Theoretical Ecology

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 95–109 | Cite as

Generalizing matrix structure affects the identification of least-cost paths and patch connectivity

ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Understanding and assessing landscape connectivity is often a primary goal when studying patchy or spatially structured populations. It is commonly accepted that the matrix plays a role in determining connectivity; however, it is not clear how the process of assessing connectivity is impacted by different ways in which the matrix may be represented, particularly if matrix structure is generalized to expedite analysis. We conducted a controlled experiment using computer simulations to evaluate the impact of increasing levels of matrix generalization on connectivity assessment using a constant arrangement of habitat patches. We varied matrix generalization for six simulated landscape patterns by adjusting the number of classes and level of pattern grain in 16 ways to yield sets of landscapes for which the matrix ranged from not generalized (i.e., heterogeneous) to completely generalized (i.e., homogeneous) while habitat placement was held constant. Least-cost paths were calculated for each landscape, and a spatial interaction model (SIM) was implemented to model the counts of patch inflows (immigration) and pairwise exchange. Applying a SIM allowed us to generate absolute outputs and explicitly compare the effect of changes to matrix generalization on connectivity. We found that both assessment of connections (i.e., measured distance and spatial delineation of least-cost paths) and patch inflows/pairwise exchange were highly sensitive to matrix generalization and that effects were inconsistent and unpredictable across the range of matrix representations, especially when estimating connectivity for individual patches. We conclude that matrix pattern may have an underappreciated effect on connectivity and that least-cost path delineation and connectivity assessment may be very sensitive to generalizations of the matrix. We suggest that sensitivity analysis of the matrix representation should be performed when conducting connectivity analyses.

Keywords

Population connectivity Matrix heterogeneity Matrix generalization Least-cost paths Spatial interaction model Patchiness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments, suggestions, and helpful feedback on a previous version of this manuscript.

References

  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G et al (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64(4):233–247CrossRefGoogle 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(3):355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baguette M, Blanchet S, Legrand D, Stevens VM, Turlure C (2013) Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol Rev 88(2):310–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85(10):2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaudry F, deMaynadier PG, Hunter ML Jr (2008) Identifying road mortality threat at multiple spatial scales for semi-aquatic turtles. Biol Conserv 141(10):2550–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL (2009) Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl 19(8):2067–2077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86(4):1023–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landsc Ecol 18(1):17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bossenbroek JM, Kraft CE, Nekola JC (2001) Prediction of long-distance dispersal using gravity models: zebra mussel invasion of inland lakes. Ecol Appl 11(6):1778–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bossenbroek JM, Johnson LE, Peters B, Lodge DM (2007) Forecasting the expansion of zebra mussels in the United States. Conserv Biol 21(3):800–810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2(10):529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattarino L, McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR (2013) The consequences of interactions between dispersal distance and resolution of habitat clustering for dispersal success. Landsc Ecol 28(7):1321–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collinge SK, Palmer TM (2002) The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landsc Ecol 17(7):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooley HS, Wielgus RB, Koehler G, Maletzke B (2009) Source populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and emigration in a lightly hunted population. Anim Conserv 12(4):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:3592–3602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cushman SA, McRae B, Adriaensen F, Beier P, Shirley M, Zeller K (2013) Biological corridors and connectivity. In: Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (eds) Key topics in conservation biology 2. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, pp 384–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dale VH, Gardner RH (1987) Assessing regional impacts of growth declines using a forest succession model. J Environ Manag 24(1):83–93Google Scholar
  19. Driscoll DA, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28(10):605–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Epperson BK, McRae BH, Scribner K, Cushman SA, Rosenberg MS, Fortin M-J, James PMA, Murphy M, Manel S, Legendre P, Dale MRT (2010) Utility of computer simulations in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:3549–3564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Eycott AE, Stewart GB, Buyung-Ali LM, Bowler DE, Watts K, Pullin AS (2012) A meta-analysis on the impact of different matrix structures on species movement rates. Landsc Ecol 27(9):1263–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fahrig L (1991) Simulation methods for developing general landscape- level hypotheses of single species dynamics. In: Turner MG, Gardner RH (eds) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 417–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fahrig L (2007) Landscape heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–91Google Scholar
  24. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66(6):1762–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer M (2006) Spatial analysis and geocomputation. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Fotheringham AS, O’Kelly ME (1989) Spatial interaction models: formulations and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner RH, Gustafson EJ (2004) Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 171(4):339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99(3):552–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77(1):94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Iosif R (2012) Railroad-Associated Mortality Hot Spots for A Population of Romanian Hermann’s Tortoise (Testudo Hermanni Boettgeri): A Gravity Model for Railroad-Segment Analysis. Procedia Environmental Sciences 14:123–131Google Scholar
  32. Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanagaraj R, Wiegand T, Kramer-Schadt S, Goyal SP (2013) Using individual-based movement models to assess inter-patch connectivity for large carnivores in fragmented landscapes. Biol Conserv 167:298–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23(8):879–890Google Scholar
  35. King AW, With KA (2002) Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecol Model 147(1):23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kool JT, Paris CB, Barber PH, Cowen RK (2011) Connectivity and the development of population genetic structure in Indo-West Pacific coral reef communities. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20(5):695–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol 28(2):165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35 (1):9-14Google Scholar
  39. Lechner AM, Reinke KJ, Wang Y, Bastin L (2013) Interactions between landcover pattern and geospatial processing methods: effects on landscape metrics and classification accuracy. Ecol Complex 15:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20(2):427–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Luque S, Saura S, Fortin M-J (2012) Landscape connectivity analysis for conservation: insights from combining new methods with ecological and genetic data PREFACE. Landsc Ecol 27(2):153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89(10):2712–2724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48(6):1543–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83(4):1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2004) Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? Oikos 105(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy MA, Dezzani R, Pilliod DS, Storfer A (2010) Landscape genetics of high mountain frog metapopulations. Mol Ecol 19(17):3634–3649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Oshan T (2016) A primer for working with the spatial interaction modeling (SpInt) module in the python spatial analysis library (PySAL). Region 3(2):R11–R23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pauli BP, McCann NP, Zollner PA, Cummings R, Gilbert JH, Gustafson EJ (2013) SEARCH: spatially explicit animal response to composition of habitat. PLoS One 8(5):e64656Google Scholar
  49. Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landsc Ecol 25(4):519–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164(5):E130–E153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158(1):87–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Rubio L, Rodriguez-Freire M, Mateo-Sanchez MC, Estreguil C, Saura S (2012) Sustaining forest landscape connectivity under different land cover change scenarios. Forest Systems 21(2):223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Saupe D (1988) Algorithms for random fractals. In: Petigen HO, Saupe D (eds) The science of fractal images. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 71–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48(3):668–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2011) Habitat quality of source patches and connectivity in fragmented landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 20(8):1611–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sen A, Smith TE (1995) Gravity models of spatial interaction behavior. Advances in spatial and network economics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  57. Shima JS, Noonburg EG, Phillips NE (2010) Life history and matrix heterogeneity interact to shape metapopulation connectivity in spatially structured environments. Ecology 91(4):1215–1224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Szabo S, Novak T, Elek Z (2012) Distance models in ecological network management: a case study of patch connectivity in a grassland network. J Nat Conserv 20(5):293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158(3):211–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Villard MA, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51(2):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9(1):64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson AG (1967) A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transp Res 1(3):253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson A (2010) Entropy in urban and regional modelling: retrospect and prospect. Geogr Anal 42(4):364–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78(1):151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27(6):777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ziolkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T (2014) Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments. Landsc Ecol 29(9):1551–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations