fbpx
Wikipedia

Landscape connectivity

In landscape ecology, landscape connectivity is, broadly, "the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches".[1] Alternatively, connectivity may be a continuous property of the landscape and independent of patches and paths.[2][3] Connectivity includes both structural connectivity (the physical arrangements of disturbance and/or patches) and functional connectivity (the movement of individuals across contours of disturbance and/or among patches).[4][5] Functional connectivity includes actual connectivity (requires observations of individual movements) and potential connectivity in which movement paths are estimated using the life-history data.[6]

A similar but different concept proposed by Jacques Baudry, landscape connectedness, refers to structural links between elements of spatial structures of a landscape, which concerns the topology of landscape features and not ecological processes.[7]

Definition

The concept of “Landscape connectivity” was first introduced by Dr. Gray Merriam in 1984. Merriam noted that movement among habitat patches was not merely a function of an organism's attributes, but also, a quality of the landscape elements through which it must move.[8] To emphasize this fundamental interaction in determining a particular movement pathway, Merriam (1984), defined landscape connectivity as “the degree to which absolute isolation is prevented by landscape elements which allow organisms to move among habitat patches.” [9] Nine years later, Merriam and colleagues, revised the definition to “the degree to which the landscape impedes or facilitates movement among resource patches.[1] Although this definition has undoubtedly become the most accepted and cited meaning within the scientific literature, many authors have continued to create their own definitions. With et al (1997), presented their interpretation as “the functional relationship among habitat patches, owing to the spatial contagion of habitat and the movement responses of organisms to landscape structure.”,[10] and Ament et al. (2014) defined it as “the degree to which regional landscapes, encompassing a variety of natural, semi-natural, and developed land cover types, are conducive to wildlife movement and to sustain ecological processes.” [11] Thus, although there have been many definitions of landscape connectivity over the past 30 years, each new description emphasizes both a structural and a behavioural element to the landscape connectivity concept. The physical component is defined by the spatial and temporal configuration of the landscape elements (landform, landcover and land use types), and the behavioural component is defined by the behavioural responses, of organisms and/or processes, to the physical arrangement of the landscape elements.[12][13][8]

Importance

Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation have become ubiquitous in both natural and human modified landscapes, resulting in detrimental consequences for local species interactions and global biodiversity.[14] Human development now modifies over 50% of the earth's landscape, leaving only patches of isolated natural or semi-natural habitats for the millions of other species we share this planet with.[15] Loss of natural habitat and fluctuations in landscape patterns is one of the many problems in biogeography and conservation biology.[16] Patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem functions are changing worldwide resulting in a loss of connectivity and ecological integrity for the entire global ecological network.[17] Loss of connectivity can influence individuals, populations and communities through within species, between species, and between ecosystem interactions. These interactions affect ecological mechanisms such as nutrient and energy flows, predator-prey relationships, pollination, seed dispersal, demographic rescue, inbreeding avoidance, colonization of unoccupied habitat, altered species interactions, and spread of disease.[18][19][20] Accordingly, landscape connectivity facilitates the movement of biotic processes such as animal movement, plant propagation, and genetic exchange, as well as abiotic processes such as water, energy, and material movement within and between ecosystems.[11]

Types of animal movement

Daily movements

Within their home range or territory most animals must move daily among multiple primary habitat patches to forage for food and obtain all the resources they need.[11]

Migration

Some species travel to different locations throughout the year to access the resources they need. These movements are usually predictable and are due to changes in the environmental conditions at the primary habitat site, or to facilitate access to breeding grounds.[11] Migratory behaviour is seen in land animals,[21] birds [22] and marine species,[23] and the routes they follow are usually the same year after year.[11]

Dispersal

Is the once in a lifetime movement of certain individuals from one population to another for the purpose of breeding.[24] These exchanges maintain genetic and demographic diversity among populations.[25]

Disturbance movement

Is the unpredictable movement of individuals or populations to new locations of suitable habitat due to an environmental disturbance. Major disturbances such as fire, natural disasters, human development, and climate change can impact the quality and distribution of habitats and necessitate the movement of species to new locations of suitable habitat.[11]

Incidental movement

Movement of species in areas that are typically used by humans. These include greenbelts, recreational trail systems, hedgerows, and golf courses.[11]

Connectivity conservation

Preserving or creating landscape connectivity has become increasingly recognized as a key strategy to protect biodiversity, maintain viable ecosystems and wildlife populations, and facilitate the movement and adaptation of wildlife populations in the face of climate change.[26] The degree to which landscapes are connected determines the overall amount of movement taking place within and between local populations. This connectivity has influences on gene flow, local adaptation, extinction risk, colonization probability, and the potential for organisms to move and adapt to climate change.[11][27][28] With habitat loss and fragmentation increasingly deteriorating natural habitats, the sizes and isolation of the remaining habitat fragments are particularly critical to the long-term conservation of biodiversity.[11]

Thus, connectivity among these remaining fragments, as well as the characteristics of the surrounding matrix, and the permeability and structure of the habitat edges are all important for biodiversity conservation and affect the overall persistence, strength and integrity of the remaining ecological interactions.[29]

Quantifying landscape connectivity

Since the definition of landscape connectivity has both a physical and a behavioural component, quantifying landscape connectivity is consequently organism-, process- and landscape-specific.[1] According to (Wiens & Milne, 1989), the first step in the quantification process of landscape connectivity is defining the specific habitat or habitat network of the focal species, and in turn, describe the landscape elements from its point of view.[30] The next step is to determine the scale of the landscape structure as perceived by the organism. This is defined as the scale at which the species responds to the array of landscape elements, through its fine-scale (grain), and large-scale (extent), movement behaviours.[31] Lastly, how the species responds to the different elements of a landscape is determined. This comprises the species’ movement pattern based on behavioural reactions to the mortality risk of the landscape elements, including habitat barriers and edges.[8]

Landscape networks can be constructed based on the linear relationship between a species home range size and its dispersal distance. [32] For example, small mammals will have a small range and short dispersal distances and large ones will have larger range and long dispersal distances. In short this relationship can help in scaling & constructing landscape networks based on a mammals body size. [33]

Connectivity metrics

Although connectivity is an intuitive concept, there is no single consistently-used metric of connectivity. Theories of connectivity include consideration of both binary representations of connectivity through "corridors" and "linkages" and continuous representations of connectivity, which include the binary condition as a sub-set [2][3]

Generally, connectivity metrics fall into three categories:[34]

  1. Structural connectivity metrics are based on the physical properties of landscapes, which includes the idea of patches (size, number of patches, average distance to each other) and relative disturbance (human structures such as roads, parcellization, urban/agricultural land-use, human population).
  2. Potential connectivity metrics are based on the landscape structure as well as some basic information about the study organism's dispersal ability such as average dispersal distance, or dispersal kernel.
  3. Actual (also called realized, or functional) connectivity metrics are measured based on the actual movements of individuals along and across contours of connectivity, including among patches (where these exist). This takes into account the actual number of individuals born at different sites, their reproduction rates, and mortality during dispersal.[35] Some authors make a further distinction based on the number of individuals that not only disperse between sites, but that also survive to reproduce.[36]

Software

Typically, the "natural" form of connectivity as an ecological property perceived by organisms is modeled as a continuous surface of permeability, which is the corollary to disturbance. This can be accomplished by most geographic information systems (GIS) able to model in grid/raster format. A critical component of this form of modeling is the recognition that connectivity and disturbance are perceived and responded to differently by different organisms and ecological processes. This variety in responses is one of the most challenging parts of attempting to represent connectivity in spatial modeling. Typically, the most accurate connectivity models are for single species/processes and are developed based on information about the species/process.[37] There is little, and often no evidence that spatial models, including those described here, can represent connectivity for the many species or processes that occupy many natural landscapes. The disturbance-based models are used as the basis for the binary representations of connectivity as paths/corridor/linkages through landscapes described below.

