Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 2421–2433 | Cite as

Mapping landscape connectivity for large spatial extents

  • Erin L. KoenEmail author
  • E. Hance Ellington
  • Jeff Bowman
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Mapping landscape connectivity across large spatial extents is an important component of ecological reserve network designs and species recovery plans. It can, however, be limited by computational power. One way to overcome this problem is to split the study area into smaller tiles, map landscape connectivity within each of those tiles, and then merge tiles back together to form composite connectivity maps.

Objectives

We tested the effects of landscape structure on the accuracy of composite landscape connectivity maps created from tiles and tested two methods to increase this accuracy.

Methods

We correlated replicate, composite current density maps with untiled maps. We tested whether our findings depended on the composition of the landscape by testing maps with corridors, barriers, different mixtures of high- and low-cost habitat, and road networks.

Results

We found that composite current density maps underestimated large-scale connectivity and overestimated the contribution of small habitat patches to overall connectivity. These biases became more pronounced as the tiles became relatively smaller. Landscapes with corridors or barriers were particularly sensitive. We increased the accuracy of tiled maps by increasing pixel size or by averaging several maps created using a “moving window” approach.

Conclusions

There is a trade-off between tile size and pixel size when modelling connectivity across large spatial extents. We suggest using the largest tile size possible when tiling is necessary, in conjunction with increased pixel size and a moving window method to increase accuracy of the composite current density maps.

Keywords

Circuitscape Connectivity Moving window Tile size Tiling Resolution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Wildlife Research and Monitoring Section of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for financial and logistic support and R Marrotte for advice on making our script more efficient. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose thoughtful comments have improved our manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_897_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (970 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 969 kb)

References

  1. Anantharaman R, Hall KR, Shah VB, Edelman A (2019) Circuitscape in Julia: high performance connectivity modelling to support conservation decisions. http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03542
  2. Anderson MG, Clark M, Olivero Sheldon A (2012) Resilient sites for terrestrial conservation in the northeast and mid-Atlantic region. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, p 168Google Scholar
  3. Berger J (2004) The last mile: how to sustain long-distance migration in mammals. Conserv Biol 18:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer HL (2012) Geospatial modelling environment. Version 0.7.2.0. http://www.spatialecology.com/gme
  5. Bivand R, Keitt T, Rowlingson B (2017) rgdal: bindings for the geospatial data abstraction library. R package version 1.2-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal
  6. Bivand R, Rundel C (2017) rgeos: interface to geometry engine - Open Source (GEOS). R package version 0.3-23. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgeos
  7. Bolger DT, Newmark WD, Morrison TA, Doak DF (2008) The need for integrative approaches to understand and conserve migratory ungulates. Ecol Lett 11:63–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman J, Cordes C (2015) Landscape connectivity in the Great Lakes basin. Figshare.  https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1471658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briggs SV (2009) Priorities and paradigms: directions in threatened species recovery. Conserv Lett 2:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll C, Rohlf DJ, Li Y-W, Hartl B, Phillips MK, Noss RF (2015) Connectivity conservation and endangered species recovery: a study in the challenges of defining conservation-reliant species. Conserv Lett 8:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) (2006) Connectivity conservation (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Dickson BG, Albano CM, Anantharaman R, Beier P, Fargione J, Graves TA, Gray ME, Hall KR, Lawler JJ, Leonard PB, Littlefield CE (2019) Circuit-theory applications to connectivity science and conservation. Conserv Biol 33(2):239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doyle PG, Snell JL (1984) Random walks and electric networks. Mathematical Association of America, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Drake JC, Griffis-Kyle K, McIntyre NE (2017) Using nested connectivity models to resolve management conflicts of isolated water networks in the Sonoran Desert. Ecosphere 8(1):e01647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Environment Canada (2012) Recovery strategy for the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa, p 138Google Scholar
  16. Hijmans RJ (2016) raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 2.5-8. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster
  17. Koen EL, Garroway CJ, Wilson PJ, Bowman J (2010) The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PLoS ONE 5:e11785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koen EL, Bowman J, Sadowski C, Walpole AA (2014) Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multispecies linkage maps. Methods Ecol Evol 5:626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koen EL, Tosa MI, Nielsen CK, Schauber EM (2017) Does landscape connectivity shape local and global social network structure in white-tailed deer? PLoS ONE 12:e0173570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard PB, Duffy EB, Baldwin RF, McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK (2017) GFLOW: software for modelling circuit theory-based connectivity at any scale. Methods Ecol Evol 8:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leutner B, Horning H, Schwalb-Willmann J (2018) RStoolbox: tools for remote sensing data analysis. R package version 0.2.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RStoolbox
  22. Marrotte RR, Bowman J, Brown MG, Cordes C, Morris KY, Prentice MB, Wilson PJ (2017) Multi-species genetic connectivity in a terrestrial habitat network. Mov Ecol 5:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McClure ML, Hansen AJ, Inman RM (2016) Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data. Landscape Ecol 31:1419–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. PNAS 104:19885–19890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McRae BH, Shah V, Mohapatra T (2013) Circuitscape 4.0 user guide. The Nature Conservancy. http://www.circuitscape.org
  27. McRae BH, Shah VB, Edelman A (2016) Circuitscape: modeling landscape connectivity to promote conservation and human health. The Nature Conservancy, 14Google Scholar
  28. MNRF (1998) Introduction to the Ontario Land Cover Data Base: First edition. Land classification data [computer file]. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  29. MNRF (2007) Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS). Land classification data [computer file]. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  30. MNRF (2010) Ontario Road Network. Land classification data [computer file]. Land Information Ontario Database. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  31. MNRF (2011) Ontario Hydro Network. Land classification data [computer file]. Land Information Ontario Database. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  32. MNRF (2013) Built-up area. Land classification data [computer file]. Land Information Ontario Database. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  33. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nova Scotia Lynx Recovery Team (2006) Provincial recovery plan for the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Nova Scotia, p 32Google Scholar
  35. O’Grady JJ, Brook BW, Reed DH, Ballou JD, Tonkyn DW, Frankham R (2006) Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biol Conserv 133:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Olds AD, Connolly RM, Pitt KA, Maxwell PS (2012) Habitat connectivity improves reserve performance. Conserv Lett 5:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Osipova L, Okello MM, Njumbi SJ, Ngene S, Western D, Hayward MW, Balkenhol N (2018) Fencing solves human-wildlife conflict locally but shifts problems elsewhere: a case study using functional connectivity modelling of the African elephant. J Appl Ecol 55:2673–2684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pebesma EJ, Bivand R (2005) Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5:9–13Google Scholar
  39. Pelletier D, Clark M, Anderson MG, Rayfield B, Wulder MA, Cardille JA (2014) Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity. PLoS ONE 9:e84135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pelletier D, Lapointe M-É, Wulder MA, White JC, Cardille JA (2017) Forest connectivity regions of Canada using circuit theory and image analysis. PLoS ONE 12:e0169428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  42. Seidler RG, Long RA, Berger J, Bergen S, Beckmann JP (2015) Identifying impediments to long-distance mammal migrations. Conserv Biol 29:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shirk AJ, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rice CG, Warheit KI (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19:3603–3619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walpole AA, Bowman J, Murray DL, Wilson PJ (2012) Functional connectivity of lynx at their southern range periphery in Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecol 27:761–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wildlife Research & Monitoring Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  2. 2.School of Environment and Natural ResourcesOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations