Gustafson, E. J., and Gardner, R.. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107CrossRef Google Scholar

Gustafson, E. J., and Parker, G. R.. 1994. Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7:101–110CrossRef Google Scholar

Haggett, P., and Chorley, R. J.. 1969. Network Analysis in Geography. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halpin, P. N., and Bunn, A. G.. 2000. Using GIS to compute a least-cost distance matrix: a comparison of terrestrial and marine ecological applications. Proceedings of the 2000 ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilty, J., and Merenlender, A.. 2004. Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology 18:126–135CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoctor, T. S., Carr, M. H., and Zwick, P. D.. 2000. Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida ecological network. Conservation Biology 14:984–1000CrossRef Google Scholar

Jetz, W., Carbone, C., Fulford, J., and Brown, J. H.. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Johnson, A. R., Wiens, J. A., Milne, B. T., and Crist, T. O.. 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 7:63–75CrossRef Google Scholar

Joly, P., Morand, C., and Cohas, A.. 2003. Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. Comtes Rendues Biologies 326:S132–S139CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jordan, F. 2000. A reliability-theory approach to corridor design. Ecological Modelling 128:211–220CrossRef Google Scholar

Jordán F. 2003. Quantifying landscape connectivity: key patches and key corridors. Pp. 883–892 in Tiezzi, E., Brebbia, C. A., and J. L. Uso (eds.) Ecosystems and Sustainable Development IV. Southampton, UK: WIT Press.Google Scholar

Jordán, F., Baldi, A., Orci, K. M., Racz, I., and Varga, Z.. 2003. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecology 18:83–92CrossRef Google Scholar

Keitt, T. H., Urban, D. L., and Milne, B. T.. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology1:4. Available online at http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4

Knaapen, J. P., Scheffer, M., and Harms, B.. 1992. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 23:1–16CrossRef Google Scholar

Kramer-Schadt, S., Revilla, E., Wiegand, T., and Breitenmoser, U.. 2004. Fragmented landscapes, road mortality and patch connectivity: modelling influences on the dispersal of Eurasian lynx. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:711–723CrossRef Google Scholar

Krist, F. J., and Brown, D. G.. 1994. GIS modeling of Paleo-Indian period caribou migrations and viewsheds in Northeastern Lower Michigan. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60:1129–1137Google Scholar

Langevelde, F. 2000. Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23:614–622CrossRef Google Scholar

Larkin, J. L., Maehr, D. S., Hoctor, T. S., Orlando, M. A., and Whitney, K.. 2004. Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Animal Conservation 7:23–34CrossRef Google Scholar

Lowe, J., and Moryadas, S.. 1975. The Geography of Movement. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

MacArthur, R. H., and Wilson, E. O.. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C., and Ene, E.. 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps v3. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Available online at: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.htmlGoogle Scholar

McRae, B. 2004. Integrating landscape ecology and population genetics: conventional methods and a new model. Ph.D dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Manel, S., Schwartz, M. K., Luikart, G., and Taberlet, P.. 2003. Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:189–197CrossRef Google Scholar

Mantel, N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27:209–220Google Scholar

Meegan, R. P., and Maehr, D. S.. 2002. Landscape conservation and regional planning for the Florida panther. Southeastern Naturalist 1:217–232CrossRef Google Scholar

Michels, E., Cottenie, K., Neys, L., et al. 2001. Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modeling of the effective geographical distance. Molecular Ecology 10:1929–1938CrossRef Google Scholar

Miller, B., Foreman, D., Fink, M., et al. 2003. Southern Rockies Wildlands Network Vision. Golden, CO: Colorado Mountain Club Press.Google Scholar

Miller, H. J., and Wentz, E. A.. 2003. Representation and spatial analysis in geographic information systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93:574–594CrossRef Google Scholar

Olden, J. D., Jackson, D. A., and Peres-Neto, P. R.. 2001. Spatial isolation and fish communities in drainage lakes. Oecologia 127:572–585CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Olden, J. D., Schooley, R. L., Monroe, J. B., and Poff, N. L.. 2004. Context-dependent perceptual ranges and their relevance to animal movements in landscapes. Journal of Animal Ecology 73:1190–1194CrossRef Google Scholar

Paetkau, D., Waits, L. P., Clarkson, P. L., Craighead, L., and Strobeck, C.. 1997. An empirical evaluation of genetic distance statistics using microsatellite data from bear (Ursidae) populations. Genetics 147:1943–1957Google Scholar PubMed