Circuitscape

Circuitscape is an open source program that uses circuit theory to predict connectivity in heterogeneous landscapes for individual movement, gene flow, and conservation planning. Circuit theory offers several advantages over common analytic connectivity models, including a theoretical basis in random walk theory and an ability to evaluate contributions of multiple dispersal pathways. Landscapes are represented as conductive surfaces, with low resistances assigned to habitats that are most permeable to movement or best promote gene flow, and high resistances assigned to poor dispersal habitat or to movement barriers. Effective resistances, current densities, and voltages calculated across the landscapes can then be related to ecological processes, such as individual movement and gene flow.[38]

Graphab

Graphab is a software application devoted to the modelling of landscape networks. It is composed of four main modules: graph building, including loading the initial landscape data and identification of the patches and the links; computation of the connectivity metrics from the graph; connection between the graph and exogenous point data set; visual and cartographical interface. Graphab runs on any computer supporting Java 1.6 or later (PC under Linux, Windows, Mac...). It is distributed free of charge for non-commercial use.[39]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Taylor, Philip D.; Fahrig, Lenore; Henein, Kringen; Merriam, Gray (1993). "Connectivity Is a Vital Element of Landscape Structure" (PDF). Oikos. JSTOR. 68 (3): 571. doi:10.2307/3544927. ISSN 0030-1299. JSTOR 3544927.
  2. ^ a b FISCHER, JOERN; LINDENMAYER, DAVID B.; FAZEY, IOAN (2004). "Appreciating Ecological Complexity: Habitat Contours as a Conceptual Landscape Model". Conservation Biology. Wiley. 18 (5): 1245–1253. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00263.x. ISSN 0888-8892. S2CID 86243964.
  3. ^ a b Fischer, J. and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2006. Beyond fragmentation: the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human-modified landscapes. Oikos, 112: 473–480.
  4. ^ Brooks, C. P. (2003). "A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity". Oikos. 102 (2): 433–439. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.11511.x. JSTOR 3548048.
  5. ^ Baguette, Michel; Blanchet, Simon; Legrand, Delphine; Stevens, Virginie M.; Turlure, Camille (November 24, 2012). "Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks". Biological Reviews. Wiley. 88 (2): 310–326. doi:10.1111/brv.12000. ISSN 1464-7931. PMID 23176626. S2CID 1403141.
  6. ^ Calabrese, Justin M.; Fagan, William F. (2004). "A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2 (10): 529–536. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0529:ACGTCM]2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1540-9309.
  7. ^ Baudry, Jacques, and Karl-Friedrich Schreiber. Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. Ferdinand Schöningh, 1988.
  8. ^ a b c Tischendorf, Lutz; Fahrig, Lenore (2000). "On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity". Oikos. Wiley. 90 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x. ISSN 0030-1299.
  9. ^ Merriam, G. (1984). Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (eds), Proceedings of the 1st international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. Roskilde University. Denmark, Pg 5-15.
  10. ^ With, Kimberly A.; Gardner, Robert H.; Turner, Monica G. (1997). "Landscape Connectivity and Population Distributions in Heterogeneous Environments". Oikos. JSTOR. 78 (1): 151. doi:10.2307/3545811. ISSN 0030-1299. JSTOR 3545811.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i Ament, R., R. Callahan, M. McClure, M. Reuling, and G. Tabor (2014). Wildlife Connectivity: Fundamentals for conservation action (Report). Center for Large Landscape Conservation: Bozeman, Montana.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Crooks, Kevin R.; Sanjayan, M. (2006). "Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature". In Crooks, Kevin R.; Sanjayan, M. (eds.). Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–20. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511754821.001. ISBN 978-0-511-75482-1.
  13. ^ Bennett, Andrew (1999). Linkages in the landscape : the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN--the World Conservation Union. ISBN 2-8317-0221-6. OCLC 41214257.
