Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 7, pp 951–967 | Cite as

Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity?

Research Article


Graph-theoretic connectivity analyses have received much attention in connectivity evaluation during the last few years. Here, we explore the underlying conceptual differences of various graph-theoretic connectivity measures. Based on connectivity analyses from three reserve networks in forested landscapes in Central Finland, we illustrate how these conceptual differences cause inconsistent connectivity evaluations at both the landscape and patch level. Our results also illustrate how the characteristics of the networks (patch density) may affect the performance of the different measures. Many of the connectivity measures react to changes in habitat connectivity in an ecologically undesirable manner. Patch prioritisations based on a node removal analysis were sensitive to the connectivity measure they were based on. The patch prioritisations derived from different measures showed a disparity in terms of how much weight they put on patch size versus patch location and how they value patch location. Although graphs operate at the interface of structure and function, there is still much to do for incorporating the inferred ecological process into graph structures and analyses. If graph analyses are going to be used for real-world management and conservation purposes, a more thorough understanding of the caveats and justifications of the graph-theoretic connectivity measures will be needed.


Functional connectivity Graph theory Reserve network Component Patch prioritisation 



This research was started as part of The Finnish Environmental Cluster Research Programme “Talousmetsät, pienialaiset suojelukohteet ja suojelualueet monimuotoisuuden suojelussa: Integroitu ekologinen vaikuttavuus ja kustannustehokkuus.” The research was partially funded by Kone Foundation as a grant (to AL). We are also grateful to the Academy of Finland for funding (project #7115560, to MM). We thank the Forest and Park Service, the Regional Forestry Centre in Central Finland, the Regional Council, UPM Kymmene, and the Regional Environment Centre for providing data for our study. Pasi Reunanen helped us in network analyses conducted with the SELES program.


  1. Andersson E, Bodin O (2009) Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andren H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahrig L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bodin Ö, Saura S (2010) Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecol Model 221:2393–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borgatti SP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Soc Netw 27:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borgatti SP (2006) Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Comput Math Organ Theory 12:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bunn A, Urban D, Keitt T (2000) Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. J Environ Manag 59:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castellon TD, Sieving KE (2007) Patch network criteria for dispersal-limited endemic birds of South American temperate rain forest. Ecol Appl 17:2152–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Estrada E, Bodin O (2008) Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol Appl 18:1810–1825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahrig L (1997) Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. J Wildl Manag 61:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv Biol 8:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fall A, Fall J (2001) A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecol Model 141:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fall A, Fortin M, Manseau M, O’Brien D (2007) Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity. Ecosystems 10:448–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrari J, Lookingbill T (2009) Initial conditions and their effect on invasion velocity across heterogeneous landscapes. Biol Invasions 11:1247–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrari J, Lookingbill T, Neel M (2007) Two measures of landscape-graph connectivity: assessment across gradients in area and configuration. Landscape Ecol 22:1315–1323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuller T, Munguia M, Mayfield M, Sanchez-Cordero V, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating connectivity into conservation planning: a multi-criteria case study from central Mexico. Biol Conserv 133:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner R, Milne B, Turnei M, O’Neill R (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecol 18:687–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross JL, Yellen J (2006) Graph theory and its applications. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordán F, Báldi A, Orci K, Rácz I, Varga Z (2003) Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecol 18:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keitt T, Urban D, Milne B (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol 1:4Google Scholar
  25. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  26. Laita A, Mönkkönen M, Kotiaho JS (2010) Woodland key habitats evaluated as part of a functional reserve network. Biol Conserv 143:1212–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20:427–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matisziw T, Murray A (2008) Connectivity change in habitat networks. Landscape Ecol 24:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19885–19890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007a) Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecol Appl 17:1771–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Minor ES, Urban DL (2007b) A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conserv Biol 22:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minor ES, Tessel SM, Engelhardt KAM, Lookingbill TR (2009) The role of landscape connectivity in assembling exotic plant communities: a network analysis. Ecology 90:1802–1809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mönkkönen M, Reunanen P (1999) On critical thresholds in landscape connectivity: a management perspective. Oikos 84:302–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Brien D, Manseau M, Fall A, Fortin M (2006) Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biol Conserv 130:70–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 21:959–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 127:23–31Google Scholar
  39. Pinto N, Keitt T (2009) Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach. Landscape Ecol 24:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rothley KD, Rae C (2005) Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environ Model Assess 10:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. Landscape Urban Plan 83:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 33:523–537Google Scholar
  43. 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 24:135–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stauffer D (1987) Introduction to percolation theory. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000a) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000b) How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecol 15:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95:152–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Urban D, Keitt T (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12:260–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Langevelde F (2000) Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 23:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiegand T, Revilla E, Moloney KA (2005) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population dynamics. Conserv Biol 19:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76:2446–2459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. With KA, King AW (1997) The use and misuse of neutral landscape models in ecology. Oikos 79:219–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations