Landscape Ecology

, Volume 31, Issue 7, pp 1419–1432 | Cite as

Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data

  • Meredith L. McClure
  • Andrew J. Hansen
  • Robert M. Inman
Research Article



Connectivity has become a top conservation priority in response to landscape fragmentation. Many methods have been developed to identify areas of the landscape with high potential connectivity for wildlife movement. However, each makes different assumptions that may produce different predictions, and few comparative tests against empirical movement data are available.


We compared predictive performance of the most-used connectivity models, cost-distance and circuit theory models. We hypothesized that cost-distance would better predict elk migration paths, while circuit theory would better predict wolverine dispersal paths, due to alignment of the methods’ assumptions with the movement ecology of each process.


We used each model to predict elk migration paths and wolverine dispersal paths in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, then used telemetry data collected from actual movements to assess predictive performance. Methods for validating connectivity models against empirical data have not been standardized, thus we applied and compared four alternative methods.


Our findings generally supported our hypotheses. Circuit theory models consistently predicted wolverine dispersal paths better than cost-distance, though cost-distance models predicted elk migration paths only slightly better than circuit theory. In most cases, our four validation methods supported similar conclusions, but provided complementary perspectives.


We reiterate suggestions that alignment of connectivity model assumptions with focal species movement ecology is an important consideration when selecting a modeling approach for conservation practice. Additional comparative tests are needed to better understand how relative model performance may vary across species, movement processes, and landscapes, and what this means for effective connectivity conservation.


Cervus elaphus Circuit theory Cost-distance Gulo gulo Least cost path Wildlife corridor 



This work was supported by a Montana Space Grant Consortium Fellowship to M. McClure. The funding had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors wish to thank J. Gude and K. Proffitt for providing elk GPS collar data; S. Cherry, S. Creel, J. Hilty, and D. Theobald for guidance and advice; and J. Williams for assistance with figure layouts. We are grateful to A. Carlson, C. Davis, N. Piekielek, and M. Vance for feedback on drafts of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2016_347_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2489 kb)