  14. ^ Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. Vol. 34:487-515
  15. ^ Barnosky, Anthony D.; Hadly, Elizabeth A.; et al. (2012). "Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere". Nature. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 486 (7401): 52–58. doi:10.1038/nature11018. hdl:10261/55208. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 22678279. S2CID 4788164.
  16. ^ Richardson, David M.; Whittaker, Robert J. (2010-04-13). "Conservation biogeography - foundations, concepts and challenges". Diversity and Distributions. 16 (3): 313–320. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00660.x. ISSN 1366-9516.
  17. ^ Foley, J. A. (July 22, 2005). "Global Consequences of Land Use". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 309 (5734): 570–574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 16040698. S2CID 5711915.
  18. ^ Rudnick DA, et al. The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues Ecol. 2012;16.
  19. ^ Hanski, Ilkka (1998). "Metapopulation dynamics" (PDF). Nature. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 396 (6706): 41–49. doi:10.1038/23876. ISSN 0028-0836. S2CID 4405264.
  20. ^ Ayram, C., Mendoza, M., Etter, A., Salicrup, D. (2016). Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: A review of recent studies and applications. Progress in Physical Geography. Vol. 40 (1) Pg 7–37
  21. ^ Dingle, H. (1996). Migration: The biology of life on the move. Oxford University Press, New York.
  22. ^ Somveille M, Manica A, Butchart SHM, Rodrigues ASL (2013) Mapping Global Diversity Patterns for Migratory Birds. PLoS ONE 8(8):
  23. ^ Luschi, P. (2013). Long-Distance Animal Migrations in the Oceanic Environment: Orientation and Navigation Correlates. ISRN Zoology, vol. 2013
  24. ^ Traill, L., Brook, B., Frankham, R., and Bradshaw, C. (2010). Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world. Biological Conservation. Vol. 143, (1) Pg 28–34
  25. ^ Frankel, O. H. and M. E. Soule 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  26. ^ Meiklejohn, K., R. Ament, and G. Tabor. (2010). Habitat corridors & landscape connectivity: clarifying the terminology. Center for Large Landscape Conservation, New York
  27. ^ Hodgson, J.A., C.D. Thomas, B.A. Wintle, and A. Moilanen. 2009. Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision-making: back to basics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46: 964-969.
  28. ^ McRae, B. H., Hall, S. A., Beier, P., Theobald, D. M. 2012. Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits. PLoS ONE 7:e52604.
  29. ^ Fortuna, M., Bascompte, J. (2006). Habitat loss and the structure of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Ecology Letters, (2006) 9: 281–286
  30. ^ Wiens, J. A. and Milne, B. T. 1989. Scaling of ‘landscapes’ in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. – Landscape Ecol. 3: 87–96.
  31. ^ Wiens, J. A. 1997. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology. – In: Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. E. (eds), Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, pp. 43–62
  32. ^ Bowman, Jeff (2003-02-01). "Is dispersal distance of birds proportional to territory size?". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81 (2): 195–202. doi:10.1139/z02-237. ISSN 0008-4301.
  33. ^ West, G. B. (1997-04-04). "A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology". Science. 276 (5309): 122–126. doi:10.1126/science.276.5309.122. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 9082983. S2CID 3140271.
  34. ^ Calabrese, J. M., and W. F. Fagan. 2004. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:529-536.
  35. ^ Watson, J. R., S. Mitarai, D. A. Siegel, J. E. Caselle, C. Dong, and J. C. McWilliams. 2010. Realized and potential larval connectivity in the Southern California Bight. Marine Ecology Progress Series 401:31-48.
  36. ^ Pineda, J., J. A. Hare, and S. Sponaungle. 2007. Larval transport and dispersal in the coastal ocean and consequences for population connectivity. Oceanography 20:22-39.
  37. ^ LaPoint, S., P. Gallery, M. Wikelski, and R. Kays. 2013. Animal behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape Ecology, 28: 1615-1630.
  38. ^ "Circuitscape". Circuitscape. August 19, 2016. Retrieved August 13, 2020.
  39. ^ Girardet, Gilles Vuidel & Xavier. "Graphab". SourceSup. Retrieved August 13, 2020.

