Abstract
The landscape configuration, the permeability of the matrix and the possibility of random dispersal movement of species are essential to robust modeling of the landscape connectivity. To represent this condition, we report a spatial model that integrates graph theory, circuit theory, metrics of habitat availability and includes a temporal aspect by looking into land use changes over time. We identify the possibilities of movement of species site-to-site over time in the landscape, taking into account not only the importance of sites of focal habitats, but also the potential relevance of the matrix for landscape connectivity. The modeling was applied to two rural landscapes, considering three functional groups of mammals with different resource-feeding and habitat requirements. The model indicated multiple and new dispersal non-linear potential routes to each group of mammals, considering its specific requirement to obtain resources and its movement pattern on the agricultural matrix.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6
Almeida LB, Queirolo D, Beisiegel BM, Oliveira TG (2013) Avaliação do estado de conservação do Gato-mourisco Puma yagouaroundi (É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803) no Brasil. Biodivers Brasileira 3:99–106
Avon C, Bergès L (2016) Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances. Landsc Ecol 31(7):1551–1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0336-8
Ayram CAC, Mendoza ME, Salicrup DRP, Granados EL (2014) Identifying potential conservation areas in the Cuitzeo Lake basin, Mexico by multitemporal analysis of landscape connectivity. J Nat Conserv 22(5):424–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.03.010
Ayram CAC, Mendoza ME, Etter A, Salicrup DRP (2016) Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: A review of recent studies and applications. Prog Phys Geogr 40:7–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315598713
Banks-Leite C, Pardini R, Tambosi LR et al. (2014) Using ecological thresholds to evaluate the costs and benefits of set-asides in a biodiversity hotspot. Science 345(6200):1041–1045. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255768
Beca G, Vancine MH, Carvalho CS, Pedrosa F, Alves RSC, Buscariol D, Peres CA, Ribeiro MC, Galetti M (2017) High mammal species turnover in forest patches immersed in biofuel plantations. Biol Conserv 210:352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.033
Berg Å, Wretenberg J, Żmihorski M, Hiron M, Pärt T (2015) Linking occurrence and changes in local abundance of farmland bird species to landscape composition and land-use changes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 204:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.019
Bennett AF (2003) Linkages in the landscape: The role of corridors and connectivity in wildlife conservation, 2nd edn. UK: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, p 254
Blazquez-Cabrera S, Bodin Ö, Saura S (2014) Indicators of the impacts of habitat loss on connectivity and related conservation priorities: Do they change when habitat patches are defined at different scales. Ecol Indic 45:704–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.05.028
Brady MJ, McAlpine CA, Possingham HP, Miller CJ, Baxter GS (2011) Matrix is important for mammals in landscapes with small amounts of native forest habitat. Landsc Ecol 26:617–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9602-6
Brodie JD, Giordano AJ, Ambu L (2015) Differential responses of large mammals to logging and edge effects. Mamm Biol 80:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2014.06.001
Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison‐shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2(10):529–536. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0529:ACGTCM]2.0.CO;2
Cornelius C, Awade M, Cândia-Gallardo C, Sieving KE, Metzger JP (2017) Habitat fragmentation drives inter-population variation in dispersal behavior in a Neotropical rainforest bird. Perspect Ecol Conserv 15(1):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2017.02.002
Crouzeilles R, Prevedello JA, Figueiredo MDSL, Lorini ML, Grelle CEV (2014) The effects of the number, size and isolation of patches along a gradient of native vegetation cover: How can we increment habitat availability? Landsc Ecol 29(3):479–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9978-6
Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio E et al. (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. IPBES, Brazil, p 39
Dilts TE, Weisberg PJ, Leitner P, Matocq MD, Inman RD, Nussear KE, Esque TC (2016) Multiscale connectivity and graph theory highlight critical areas for conservation under climate change. Ecol Appl 26(4):1223–1237. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0925
Doherty TS, Hays GC, Driscoll DA (2021) Human disturbance causes widespread disruption of animal movement. Nat Ecol Evol 5:513–519. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01380-1
Dotta G, Verdade LM (2011) Medium to large-sized mammals in agricultural landscapes of south-eastern Brazil. Mammalia 75:345–352. https://doi.org/10.1515/MAMM.2011.049
Estavillo C, Pardini R, da Rocha PLB (2013) Forest loss and the biodiversity threshold: an evaluation considering species habitat requirements and the use of matrix habitats. PLoS One 8(12):e82369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082369
Etherington TR, Holland EP (2013) Least-cost path length versus accumulated-cost as connectivity measures. Landsc Ecol 28:1223–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9880-2
Fahrig L (2013) Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: The habitat amount hypothesis. J Biogeogr 40:1649–1663
Gardiner R, Bain G, Hamer R, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2018) Habitat amount and quality, not patch size, determine persistence of a woodland-dependent mammal in an agricultural landscape. Landsc Ecol 33:1837–1849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0722-0
Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard Jr RO et al. (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00080-4
Gurrutxaga M, Rubio L, 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) Landsc Urban Plan 101:310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.036
