Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T10:40:06.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2010

By
David M. Theobald
Edited by
Kevin R. Crooks  and
M. Sanjayan
Kevin R. Crooks
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
M. Sanjayan
Affiliation:
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
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.

Type
Chapter
Information
Connectivity Conservation , pp. 416 - 444
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.)

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 33:623–631CrossRefGoogle 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 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle 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 18:333–346CrossRefGoogle 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 18:17–39CrossRefGoogle 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 11:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boots, B. N. 1979. Weighting Thiessen polygons. Economic Geography 56:248–259CrossRefGoogle 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 33:247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunn, A. G., Urban, D. L., and Keitt, T. H.. 2000. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle 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 8:239–255CrossRefGoogle 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 18:561–573CrossRefGoogle 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: 2841–2850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottenie, K., Michels, E., Nuytten, N., and DeMeester, L.. 2003. Zooplankton metacommunity structure: regional vs. local processes in highly interconnected ponds. Ecology 84:991–1000CrossRefGoogle 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 140:51–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488–502CrossRefGoogle 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 13:1713–1727CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 83:3243–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreras, P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100:125–136CrossRefGoogle 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 171:339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, E. J., and Gardner, R.. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, E. J., and Parker, G. R.. 1994. Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7:101–110CrossRefGoogle 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 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilty, J., and Merenlender, A.. 2004. Use of riparian corridors and vineyards by mammalian predators in Northern California. Conservation Biology 18:126–135CrossRefGoogle 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 14:984–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jetz, W., Carbone, C., Fulford, J., and Brown, J. H.. 2004. The scaling of animal space use. Science 306:266–268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, A. R., Wiens, J. A., Milne, B. T., and Crist, T. O.. 1992. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landscape Ecology 7:63–75CrossRefGoogle 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–S139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, F. 2000. A reliability-theory approach to corridor design. Ecological Modelling 128:211–220CrossRefGoogle 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 18:83–92CrossRefGoogle 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 23:1–16CrossRefGoogle 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 41:711–723CrossRefGoogle 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 23:614–622CrossRefGoogle 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 7:23–34CrossRefGoogle 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 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle 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 1:217–232CrossRefGoogle 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 10:1929–1938CrossRefGoogle 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 93:574–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olden, J. D., Jackson, D. A., and Peres-Neto, P. R.. 2001. Spatial isolation and fish communities in drainage lakes. Oecologia 127:572–585CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 73:1190–1194CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
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 15:21–30CrossRefGoogle 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 11:2143–2165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricketts, T. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158:87–99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roland, J., Keyghobadi, N., and Fownes, S.. 2000. Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothley, K., and Rae, C.. 2005. Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 10:107–113CrossRefGoogle 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 9:191–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, R. E., Swihart, R. K., and Feng, Z.. 2003. Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape. Oikos 103:142–152CrossRefGoogle 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 12:1469–1483CrossRefGoogle 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 19:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schooley, R. L., and Wiens, J. W.. 2003. Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570CrossRefGoogle 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 4:431–439CrossRefGoogle 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 63:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., and Merriam, G.. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theobald, D. M. 2001. Topology revisited: representing spatial relations. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15:689–705CrossRefGoogle 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 18:41–50CrossRefGoogle 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 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle 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 18:791–805CrossRefGoogle 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 11:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuilleumier, S., and Prelaz-Droux, R.. 2002. Map of ecological networks for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:157–170CrossRefGoogle 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 7:28–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A. 1994. Habitat fragmentation: island v. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:S97–S104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. A., Stenseth, N. C., Horne, B., and Ims, R. A.. 1993. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
With, K. A., and Crist, T. O.. 1995. Critical thresholds in species responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeiler, M. 1999. Modeling our World. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×