External links

  • Circuitscape
  • Conefor Sensinode
  • Graphab
  • PathMatrix

landscape, connectivity, landscape, ecology, landscape, connectivity, broadly, degree, which, landscape, facilitates, impedes, movement, among, resource, patches, alternatively, connectivity, continuous, property, landscape, independent, patches, paths, connec. In landscape ecology landscape connectivity is broadly the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches 1 Alternatively connectivity may be a continuous property of the landscape and independent of patches and paths 2 3 Connectivity includes both structural connectivity the physical arrangements of disturbance and or patches and functional connectivity the movement of individuals across contours of disturbance and or among patches 4 5 Functional connectivity includes actual connectivity requires observations of individual movements and potential connectivity in which movement paths are estimated using the life history data 6 A similar but different concept proposed by Jacques Baudry landscape connectedness refers to structural links between elements of spatial structures of a landscape which concerns the topology of landscape features and not ecological processes 7 Contents 1 Definition 2 Importance 3 Types of animal movement 3 1 Daily movements 3 2 Migration 3 3 Dispersal 3 4 Disturbance movement 3 5 Incidental movement 4 Connectivity conservation 5 Quantifying landscape connectivity 6 Connectivity metrics 7 Software 7 1 Circuitscape 7 2 Graphab 8 See also 9 References 10 External linksDefinition EditThe concept of Landscape connectivity was first introduced by Dr Gray Merriam in 1984 Merriam noted that movement among habitat patches was not merely a function of an organism s attributes but also a quality of the landscape elements through which it must move 8 To emphasize this fundamental interaction in determining a particular movement pathway Merriam 1984 defined landscape connectivity as the degree to which absolute isolation is prevented by landscape elements which allow organisms to move among habitat patches 9 Nine years later Merriam and colleagues revised the definition to the degree to which the landscape impedes or facilitates movement among resource patches 1 Although this definition has undoubtedly become the most accepted and cited meaning within the scientific literature many authors have continued to create their own definitions With et al 1997 presented their interpretation as the functional relationship among habitat patches owing to the spatial contagion of habitat and the movement responses of organisms to landscape structure 10 and Ament et al 2014 defined it as the degree to which regional landscapes encompassing a variety of natural semi natural and developed land cover types are conducive to wildlife movement and to sustain ecological processes 11 Thus although there have been many definitions of landscape connectivity over the past 30 years each new description emphasizes both a structural and a behavioural element to the landscape connectivity concept The physical component is defined by the spatial and temporal configuration of the landscape elements landform landcover and land use types and the behavioural component is defined by the behavioural responses of organisms and or processes to the physical arrangement of the landscape elements 12 13 8 Importance EditHabitat loss and habitat fragmentation have become ubiquitous in both natural and human modified landscapes resulting in detrimental consequences for local species interactions and global biodiversity 14 Human development now modifies over 50 of the earth s landscape leaving only patches of isolated natural or semi natural habitats for the millions of other species we share this planet with 15 Loss of natural habitat and fluctuations in landscape patterns is one of the many problems in biogeography and conservation biology 16 Patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem functions are changing worldwide resulting in a loss of connectivity and ecological integrity for the entire global ecological network 17 Loss of connectivity can influence individuals populations and communities through within species between species and between ecosystem interactions These interactions affect ecological mechanisms such as nutrient and energy flows predator prey relationships pollination seed dispersal demographic rescue inbreeding avoidance colonization of unoccupied habitat altered species interactions and spread of disease 18 19 20 Accordingly landscape connectivity facilitates the movement of biotic processes such as animal movement plant propagation and genetic exchange as well as abiotic processes such as water energy and material movement within and between ecosystems 11 Types of animal movement EditDaily movements Edit Within their home range or territory