  1. Aarts G, MacKenzie M, McConnell B, Fedak M, Matthiopoulos J (2008) Estimating space-use and habitat preference from wildlife telemetry data. Ecography 31:140–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 64:233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ament RA, McGowen P, McClure ML, Rutherford A, Ellis C, Grebenc J (2014) Highway mitigation for wildlife in Northwest Montana. Sonoran Institute, Bozeman. Google Scholar
  4. Bates W, Jones A (2007) Least-cost corridor analysis for evaluation of lynx habitat connectivity in the Middle Rockies. The Nature Conservancy, Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyce M (1991) Migratory behavior and management of elk (Cervus elaphus). Appl Anim Behav Sci 29:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braaker SB, Moretti MM, Boesch RB, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Bontadina F (2014) Assessing habitat connectivity for ground-dwelling animals in an urban environment. Ecol Appl 24:1583–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chetkiewicz C-LB, Boyce MS (2009) Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors. J Appl Ecol 46:1036–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clevenger A, Wierzchowski J (2002) GIS-generated, expert-based models for Identifying Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Planning Mitigation Passages. Conserv Biol 16:503–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook J (2002) Nutrition and food. In: Toweill D, Thomas J (eds) North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., pp 259–349Google Scholar
  10. Copeland JP, McKelvey KS, Aubry KB, Landa A, Persson J, Inman RM, Krebs J, Lofroth E, Golden H, Squires JR, Magoun A, Schwartz MK, Wilmot J, Copeland CL, Yates RE, Kojola I, May R (2010) The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Can J Zool 88:233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coulon A, Morellet N, Goulard M, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Hewison AJM (2008) Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function. Landscape Ecol 23:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Craighead L, Craighead A, Roberts EA (2001) Bozeman Pass wildlife linkage and highway safety study. Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 405–422Google Scholar
  13. Cushman S, Lewis J, Landguth E (2014) Why did the bear cross the road? Comparing the performance of multiple resistance surfaces and connectivity modeling methods. Diversity 6:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2012) Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Ecol Modell 231:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalke PD, Beeman RD, Kindel FJ, Robel RJ, Williams TR (1965) Seasonal movements of elk in the Selway River drainage, Idaho. J Wildl Manag 29:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Despain D (1990) Yellowstone vegetation: consequences of environment and history in a natural setting. Roberts Rinehard Publishers Inc, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  17. Dingle H (1996) Migration: the biology of life on the move. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Driezen K, Adriaensen F, Rondinini C, Doncaster CP, Matthysen E (2007) Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: a case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecol Model 209:314–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankel OH, Soule ME (1981) Nature reserves. In: Frankel OH, Soule ME (eds) Conservation and evolution. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 97–132Google Scholar
  20. Grigg JL (2007) Gradients of predation risk affect distribution and migration of a large herbivore. Montana State University, ThesisGoogle Scholar
  21. Heller NE, Zavaleta ES (2009) Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv 142:14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ims RA (1995) Movement patterns related to spatial structures. Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 85–109Google Scholar
  23. Inman RM, Brock BL, Inman KH, Sartorius SS, Aber BC, Giddings B, Cain SL, Orme ML, Fredrick JA, Oakleaf BJ, Alt KL, Odell E, Chapron G (2013) Developing priorities for metapopulation conservation at the landscape scale: wolverines in the Western United States. Biol Conserv 166:276–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inman RM, Packila ML, Inman KH, Aber B, Spence R, McCauley D (2009) Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program Progress Report. Ennis, MontanaGoogle Scholar
  25. Inman RM, Packila ML, Inman KH, McCue AJ, White GC, Persson J, Aber BC, Orme ML, Alt KL, Cain SL, Fredrick JA, Oakleaf BJ, Sartorius SS (2012) Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. J Wildl Manag 76:778–792Google Scholar
  26. Irwin L (2002) Migration. In: Toweill DE, Thomas JW (eds) North American elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., pp 493–513Google Scholar
  27. Keating K, Cherry S (2004) use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat-selection studies. J Wildl Manag 68:774–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koen EL, Bowman J, Sadowski C, Walpole AA (2014) Landscape connectivity for wildlife: development and validation of multi-species linkage maps. Methods Ecol Evol 5(7):626–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koen EL, Bowman J, Walpole AA (2012) The effect of cost surface parameterization on landscape resistance estimates. Mol Ecol Resour 12:686–696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Krosby M, Breckheimer I, Pierce DJ, Singleton PH, Hall SA, Halupka KC, Gaines WL, Long RA, McRae BH, Cosentino BL, Schuett-Hames JP (2015) Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning. Landscape Ecol 30(10):2121–2132Google Scholar
  31. LaPoint S, Gallery P, Wikelski M, Kays R (2013) Animal behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape Ecol 28:1615–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larue MA, Nielsen CK (2008) Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecol Model 212:372–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lohr SL (2010) Sampling: Design and Analysis. Brooks/Cole, BostonGoogle Scholar
  34. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Perez T, Dominguez A, Saura S (2015) A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? Landscape Ecol 30(8):1405–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McRae B (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60:1551–1561CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McRae B, Dickson B, Keitt T, Shah V (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89:2712–2724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McRae B, Shah V (2009) Circuitscape user guide. University of California, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  38. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (2011) Montana Connectivity Project: a statewide analysis. Final report. Helena, MontanaGoogle Scholar
  39. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2007) Western Regional Climate Center. Historic temperature and precipitation data for Ennis, Montana, 1948–2006. Accessed Jan 2007
  40. Pearce JL, Boyce MS (2006) Modelling distribution and abundance with presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pelletier D, Clark M, Anderson MG, Rayfield B, Wulder M, Cardille JA (2014) Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity. PLoS ONE 9:e84135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Pinheiro J, Bates D, Debroy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2013) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-122.
  43. Poor EE, Loucks C, Jakes A, Urban DL (2012) Comparing habitat suitability and connectivity modeling methods for conserving pronghorn migrations. PLoS ONE 7:e49390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ (2010) Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landscape Ecol 25:1547–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  46. Rainey M (2012) Validating alternative methods of modeling wildlife corridors using relocation data from migrating elk and dispersing wolverines. Dissertation, Montana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2009) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sawyer H, Lindzey F, McWhirter D (2005) Mule deer and pronghorn migration in western Wyoming. Wildl Soc Bull 33:1266–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Skinner AMP (1925) Migration routes of elk in Yellowstone National Park. J Mammal 6:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Theobald DM, Reed SE, Fields K, Soulé M (2012) Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conserv Lett 5:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vangen KM, Persson J, Landa A, Andersen R, Segerstrom P (2001) Characteristics of dispersal in wolverines. Can J Zool 79:1641–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walker R, Craighead L (1997) Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. In: ESRI user conference, San Diego, pp 8–11Google Scholar
  54. Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (2010) Washington connected landscapes project: statewide analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia.
  55. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27(6):777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EcologyMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  2. 2.Center for Large Landscape ConservationBozemanUSA
  3. 3.Greater Yellowstone Wolverine ProgramWildlife Conservation SocietyEnnisUSA

Personalised recommendations