Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable?

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With growing interest in landscape connectivity, it is timely to ask what research has been done and what re mains to be done. I surveyed papers investigating landscape connectivity from 1985 to 2000. From these papers, I determined if connectivity had been treated as an independent or dependent variable, what connectivity metrics were used, and if the study took an empirical or modeling approach to studying connectivity. Most studies treated connectivity as an independent variable, despite how little we know about how landscape structure and organism movement behaviour interact to determine landscape connectivity. Structural measures of connectivity were more common than functional measures, particularly if connectivity was treated as an independent variable. Though there was a good balance between modeling and empirical approaches overall – studies dealing with connectivity as a dependent, functional variable were mainly modeling studies. Based on the research achieved thus far, fu ture landscape connectivity research should focus on: (1) elucidating the relationship between landscape struc ture, organism movement behaviour, and landscape connectivity (e.g., treating connectivity as a dependent variable), (2) determining the relationships between different measures of connectivity, particularly structural and functional measures, and (3) empirically testing model predictions regarding landscape connectivity.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler F.R. and Nuernberger B. 1994. Persistence in patchy irregular landscapes. Theoretical Population Biology 45: 41–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen H.P., Halle S. and Ims R.A. 1996a. Optimal width of movement corridors for root voles: not too narrow and not too wide. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen H.P., Hertzberg K. and Ims R.A. 1998. Space-use responses to habitat fragmentation and connectivity in the root vole Microtus oeconomus. Ecology 79: 1223–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen H.P. and Ims R.A. 2001. Dispersal in patchy vole populations: role of patch configuration, density dependence, and demography. Ecology 82: 2911–2926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreassen H.P., Ims R.A. and Stenseth N. C. 1996b. Discontinuous habitat corridors: effects on male root vole movements. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 555–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold G.W., Steven D.E., Weeldenburg J.R. and Smith E.A. 1993. Influences of remnant size, spacing pattern and connectivity on population boundaries and demography in Euros Macropus robustus living in a fragmented landscape. Biological Conservation 64: 219–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ault T.R. and Johnson C.R. 1998. Spatially and temporally predictable fish communities on coral-reefs. Ecological Monographs 68: 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baars M.A. 1979. Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. Oecologia 44: 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berggren A., Carlson A. and Kindvall O. 2001. The effect of landscape composition on colonization success, growth rate and dispersal in introduced bush-crickets Metrioptera roeseli. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 663–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnstad O.N., Andreassen H.P. and Ims R.A. 1998. Effects of habitat patchiness and connectivity on the spatial ecology of the root vole Microtus eoconomus. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker L., Brooker M. and Cale P. 1999. Animal dispersal in fragmented habitat: measuring habitat connectivity, corridor use, and dispersal mortality. Conservation Ecology 3: 4. Available from the Internet. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art4