most animals must move daily among multiple primary habitat patches to forage for food and obtain all the resources they need 11 Migration Edit Some species travel to different locations throughout the year to access the resources they need These movements are usually predictable and are due to changes in the environmental conditions at the primary habitat site or to facilitate access to breeding grounds 11 Migratory behaviour is seen in land animals 21 birds 22 and marine species 23 and the routes they follow are usually the same year after year 11 Dispersal Edit Is the once in a lifetime movement of certain individuals from one population to another for the purpose of breeding 24 These exchanges maintain genetic and demographic diversity among populations 25 Disturbance movement Edit Is the unpredictable movement of individuals or populations to new locations of suitable habitat due to an environmental disturbance Major disturbances such as fire natural disasters human development and climate change can impact the quality and distribution of habitats and necessitate the movement of species to new locations of suitable habitat 11 Incidental movement Edit Movement of species in areas that are typically used by humans These include greenbelts recreational trail systems hedgerows and golf courses 11 Connectivity conservation EditPreserving or creating landscape connectivity has become increasingly recognized as a key strategy to protect biodiversity maintain viable ecosystems and wildlife populations and facilitate the movement and adaptation of wildlife populations in the face of climate change 26 The degree to which landscapes are connected determines the overall amount of movement taking place within and between local populations This connectivity has influences on gene flow local adaptation extinction risk colonization probability and the potential for organisms to move and adapt to climate change 11 27 28 With habitat loss and fragmentation increasingly deteriorating natural habitats the sizes and isolation of the remaining habitat fragments are particularly critical to the long term conservation of biodiversity 11 Thus connectivity among these remaining fragments as well as the characteristics of the surrounding matrix and the permeability and structure of the habitat edges are all important for biodiversity conservation and affect the overall persistence strength and integrity of the remaining ecological interactions 29 Quantifying landscape connectivity EditSince the definition of landscape connectivity has both a physical and a behavioural component quantifying landscape connectivity is consequently organism process and landscape specific 1 According to Wiens amp Milne 1989 the first step in the quantification process of landscape connectivity is defining the specific habitat or habitat network of the focal species and in turn describe the landscape elements from its point of view 30 The next step is to determine the scale of the landscape structure as perceived by the organism This is defined as the scale at which the species responds to the array of landscape elements through its fine scale grain and large scale extent movement behaviours 31 Lastly how the species responds to the different elements of a landscape is determined This comprises the species movement pattern based on behavioural reactions to the mortality risk of the landscape elements including habitat barriers and edges 8 Landscape networks can be constructed based on the linear relationship between a species home range size and its dispersal distance 32 For example small mammals will have a small range and short dispersal distances and large ones will have larger range and long dispersal distances In short this relationship can help in scaling amp constructing landscape networks based on a mammals body size 33 Connectivity metrics EditSee also Connectivity graph theory Although connectivity is an intuitive concept there is no single consistently used metric of connectivity Theories of connectivity include consideration of both binary representations of connectivity through corridors and linkages and continuous representations of connectivity which include the binary condition as a sub set 2 3 Generally connectivity metrics fall into three categories 34 Structural connectivity metrics are based on the physical properties of landscapes which includes the idea of patches size number of patches average distance to each other and relative disturbance human structures such as roads parcellization urban agricultural land use human population Potential connectivity metrics are based on the landscape structure as well as some basic information about the study organism s dispersal ability such as average dispersal distance or dispersal kernel Actual also called realized or functional connectivity metrics are measured based on the actual movements of individuals along and across contours of connectivity including among patches where these exist This takes into account the actual number of individuals born at different sites their reproduction rates and mortality during dispersal 35 Some authors make a further distinction based on the number of individuals that not only disperse between sites but that also survive to reproduce 36 Software EditTypically the natural form of connectivity as an ecological property perceived by organisms is modeled as a continuous surface of permeability which is the corollary to disturbance This can be accomplished by most geographic information systems GIS able to model in grid raster format A critical component of this form of modeling is the recognition that connectivity and disturbance are perceived and responded to differently by different organisms and ecological processes This variety in responses is one of the most challenging parts of attempting to represent connectivity in spatial modeling Typically the most accurate connectivity models are for single species processes and are developed based on information about the species process 37 There is little and often no evidence that spatial models including those described here can represent connectivity for the many species or processes that occupy many natural landscapes The disturbance based models are used as the basis for the binary representations of connectivity as paths corridor linkages through landscapes described below Circuitscape Edit Circuitscape is an open source program that uses circuit theory to predict connectivity in heterogeneous landscapes for individual movement gene flow and conservation planning Circuit theory offers several advantages over common analytic connectivity models including a theoretical basis in random walk theory and an ability to evaluate contributions of multiple dispersal pathways Landscapes are represented as conductive surfaces with low resistances assigned to habitats that are most permeable to movement or best promote gene flow and high resistances assigned to poor dispersal habitat or to movement barriers Effective resistances current densities and voltages calculated across the landscapes can then be related to ecological processes such as individual movement and gene flow 38 Graphab Edit Graphab is a software application devoted to the modelling of landscape networks It is composed of four main modules graph building including loading the initial landscape data and identification of the patches and the links computation of the connectivity metrics from the graph connection between the graph and exogenous point data set visual and cartographical interface Graphab runs on any computer supporting Java 1 6 or later PC under Linux Windows Mac It is distributed free of charge for non commercial use 39 See also EditHabitat fragmentation Hardscape Landscape Ecology Softscape Wildlife corridor Wildlife crossingReferences Edit a b c Taylor Philip D Fahrig Lenore Henein Kringen Merriam Gray 1993 Connectivity Is a Vital Element of Landscape Structure PDF Oikos JSTOR 68 3 571 doi 10 2307 3544927 ISSN 0030 1299 JSTOR 3544927 a b FISCHER JOERN LINDENMAYER DAVID B FAZEY IOAN 2004 Appreciating Ecological Complexity Habitat Contours as a Conceptual Landscape Model Conservation Biology Wiley 18 5 1245 1253 doi 10 1111 j 1523 1739 2004 00263 x ISSN 0888 8892 S2CID 86243964 a b Fischer J and D B Lindenmayer 2006 Beyond fragmentation the continuum model for fauna research and conservation in human modified landscapes Oikos 112 473 480 Brooks C P 2003 A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity Oikos 102 2 433 439 doi 10 1034 j 1600 0579 2003 11511 x JSTOR 3548048 Baguette Michel Blanchet Simon Legrand Delphine Stevens Virginie M Turlure Camille November 24 2012 Individual dispersal landscape connectivity and ecological networks Biological Reviews Wiley 88 2 310 326 doi 10 1111 brv 12000 ISSN 1464 7931 PMID 23176626 S2CID 1403141 Calabrese Justin M Fagan William F 2004 A comparison shopper s guide to connectivity metrics Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 10 529 536 doi 10 1890 1540 9295 2004 002 0529 ACGTCM 2 0 CO 2 ISSN 1540 9309 Baudry Jacques and Karl Friedrich Schreiber Connectivity and connectedness functional versus structural patterns in landscapes Ferdinand Schoningh 1988 a b c Tischendorf Lutz Fahrig Lenore 2000 On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity Oikos Wiley 90 1 7 19 doi 10 1034 j 1600 0706 2000 900102 x ISSN 0030 1299 Merriam G 1984 Connectivity a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern In Brandt J and Agger P eds Proceedings of the 1st international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning Roskilde University Denmark Pg 5 15 With Kimberly A Gardner Robert H Turner Monica G 1997 Landscape Connectivity and Population