Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrative approach for landscape-based graph connectivity analysis: a case study with the common frog (Rana temporaria) in human-dominated landscapes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Graph-based analysis is a promising approach for analyzing the functional and structural connectivity of landscapes. In human-shaped landscapes, species have become vulnerable to land degradation and connectivity loss between habitat patches. Movement across the landscape is a key process for species survival that needs to be further investigated for heterogeneous human-dominated landscapes. The common frog (Rana temporaria) was used as a case study to explore and provide a graph connectivity analysis framework that integrates habitat suitability and dispersal responses to landscape permeability. The main habitat patches influencing habitat availability and connectivity were highlighted by using the software Conefor Sensinode 2.2. One of the main advantages of the presented graph-theoretical approach is its ability to provide a large choice of variables to be used based on the study’s assumptions and knowledge about target species. Based on dispersal simulation modelling in potential suitable habitat corridors, three distinct patterns of nodes connections of differing importance were revealed. These patterns are locally influenced by anthropogenic barriers, landscape permeability, and habitat suitability. And they are affected by different suitability and availability gradients to maximize the best possible settlement by the common frog within a terrestrial habitat continuum. The study determined the key role of landscape-based approaches for identifying the “availability-suitability-connectivity” patterns from a local to regional approach to provide an operational tool for landscape planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, DeBlust GE, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of least-cost modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allentoft ME, O’Brien J (2010) Global amphibian declines, loss of genetic diversity and fitness: a review. Diversity 2:47–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson RP, Lewc DA, Peterson T (2003) Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol Model 162:211–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RA (2009) Use of maximum entropy modeling in wildlife research. Entropy 11:854–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Model 221:2393–2405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollmann K, Graf RF, Suter W (2011) Quantitative predictions for patch occupancy of capercaillie in fragmented habitats. Ecography 34:276–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curado N, Hartel T, Arntzen JW (2011) Amphibian pond loss as a function of landscape change—a case study over three decades in an agricultural area of northern France. Biol Conserv. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.011

  • Dale MRT, Fortin M-J (2010) From graphs to spatial graphs. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA (2007) CLC2006 technical guidelines. EEA technical report. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Pedlar J, Pope S, Taylor P, Wegener J (1995) Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biol Conserv 73:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foll M, Gaggiotti OE (2006) Identifying the environmental factors that determine the genetic structure of populations. Genetics 174:875–891

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fortuna MA, Gomez-Rodriguez C, Bascompte J (2006) Spatial network structure and amphibian persistence in stochastic environments. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:1429–1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galpern P, Manseau M, Fall A (2011) Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: a guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation. Biol Conserv 144:44–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Feced C, Saura S, Elena-Rossello H (2011) Improving landscape connectivity in forest districts: a two-stage process for prioritizing agricultural patches for reforestation. For Ecol Manag 161:154–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauffre B, Estoup A, Bretagnolle V, Cosson JF (2008) Spatial genetic structure of a small rodent in a heterogeneous landscape. Mol Ecol 17:4619–4629

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T, Nemes S, Öllerer K, Cogalniceanu D, Moga CI, Arntzen JW (2010) Using connectivity metrics and niche modelling to explore the occurrence of the northern crested newt Triturus cristatus (Amphibia, Caudata) in a traditionally managed landscape. Environ Conserv 37:195–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Jiang Z (2010) Predicting the potential distribution of the endangered Przewalski’s gazelle. J Zool 282:54–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janin A, Léna J-P, Ray N, Delacourt C, Allemand P, Joly P (2009) Assessing landscape connectivity with calibrated cost-distance modelling: predicting common toad distribution in a context of spreading agriculture. J Appl Ecol 46:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson M, Primmer CR, Sahlsten J, Merilä JU (2005) The influence of landscape structure on occurrence, abundance and genetic diversity of the common frog, Rana temporaria. Glob Change Biol 11:1664–1679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joly P, Morand C, Cohas A (2003) Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. C R Biol 326:132–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovar R, Brabec M, Vita R, Bocek R (2009) Spring migration distances of some Central European amphibian species. Amphib-Reptil 30:367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasso E (2008) The importance of setting the right genetic distance threshold for identification of clones using amplified fragment length polymorphism: a case study with five species in the tropical plant genus Piper. Mol Ecol Resour 8:74–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marulli J, Mallarach JM (2005) A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. Landsc Urban Plan 71:243–262