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J.H. and Kodric-Brown A. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne D.R., Peles J.D. and Barrett G.W. 1999. Effects of landscape spatial structure on movement patterns of the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Landscape Ecology 14: 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Burel F. 1989. Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles spatial patterns in western France. Landscape Ecology 2: 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain D.H., Riiters K.H. and Orvis K. 1997. A multiscale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecology 12: 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charrier S., Petit S. and Burel F. 1997. Movements of Abax parallelepipedus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in woody habitats of a hedgerow network landscape - a radio-tracing study. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61: 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clergeau P. and Burel F. 1997. The role of spatiotemporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: an example in a bird distribution. Landscape and Urban Planning 38: 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge S.K. 2000. Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81: 2211–2226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge S.K. and Forman R.T.T. 1998. A conceptual-model of land conversion processes: predictions and evidence from a microlandscape experiment with grassland insects. Oikos 82: 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins R.J. and Barrett G.W. 1997. Effects of habitat fragmentation in meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) population dynamics in experimental landscape patches. Landscape Ecology 12: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson B.J. and Hubbard M.W. 2000. The influence of corridors on the movement behavior of individual Peromyscus polionotus in experimental landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demers M.N., Simpson J.W., Boerner R.E.J., Silva A., Berns L. and Artigas F. 1995. Fencerows, edges, and implications of changing connectivity illustrated by two contiguous Ohio landscapes. Conservation Biology 9: 1159–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak D.F., Marino P.C. and Kareiva P.M. 1992. Spatial scale mediates the influence of habitat fragmentation on dispersal success: implications for conservation. Theoretical Population Biology 41: 315–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L. and Merriam G. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66: 1762–1768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer A.H. and Parent A.H. 1997. Effects of the landscape on shorebird movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99: 698–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgibbon C.D. 1997. Small mammals in farm woodlands: the effects of habitat, isolation and surrounding land-use patterns. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 530–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R.H., O’Neill R.V., Turner M.G. and Dale V.H. 1989. Qunatifying scale-dependent effects of animal movement with simple percolation models. Landscape Ecology 3: 217–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez A., Lawton J.H., Gilbert F.S., Blackburn T.M. and Evans-Freke I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics, abundance and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281: 2045–2047.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin B.J. and Fahrig L. 2002a. Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin B.J. and Fahrig L. 2002b. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99: 552–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grashof-Bokdam C. 1997. Forest species in an agricultural landscape in the Netherlands: effects of habitat fragmentation. Journal of Vegetation Science 8: 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green D.G. 1994. Connectivity and complexity in landscapes and ecosystems. Pacific Conservation Biology 1: 194–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is state of the art? Ecosystems 1: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. and Parker G.R. 1992. Relationship between land-cover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology 7: 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad N. 2000. Corridor length and patch colonization by a butterfly, Junonia coenia. Conservation Biology 14: 738–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and meta-populations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87: 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. and Gilpin M. 1997. Metapopulation Dynamics: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press: San Diego, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L. 1991. Dispersal and connectivity in metapopulations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargis C.D., Bissonette J.A. and David J.L. 1998. The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 13: 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henein K. and Merriam G. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landscape Ecology 4: 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henein K., Wegner J. and Merriam G. 1998. Population effects of landscape model manipulation on two behaviourally different woodland small mammals. Oikos 81: 168–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzig A. L. 1995. Effects of population density on long-distance dispersal in the goldenrod beetle Trirhabda virgata. Ecology 76: 2044–2054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess G.R. 1996a. Disease in metapopulation models: implications for conservation. Ecology 77: 1617–1632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess G.R. 1996b. Linking extinction to connectivity and habitat destruction in metapopulation models. American Naturalist 148: 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjermann D.O. and Ims R.A. 1996. Landscape ecology of the wart-biter Decticus verrucivorus in a patchy landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 768–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs R.J. 1992. The role of corridors in conservation: solution or bandwagon? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 389–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hof J. and Flather C.H. 1996. Accounting for connectivity and spatial correlation in the optimal placement of wildlife habitat. Ecological Modelling 88: 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hof J. and Raphael M.G. 1997. Optimization of habitat placement - a case study of the Northern Spotted Owl in the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications 7: 1160–1169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson T.F. and Vankat J.L. 1998. Landscape structure and spread of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) in southwestern Ohio forest. American Midland Naturalist 139: 383–390.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Keitt T.H., Urban D.L. and Milne B.T. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology 1: 4. Available from the Internet. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozakiewicz M. 1995. Resource tracking in space and time. In: Hansson L., Fahrig L. and Merriam G. (eds), Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes, pp. 136–148. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laan R. and Verboom B. 1990. Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 54: 251–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavorel S., Gardner R.H. and O’Neill R.V. 1995. Dispersal of plants in hierarchically structured landscapes. Landscape Ecology 10: 277–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Coeur D., Baudry J. and Burel F. 1997. Field margins plant assemblages: variations partitioning between local and landscape factors. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecomte J. and Clobert J. 1996. Dispersal and connectivity in populations of the common lizard Lacerta vivipara: an experimental approach. Acta Oecologica 17: 585–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefkovitch L.P. and Fahrig L. 1985. Spatial characteristics of habitat patches and population survival. Ecological Modelling 30: 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liro A. and Szacki J. 1987. Movements of field mice Apodemus agrarius (Pallas) in a suburban mosaic of habitats. Oecologia 74: 438–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matter S.F. 1996. Interpatch movement of the red milkweed beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: individual responses to patch size and isolation. Oecologia 105: 447–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauremooto J.R., Wratten S.D., Worner S.P. and Fry G.L.A. 1995. Permeability of hedgerows to predatory carabid beetles. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 52: 141-148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. In: Brandt J. and Agger P. (eds), Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning (Vol. I), pp. 5–15. Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeuRuc, Roskilde, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G. 1991. Are corridors necessary for the movement of biota? In: Saunders D.A. and Hobbs R.J. (eds), Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors, pp. 406–407. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam G. 1994. Movement in spatially-divided populations: responses to landscape structure. In: Lidicker W.Z. (ed.), Landscape Approaches in Mammalian Ecology and Conservation, pp. 96–120. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger J.-P. 1997. Relationships between landscape structure and tree species diversity in tropical forests of South-East Brazil. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger J.-P. and Décamps H. 1997. The structural connectivity threshold: an hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecologica 18: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills L.S. 1995. Edge effects and isolation: red backed voles on forest remnants. Conservation Biology 9: 395–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paillat G. and Butet A. 1996. Spatial dynamics of the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) in a fragmented landscape. Acta Oecologica 17: 553–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit S. and Burel F. 1998a. Connectivity in fragmented populations: Abax parallelepipedus in a hedgerow network landscape. Comptes Rendus De L’Academie Des Sciences Serie III - Sciences De La Vie 321: 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petit S. and Burel F. 1998b. Effects of landscape dynamics on the metapopulation of a ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a hedgerow network. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 69: 243–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pither J. and Taylor P.D. 1998. An experimental assessment of landscape connectivity. Oikos 83: 166–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotnick R.E., Gardner R.H. and O’Neill R.V. 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology 8: 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter M.A. 1990. Movement of North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx australis mantelli) between forest remnants. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 14: 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddingius J. and den Boer P.J. 1970. Simulation experiments illustrating stabilization of animal numbers by spreading of risk. Oecologia 5: 240–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reunanen P., Monkkonen M. and Nikula A. 2000. Managing boreal forest landscapes for flying squirrels. Conservation Biology 14: 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhainds M. and Gries G. 1997. Adaptive significance of density-dependent ballooning by bagworm larvae, Metisa plana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Psychidae). Canadian Entomologist 129: 927–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijnsdorp A.D. 1980. Pattern of movement in and dispersal from a Dutch forest of Carabus problematicus Hbst. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 45: 274–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root K.V. 1998. Evaluating the effects of habitat quality, connectivity, and catastrophes on a threatened species. Ecological Applications 18: 854–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg D.K., Noon B.R., Megahan J.W. and Meslow E.C. 1998. Compensatory behaviour of Ensatina eschscholtzii in biological corridors: a field experiment. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruckelshaus M., Hartway C. and Kareiva P.M. 1997. Assessing the data requirements of spatially explicit dispersal models. Conservation Biology 11: 1298–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiegg K. 2000. Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Écoscience 7: 290–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schippers P., Verboom J., Knappen J.P. and van Apeldorn R.C. 1996. Dispersal and habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with GIS-based random walk model. Ecography 19: 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmigelow F.K.A., Machtans C.S. and Hannon S.J. 1997. Are boreal birds resilient to forest fragmentation? An experimental study of short-term community responses. Ecology 78: 1914–1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz C.B. and Crone E.E. 2001. Edge-mediated dispersal behavor in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82: 1879–1892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker N. 1996. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology 77: 1210–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetich M.A., Parker G.R. and Gustafson E.J. 1997. Spatial and temporal relationships of old-growth and secondary forests in Indiana, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17: 118–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I. and Tscharntke T. 1999. Effects of habitat isolation on pollinator communities and seed set. Oecologia 121: 432–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart J. and Lawes M.J. 1996. The effect of habitat patch connectivity on samango monkey (Cercophithecus mitis) metapopulation persistence. Ecological Modelling 93: 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szacki J. and Liro A. 1991. Movements of small mammals in the heterogeneous landscape. Landscape Ecology 5: 219–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout H.M. and Anderson R.A. 1997. A comparison of corridors and intrinsic connectivity to promote dispersal in transient successional landscapes. Conservation Biology 11: 620–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. 1997. Modelling individual movements in heterogeneous landscapes: potentials of a new approach. Ecological Modelling 103: 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology 16: 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. and Fahrig L. 2000a. How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecology 15: 633–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. and Fahrig L. 2000b. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90: 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis J. M.J. and French D.R. 2000. Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox. Ecology Letters 3: 163–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turchin P., Odendaal F.J. and Rausher M.D. 1991. Quantifying insect movement in the field. Environmental Entomology 20: 955–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., O’Neill R.V., Krummel J.R., Gardner R.H. and Milne B.T. 1989. Effects of changing spatial scale on analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 4: 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Langevelde F. 2000. Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23: 614–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallin H. and Ekbom B.S. 1988. Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: a field tracing study. Oecologia 77: 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner J.F. and Merriam G. 1979. Movements by birds and small mammals between a wood and adjoining farmland habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 349–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens J.A., Schooley R.L. and Weeks Jr. R.D. 1997. Patchy landscapes and animal movements: do beetles percolate? Oikos 78: 257–264.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • With K.A., Cadaret S.J. and Davis C. 1999. Movement responses to patch structure in experimental fractal landscapes. Ecology 80: 1340–1353.

    Google Scholar 

  • With K.A. and Crist T.O. 1995. Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76: 2446–2459.

    Google Scholar 

  • With K.A., Gardner R.H. and Turner M.G. 1997. Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78: 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • With K.A. and King A.W. 1999. Dispersal success on fractal landscapes: a consequence of lacunarity thresholds. Landscape Ecology 14: 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeomans S.R. 1995. Water-finding in adult turtles: random search or oriented behaviour? Animal Behaviour 49: 977–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabel J. and Tscharntke T. 1998. Does fragmentation of Urtica habitats affect phytophagous and predatory insects differentially? Oecologia 116: 419–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollner P.A. and Lima S.L. 1997. Landscape-level perceptual abilities in white-footed mice: perceptual range and the detection of forested habitat. Oikos 80: 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Brett J. Goodwin

    Present address: Biology Department, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB (, 65 Sharon Turnpike, Millbrook, NY, USA, 12545-0129

    Brett J. Goodwin

Authors
  1. Brett J. Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goodwin, B.J. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable?. Landscape Ecol 18, 687–699 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000004184.03500.a8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000004184.03500.a8

Search

Navigation