Puth, L. M., and Wilson, K. A.. 2001. Boundaries and corridors as a continuum of ecological flow control: lessons from rivers and streams. Conservation Biology 15:21–30CrossRef Google Scholar

Quinby, P., Trombulak, S., Lee, T., et al. 2000. Opportunities for wildlife habitat connectivity between Algonquin Provincial Park and the Adirondack Park. Wild Earth 10:75–80Google Scholar

Ray, N., Lehmann, A., and Joly, P.. 2002. Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:2143–2165CrossRef Google Scholar

Ricketts, T. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158:87–99CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Roland, J., Keyghobadi, N., and Fownes, S.. 2000. Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653CrossRef Google Scholar

Rothley, K., and Rae, C.. 2005. Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 10:107–113CrossRef Google Scholar

Rouget, M., Cowling, R. M., Pressey, R. L., and Richardson, D. M.. 2003. Identifying spatial components of ecological and evolutionary processes for regional conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Diversity and Distributions 9:191–210CrossRef Google Scholar

Russell, R. E., Swihart, R. K., and Feng, Z.. 2003. Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape. Oikos 103:142–152CrossRef Google Scholar

Schadt, S., Knauer, F., Kaczensky, P., et al. 2002. Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for the Eurasian lynx. Ecological Applications 12:1469–1483CrossRef Google Scholar

Schippers, P., Verboom, J., Knaapen, J. P., and Apeldoorn, R. C.. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with a GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19:97–106CrossRef Google Scholar

Schooley, R. L., and Wiens, J. W.. 2003. Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570CrossRef Google Scholar

Servheen, C., Waller, J. S., and Sandstrom, P.. 2001. Identification and management of linkage zones for grizzly bears between the large blocks of public land in the northern Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Pp.161–179.Google Scholar

Shurin, J. B., and Havel, J. E.. 2002. Hydrologic connections and overland dispersal in an exotic freshwater crustacean. Biological Invasions 4:431–439CrossRef Google Scholar

Singleton, P. H., Gaines, W. L., and Lehmkuhl, J. F.. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Geographic Information System Weighted-Distance and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment, Research Paper PNW-RP-549 Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Google Scholar

Sutcliffe, O. L., Bakkestuen, V., Fry, G., and Stabbetorp, O. E.. 2003. Modelling the benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly movement. Landscape and Urban Planning 63:15–31CrossRef Google Scholar

Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRef Google Scholar

Theobald, D. M. 2001. Topology revisited: representing spatial relations. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15:689–705CrossRef Google Scholar

Theobald D. M., and N. T. Hobbs. 2001. Functional definition of landscape structure using a gradient-based approach. Pp. 667–672 in Scott, J. M., Heglund, P. J., Morrison, M., et al. (eds.) Predicting Plant and Animal Occurrences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy. Covello, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar

Theobald, D. M., Norman, J. B., and Sherbune, M. R.. 2006. FunConn v1: Functional Connectivity Tools for ArcGIS v9. Fort Collins, CO: Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.Google Scholar

Tischendorf, L., Bender, D. J., and Fahrig, L.. 2003. Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers. Landscape Ecology 18:41–50CrossRef Google Scholar

Turchin, P. 1998. Quantitative Analysis of Movement. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar

Urban, D. L., and Keitt, T. H.. 2001. Landscape connectedness: a graph theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRef Google Scholar

Verbeylen, G., DeBruyn, L., Andriaensen, F., and Matthysen, E.. 2003. Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape?Landscape Ecology 18:791–805CrossRef Google Scholar

Vos, C. C., and Stumpel, A. H. P.. 1995. Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arborea). Landscape Ecology 11:203–214CrossRef Google Scholar

Vuilleumier, S., and Prelaz-Droux, R.. 2002. Map of ecological networks for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:157–170CrossRef Google Scholar

Walker, R., and Craighead, L.. 1997. Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. Proceedings of the ESRI User Conference 1997. Available online at http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to150/pap116/p116.htmGoogle Scholar

Werner, C. 1968. The law of refraction in transportation geography: its multivariate extension. Canadian Geographer 7:28–40CrossRef Google Scholar

Wiens, J. A. 1994. Habitat fragmentation: island v. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:S97–S104CrossRef Google Scholar

Wiens, J. A., Stenseth, N. C., Horne, B., and Ims, R. A.. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380CrossRef Google Scholar

With, K. A., and Crist, T. O.. 1995. Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459CrossRef Google Scholar

Zeiler, M. 1999. Modeling our World. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.