Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14249/eia.2012.21.3.391

Measuring Connectivity in Heterogenous Landscapes: a Review and Application  

Song, Wonkyong (Korea Environment Institute)
Kim, Eunyoung (Korea Environment Institute)
Lee, Dong-Kun (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment / v.21, no.3, 2012 , pp. 391-407 More about this Journal
Abstract
The loss of connectivity and fragmentation of forest landscapes are seriously hindering dispersal of many forest-dwelling species, which may be critical for their viability and conservation by decreasing habitat area and increasing distance among habitats. For understanding their environmental impacts, numerous spatial models exist to measure landscape connectivity. However, general relationships between functional connectivity and landscape structure are lacking, there is a need to develop landscape metrics that more accurately measure landscape connectivity in whole landscape and individual patches. We reviewed functional and structural definition of landscape connectivity, explained their mathematical connotations, and applied representative 13 indices in 3 districts of Seoul having fragmented forest patches with tits, the threshold distance was applied 500m by considering the dispersal of tits. Results of correlation and principal component analysis showed that connectivity indices could be divided by measurement methods whether they contain the area attribute with distance or not. Betweenness centrality(BC), a representative index measuring distance and distribution among patches, appreciated highly stepping stone forest patches, and difference of probability of connectivity(dPC), an index measuring including area information, estimated integrated connectivity of patches. Therefore, for evaluating landscape connectivity, it is need to consider not only general information of a region and species' characteristics but also various measuring methods of landscape connectivity.
Keywords
Landscape connectivity; Structural connectivity; Functional connectivity; Integrated connectivity index; Landscape ecology; Graph theory; Landscape permeability;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 김명수, 2001, 파편화된 서식처 복원을 위한 기초이론 고찰, 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지, 4, 52-61.
2 서울특별시, 2010, 2010 도시생태현황도 정비제작 -2차년도-, 서울특별시.
3 송원경, 2011, 공간그래프 이론을 적용한 삵 서식지 네트워크 모형 개발, 서울대학교 박사학위논문.
4 안동만, 김명수, 2003, 환경친화적인 도시공원녹지계획 연구 - 생물서식처 연결성 향상을 위한 서울시 녹지조성 방안을 중심으로 -. 한국조경학회지, 31, 34-41.
5 이동근, 송원경, 2008, 삵의 서식지 적합성 평가를 위한 분석단위 설정 및 보전지역 선정 -충청도 지역을 중심으로, 한국조경학회지, 36, 64-72.
6 이인성, 윤은주, 2008, 도시녹지 평가를 위한 경관지수의 스케일 민감성 분석, 한국조경학회지, 36, 69-79.
7 임신재, 손승훈, 김규중, 2011, 활엽수림에 설치한 인공새집을 이용한 박새류 번식 생태, 한국임학회지, 100, 397-401.
8 정용문, 김선태, 김명수, 2002, 대전시 녹지계획을 위한 연결성 분석에 대한 연구, 한국환경복원녹화기술학회지, 5, 14-23.
9 Adriaensen, F., 2003, The application of 'leastcost' modelling as a functional landscape model, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233-247.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Angold, P.G., Sadler, J.P., Hill, M.O., Pullin, A., Rushton, S., Austin, K., Small, E., Wood, B., Wadsworth, R., Sanderson, R. and Thompson, K., 2006, Biodiversity in urban habitat patches, Sci Total Environ, 360, 196-204.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Baguette, M. and Dyck, H., 2007, Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal, Landscape Ecology, 22, 1117-1129.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Baranyi, G., Saura, S., Podani, J. and Jordan, F., 2011, Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: Redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices, Ecological Indicators, 11, 1301-1310.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Belisle, M., 2005, Measuring Landscape Connectivity: The Challenge of Behavioral Landscape Ecology, Ecology, 86, 1988-1995.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A. and Wilson, J.D., 2003, Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol, 18, 182-188.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Broquet, T., Ray, N., Petit, E., Fryxell, J.M. and Burel, F., 2006, Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana), Landscape Ecology, 21, 877-889.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Bunn, A.G., Urban, D.L. and Keitt, T.H., 2000, Landscape connectivity: A conservation application of graph theory, J Environ Manage, 59, 265-278.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 CastellOn, T.D. and Sieving, K.E., 2006, An Experimental Test of Matrix Permeability and Corridor Use by an Endemic Understory Bird, Conservation Biology, 20, 135-145.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Collinge, S.K. and Forman, R.T.T., 1998, A conceptual model of land conversion processes: predictions and evidence from a microlandscape experiment with grass insects, Oikos, 82, 66-84.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Coulon, A., Cosson, J.F., Angibault, J.M., Cargnelutti, B., Galan, M., Morellet, N., Petit, E., Aulagnier, S. and Hewison, A.J., 2004, Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach, Mol Ecol, 13, 2841-50.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Desrochers, A., Belisle, M., Morand-Ferron, J. and Bourque, J., 2011, Integrating GIS and homing experiments to study avian movement costs, Landscape Ecology, 26, 47-58.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Dingemanse, N.J., Both, C., van Noordwijk, A.J., Rutten, A.L. and Drent, P.J., 2003, Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major), Proc Biol Sci, 270, 741-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Driezen, K., Adriaensen, F., Rondinini, C., Doncaster, C.P. and Matthysen, E., 2007, Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: A casestudy using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus), Ecological Modelling, 209, 314-322.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Epps, C.W., Wehausen, J.D., Bleich, V.C., Torres, S.G. and Brashares, J.S., 2007, Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics, Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 714-724.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Fall, A., Fortin, M.-J., Manseau, M. and O'Brien, D., 2007, Spatial Graphs: Principles and Applications for Habitat Connectivity, Ecosystems, 10, 448-461.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Forester, J.D., Ives, A.R., Turner, M.G., Anderson, D.P., Fortin, D., Beyer, H.L., Smith, D.W. and Boyce, M.S., 2007, State-space models link elk movement patterns to landscape characteristics in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs, 77, 285-299.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Forman, R.T.T. and Baudry, J., 1984, Hedgerows and hedgerow networks in landscape ecology, Environmental Management, 8, 495-510.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Freeman, L.C., 1979, Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification, Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
28 Gobeil, J.-F. and Villard, M.-A., 2002, Permeability of three boreal forest landscape types to bird movements as determined from experimental translocations, Oikos, 98, 447-453.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Goodwin, B.J., 2003, Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable, Landscape Ecology, 18, 687-699.   DOI
30 Gurrutxaga, M., Rubio, L. and Saura, S., 2011, Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: A transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe), Landscape and Urban Planning, 101, 310-320.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Gustafson, E.J. and Gardner, R.H., 1996, The Effect of Landscape Heterogeneity on the Probability of Patch Colonization, Ecology, 77, 94-107.   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Hanski, I., 1998, Metapopulation dynamics, Nature, 396, 41-49.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Kindlmann, P. and Burel, F., 2008, Connectivity measures: a review, Landscape Ecology, 23, 879-890.
34 Hanski, I., 1999, Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes, Oikos, 87, 209-219.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Hanski, I., 2001, Spatially realistic theory of metapopulation ecology. Naturwissenschaften, 88, 372-381.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 James, P.M.A., Rayfield, B., Fortin, M.-J., Fall, A. and Farley, G., 2005, Reserve network design combining spatial graph theory and species' spatial requirements, Geomatica, 59, 121-129.
37 Krebs, J.R., N.B. Davies, 1981, An Introduction th Behavioural Ecology, Blackwell Science Inc, USA.
38 Kusak, J., Huber, D., Gomercie, T., Schwaderer, G. and Guzvica, G., 2008, The permeability of highway in Gorski kotar (Croatia) for large mammals, European Journal of Wildlife Research, 55, 7-21.
39 LaRue, M.A. and Nielsen, C.K., 2008, Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods, Ecological Modelling, 212, 372-381.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Levins, R., 1969, Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control, Bull. Entom. Soc. Amer., 15, 237-240.
41 Lookingbill, T.R., Gardner, R.H., Ferrari, J.R. and Keller, C.E., 2010, Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity, Ecological Applications, 20, 427-441.   DOI   ScienceOn
42 Matthysen, E., Van de Casteele, T. and Adriaensen, F., 2005, Do sibling tits (Parus major, P. caeruleus) disperse over similar distances and in similar directions? Oecologia, 143, 301-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
43 Merriam, G., 1984, Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. - In: Brandt, J. and Agger P. (des), Proceedings of the 1st international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning, Roskilde Univ., Denmark, pp. 5-15.
44 Minor, E.S. and Lookingbill, T.R., 2010, A multiscale network analysis of protectedarea connectivity for mammals in the United States, Conserv Biol, 24, 1549-58.   DOI   ScienceOn
45 O'Brien, D., Manseau, M., Fall, A. and Fortin, M.-J., 2006, Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory, Biological Conservation, 130, 70-83.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Minor, E.S. and Urban, D.L., 2007, Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning, Ecological Applications, 17, 1771-1782.   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I., 1998, Metapopulation dynamics: Effects of habitat quality and landscape structure, Ecology, 79, 2503-2515.   DOI   ScienceOn
48 O'Neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., DeAngelis, D.L., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., Zygmunt, B., Christensen, S.W., Dale, V.H. and Graham, R.L., 1988, Indices of landscape pattern, Landscape Ecology, 1, 153-162.   DOI   ScienceOn
49 Pascual-Hortal, L. and Saura, S., 2008, Integrating landscape connectivity in broad-scale forest plann.ng through a new graph-based habitat availability methodology: application to capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Catalonia (NE Spain), European Journal of Forest Research, 127, 23-31.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Pither, J. and Taylor, P.D., 1998, An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity, Oikos, 83, 166-174.   DOI   ScienceOn
51 Pullinger, M.G. and Johnson, C.J., 2010, Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information, Landscape Ecology, 25, 1547-1560.   DOI   ScienceOn
52 Ray, N., Lehmann, A. and Loly, P., 2002, Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: A GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability, Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 2143-2165.   DOI   ScienceOn
53 Rayfield, B., Fortin, M.-J. and Fall, A., 2009, The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values, Landscape Ecology, 25, 519-532.