Gurrutxaga M (2014) Categorización de corredores ecológicos en función de su contribución a la conectividad de la red Natura 2000. Implicaciones para la ordenación del territorio. GeoFocus Rev Inter Cienc y Tecnolía de la Infón Geográfica 14:68–84
Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: Ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego-London, p 512
Hanski I (2015) Habitat fragmentation and species richness. J Biogeogr 42:989–993
Jackson ND, Fahrig L (2016) Habitat amount, not habitat configuration, best predicts population genetic structure in fragmented landscapes. Landsc Ecol 31:951–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0313-2
Jenness J (2016) ArcGis Tools. Jenness Enterprises. http://www.jennessent.com/arcgis/arcgis_extensions.htm. Accessed 25 Jan 2016
Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N et al. (2004) The metacommunity concept: A framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00608.x
Lechner AM, Doerr V, Harris RM, Doerr E, Lefroy EC (2015) A framework for incorporating fine-scale dispersal behaviour into biodiversity conservation planning. Landsc Urban Plan 141:11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.008
Liu S, Dong Y, Deng L et al. (2014) Forest fragmentation and landscape connectivity change associated with road network extension and city expansion: A case study in the Lancang River Valley. Ecol Indic 36:160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.018
Magioli M, De Barros KMPM, Setz EZF et al. (2016) Connectivity maintain mammal assemblages functional diversity within agricultural and fragmented landscapes. Eur J Wildl Res 62:431–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-016-1017-x
Magioli M, Moreira MZ, Fonseca RCB et al. (2019) Human-modified landscapes alter mammal resource and habitat use and trophic structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:18466–18472. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904384116
Magioli M, Rios E, Benchimol M et al. (2021) The role of protected and unprotected forest remnants for mammal conservation in a megadiverse Neotropical hotspot. Biol Conserv 259:109–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109173
McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology and conservation. Ecology 10:2712–2724. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1861.1
McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2014) Circuitscape 4 User Guide. The Nature Conservancy. Santa Barbara: The University of California. http://www.circuitscape.org. Acessed 1 Feb 2016
Mui AB, Caverhill B, Johnson B, Fortin MJ, He Y (2017) Using multiple metrics to estimate seasonal landscape connectivity for Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in a fragmented landscape. Landsc ecol 32(3):531–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0456-9
Neel MC (2008) Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemic plant species Astragalus albens (Fabaceae) Biol Conserv 14(4):938–955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.031
Pardini R, de Souza SM, Braga-Neto R, Metzger JP (2005) The role of forest structure, fragment size and corridors in maintaining small mammal abundance and diversity in an Atlantic forest landscape. Biol conserv 124(2):253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.033
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. Landsc Ecol 21:959–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z
Pietsch M (2018) Contribution of connectivity metrics to the assessment of biodiversity—Some methodological considerations to improve landscape planning. Ecol Indic 94:116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.052
Reale R, Fonseca RCB, Uieda W (2014) Medium and large-sized mammals in a private reserve of natural heritage in the municipality of Jaú, São Paulo, Brazil. Check List 10:997–1004. https://doi.org/10.15560/10.5.997
Sahraoui Y, Foltête JC, Clauzel C (2017) A multi-species approach for assessing the impact of land-cover changes on landscape connectivity. Landsc Ecol 32:1819–1835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0551-6
Santos JS (2014) Influência da permeabilidade da matriz e da heterogeneidade da paisagem na conservação da biodiversidade de mamíferos terrestres. Doctoral thesis, National Institute for Space Research, Brazil
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005
Saura S, Rubio L (2010) A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33:523–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.05.005
Silva LG, Ribeiro MC, Hasui E, da Costa CA, da Cunha RGT (2015) Patch size, functional isolation, visibility and matrix permeability influences Neotropical primate occurrence within highly fragmented landscapes. PLoS One 10(2):e0114025. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114025
Tambosi LR, Martensen AC, Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP (2014) A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on habitat amount and landscape connectivity. Restor Ecol 22:169–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12049
Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: A graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218
Villard MA, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: A conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51:309–318
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Marjorie M Guarenghi, Arnaldo Walter, Methodology: Marjorie M Guarenghi; Formal analysis and investigation: Marjorie M Guarenghi, Rozely F dos Santos, Arnaldo Walter; Writing - original draft preparation: Marjorie M Guarenghi, Rozely F dos Santos, Arnaldo Walter; Writing - review and editing: Arnaldo Walter, Rozely F dos Santos; Supervision: Arnaldo Walter, Rozely F dos Santos.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Guarenghi, M.M., Walter, A. & dos Santos, R.F. Integrating Habitat Availability, Permeability, and Configuration in a Model of Landscape Connectivity: The Contribution of Habitat’s Site-to-Site. Environmental Management 71, 998–1010 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01783-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01783-9