Distributions in Heterogeneous Environments Oikos JSTOR 78 1 151 doi 10 2307 3545811 ISSN 0030 1299 JSTOR 3545811 a b c d e f g h i Ament R R Callahan M McClure M Reuling and G Tabor 2014 Wildlife Connectivity Fundamentals for conservation action Report Center for Large Landscape Conservation Bozeman Montana a href Template Cite report html title Template Cite report cite report a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link Crooks Kevin R Sanjayan M 2006 Connectivity conservation maintaining connections for nature In Crooks Kevin R Sanjayan M eds Connectivity Conservation Cambridge Cambridge University Press pp 1 20 doi 10 1017 cbo9780511754821 001 ISBN 978 0 511 75482 1 Bennett Andrew 1999 Linkages in the landscape the role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation PDF Gland Switzerland IUCN the World Conservation Union ISBN 2 8317 0221 6 OCLC 41214257 Fahrig L 2003 Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics Vol 34 487 515 Barnosky Anthony D Hadly Elizabeth A et al 2012 Approaching a state shift in Earth s biosphere Nature Springer Science and Business Media LLC 486 7401 52 58 doi 10 1038 nature11018 hdl 10261 55208 ISSN 0028 0836 PMID 22678279 S2CID 4788164 Richardson David M Whittaker Robert J 2010 04 13 Conservation biogeography foundations concepts and challenges Diversity and Distributions 16 3 313 320 doi 10 1111 j 1472 4642 2010 00660 x ISSN 1366 9516 Foley J A July 22 2005 Global Consequences of Land Use Science American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS 309 5734 570 574 doi 10 1126 science 1111772 ISSN 0036 8075 PMID 16040698 S2CID 5711915 Rudnick DA et al The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities Issues Ecol 2012 16 Hanski Ilkka 1998 Metapopulation dynamics PDF Nature Springer Science and Business Media LLC 396 6706 41 49 doi 10 1038 23876 ISSN 0028 0836 S2CID 4405264 Ayram C Mendoza M Etter A Salicrup D 2016 Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation A review of recent studies and applications Progress in Physical Geography Vol 40 1 Pg 7 37 Dingle H 1996 Migration The biology of life on the move Oxford University Press New York Somveille M Manica A Butchart SHM Rodrigues ASL 2013 Mapping Global Diversity Patterns for Migratory Birds PLoS ONE 8 8 Luschi P 2013 Long Distance Animal Migrations in the Oceanic Environment Orientation and Navigation Correlates ISRN Zoology vol 2013 Traill L Brook B Frankham R and Bradshaw C 2010 Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world Biological Conservation Vol 143 1 Pg 28 34 Frankel O H and M E Soule 1981 Conservation and Evolution Cambridge University Press Cambridge Meiklejohn K R Ament and G Tabor 2010 Habitat corridors amp landscape connectivity clarifying the terminology Center for Large Landscape Conservation New York Hodgson J A C D Thomas B A Wintle and A Moilanen 2009 Climate change connectivity and conservation decision making back to basics Journal of Applied Ecology 46 964 969 McRae B H Hall S A Beier P Theobald D M 2012 Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits PLoS ONE 7 e52604 Fortuna M Bascompte J 2006 Habitat loss and the structure of plant animal mutualistic networks Ecology Letters 2006 9 281 286 Wiens J A and Milne B T 1989 Scaling of landscapes in landscape ecology or landscape ecology from a beetle s perspective Landscape Ecol 3 87 96 Wiens J A 1997 Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology In Hanski I and Gilpin M E eds Metapopulation biology Academic Press pp 43 62 Bowman Jeff 2003 02 01 Is dispersal distance of birds proportional to territory size Canadian Journal of Zoology 81 2 195 202 doi 10 1139 z02 237 ISSN 0008 4301 West G B 1997 04 04 A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology Science 276 5309 122 126 doi 10 1126 science 276 5309 122 ISSN 0036 8075 PMID 9082983 S2CID 3140271 Calabrese J M and W F Fagan 2004 A comparison shopper s guide to connectivity metrics Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 529 536 Watson J R S Mitarai D A Siegel J E Caselle C Dong and J C McWilliams 2010 Realized and potential larval connectivity in the Southern California Bight Marine Ecology Progress Series 401 31 48 Pineda J J A Hare and S Sponaungle 2007 Larval transport and dispersal in the coastal ocean and consequences for population connectivity Oceanography 20 22 39 LaPoint S P Gallery M Wikelski and R Kays 2013 Animal behavior cost based corridor models and real corridors Landscape Ecology 28 1615 1630 Circuitscape Circuitscape August 19 2016 Retrieved August 13 2020 Girardet Gilles Vuidel amp Xavier Graphab SourceSup Retrieved August 13 2020 External links EditCircuitscape Conefor Sensinode FunConn Graphab PathMatrix Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Landscape connectivity amp oldid 1131464456, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.