54 Ricotta, C., Carranza, M.L., Avena, G. and Blasi, C., 2000, Quantitative comparison of the diversity of landscapes with actual vs. potential natural vegetation, Applied Vegetation Science, 3, 157-162.   DOI   ScienceOn
55 Saura, S., Vogt, P., Velazquez, J., Hernando, A. and Tejera, R., 2011, Key structural forest connectors can be identified by combining landscape spatial pattern and network analyses, Forest Ecology and Management, 262, 150-160.   DOI   ScienceOn
56 Ricketts, T.H., 2001, The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes, The American Naturalist, 158, 87-99.   DOI   ScienceOn
57 Rustigian, H.L., Santelmann, M.V. and Schumaker, N.H., 2003, Assessing the potential impacts of alternative landscape designs on amphibian population dynamics, Landscape Ecology, 18, 65-81.   DOI   ScienceOn
58 Saura, S. and Pascual-Hortal, L., 2007, A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 91-103.   DOI   ScienceOn
59 Schick, R.S., Loarie, S.R., Colchero, F., Best, B.D., Boustany, A., Conde, D.A., Halpin, P.N., Joppa, L.N., McClellan, C.M. and Clark, J.S., 2008, Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions, Ecol Lett, 11, 1338-50.   DOI   ScienceOn
60 Singleton, P.H., 2001, Using weighted distance and least-cost corridor analysis to evaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat connectivity in Washington, ICOET, pp. 583-594.
61 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, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northewest Research Station, Portland.
62 Szulkin, M. and Sheldon, B.C., 2008, Dispersal as a means of inbreeding avoidance in a wild bird population, Proc Biol Sci, 275, 703-11.   DOI   ScienceOn
63 Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G., 1993, Connectivity is a element of landscape structure, Oikos, 68, 571-573.   DOI   ScienceOn
64 Tischendorf, L., 2001, Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently, Landscape Ecology, 16, 235-254.   DOI   ScienceOn
65 Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L., 2000a, How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecology, 15, 633-641.   DOI   ScienceOn
66 Verbeylen, G., Bruyn, L.D., Adriaensen, F. and Matthysen, E., 2003, Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecology, 18, 791-805.   DOI
67 Tischendorf, L. and Fahrig, L., 2000b, On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity, Oikos, 90, 7-19.   DOI   ScienceOn
68 Turner, M.G., 1989, Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process, Annual review of ecology and systematics, 20, 171-197.   DOI   ScienceOn
69 Urban, D. and Keitt, T., 2001, Landscape connectivity: A graph-theoretic perspective, Ecology, 82, 1205-1218.   DOI   ScienceOn
70 Verheyen, K., Vellend, M., Calster, H.V., Peterken, G. and Hermy, M., 2004, Metapopulation dynamics in changing landscapes: A new spatially realistic model for forest plants, Ecology, 82, 3302-3312.
71 Verhulst, S., Perrins, C.M. and Riddington, R., 1997, Natal dispersal of great tits in a patchy environment, Ecology, 78, 864-872.   DOI   ScienceOn
72 Whitcomb, R.F., Robbins, C.S., Lynch, J.F., Whitcomb, B.L., Klimkiewicz, M.K. and Bystrak, D., 1981, Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the Eastern Deciduous Forest, Springer-Verlag, New York, USA.
73 Winfree, R., Dushoff, J., Crone, E.E., Schultz, C.B., Budny, R.V., Williams, N.M. and Kremen, C., 2005, Testing Simple Indices of Habitat Proximity, The American Naturalist, 165, 707-717.   DOI   ScienceOn
74 With, K.A., Gardner, R.H. and Turner, M.G., 1997, Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments, Oikos, 78, 151-169.   DOI   ScienceOn
75 Zetterberg, A., Mortberg, U.M. and Balfors, B., 2010, Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design, Landscape and Urban Planning, 95, 181-191.   DOI   ScienceOn
76 Zozaya, E.L., Brotons, L. and Saura, S., 2011, Recent fire history and connectivity patterns determine bird species distribution dynamics in landscapes dominated by land abandonment, Landscape Ecology, 27, 171-184.