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/downloads/fragstats_downloads.html

  • McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miaud C, Guyétant R, Elmberg J (1999) Variation in life-history traits in the common frog Rana temporaria (Amphibia: Anura): a literature reviews and new data from the French Alps. J Zool 249:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minor ES, Urban D (2008) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 31:297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morueta-Holme N, Fløjgaard C, Svenning J (2010) Climate change risks and conservation implications for a threatened small-range mammal species. PLoS One 5:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Steingröver E, Van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahkala M, Laurila A, Merilä J (2001) Carry-over effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on larval fitness in Rana temporaria. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1699–1706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Palo JU, Schmeller DS, Laurila A (2004) High degree of population subdivision in a widespread amphibian. Mol Ecol 13:2631–2644

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21:959–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2008) Integrating landscape connectivity in broad-scale forest planning through a new graph-based habitat availability methodology: application to capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Catalonia (NE Spain). Eur J For Res 127:23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce J, Ferrier S (2000) Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Model 133:225–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekkarinen A, Reithmaier LPS (2009) Pan European forest/non-forest mapping with Landsat ETM+ and Corine land Cover 200 data. J Photogramm Remote Sens 64:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira M, Segurado P, Neves N (2011) Using spatial network structure in landscape management and planning: a case study with pond turtles. Landsc Urban Plan 100:67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips SJ, Dudik M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray N, Lehmann A, Joly P (2002) Modeling spatial distribution of amphibian populations: a GIS approach based on habitat matrix permeability. Biodivers Conserv 11:2143–2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard Y, Armstrong DP (2009) The importance of integrating landscape ecology in habitat models: isolation-driven occurrence of north island robins in a fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 25:1363–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rödder D, Kielgast J, Bielby J, Schmidtlein S, Bosch J, Garner T, Veith M, Walker S, Fisher M, Lötters S (2009) Global amphibian risk assessment for the panzootic chytrid fungus. Diversity 1:52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safner T, Miaud C, Gaggiotti O, Decout S, Rioux D, Zundel S, Manel S (2010) Combining demography and genetic analysis to assess the population structure of an amphibian in a human-dominated landscape. Conserv Genet 12:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, 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. Landsc Urban Plan 83:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schadt S, Knauer F, Kaczensky P et al (2002) Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for the Eurasian lynx. Ecol Appl 12:1469–1483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam NG (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA et al (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wang IJ, Savage WK, Shaffer HB (2009) Landscape genetics and least-cost path analysis reveal unexpected dispersal routes in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Mol Ecol 18:1365–1375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward DF (2007) Modelling the potential geographic distribution of invasive ant species in New Zealand. Biol Invasion 9:723–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA, Stenseth NC, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zetterberg A, Mörtberg UM, Balfors B (2010) Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc Urban Plan 95:181–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support for this work was partly provided from the EU-Interreg Alpine Space Program Econnect (reference number: 116/1/3/A) and the French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development (DEB-ECOTRAM project). We would like to thank Santiago Saura for his advice on the subject and support in the use of the Conefor Sensinode software and Peter Vogt for constructive comments. Many thanks are also given to the members of the non-governmental organizations Avenir 38, LPO Isère, and CPN Savoie for the data provided for this study, and to the two anonymous referees for the constructive comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cemagref, Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Research, Mountain Ecosystems Research Unit, 2 Rue de la Papeterie, 38402, Saint-Martin d’Hères, France

    Samuel Decout & Sandra Luque

  2. Laboratoire Population Environnement Développement, Equipe Ville Environnement Développement, Université Aix-Marseille 1, 3 Place Victor Hugo, 13331, Marseille, France

    Stéphanie Manel

  3. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, Equipe Génomique des Populations et Biodiversité, BP 53, 2233 Rue de la Piscine, 38041, Grenoble, France

    Stéphanie Manel & Claude Miaud

Authors
  1. Samuel Decout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphanie Manel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claude Miaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandra Luque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Luque.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Decout, S., Manel, S., Miaud, C. et al. Integrative approach for landscape-based graph connectivity analysis: a case study with the common frog (Rana temporaria) in human-dominated landscapes. Landscape Ecol 27, 267–279 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9694-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9694-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation