The selection of reserves for biodiversity conservation involves the evaluation of multiple criteria, ranging from representativeness of ecological features to anthropogenic interests and spatial configuration. Among the principal spatial attributes to be considered, connectivity has received particular emphasis in response to the escalating threat of habitat loss and fragmentation. Connectivity is an intrinsic property of networks. Consequently, we have observed the gradual development of the concept of reserve networks, enlisting also tools from the mathematical branch of network theory. Here, we first outline three key aspects of reserve selection for connectivity conservation based on network analysis. 1) It may be based on the application of topological indices, which take into consideration only the geographical position of the habitat patches, or area-weighted indices, which add a premium to larger patches. 2) It may be done through single-node analysis, where the relative importance of patches is evaluated individually, or with the more efficient multi-node analysis, where we search for the optimal group of patches that best complement each other in the role of maintaining connectivity. 3) The goal of the selection may be to avoid fragmentation of the population into isolated portions, or to ensure that reachability is maintained to all habitat patches, including peripheral sites. In previous studies, we had introduced multi-node analysis to the prioritization of reserves, using fragmentation and reachability indices, but these were limited to topology only. Here, we present an improved approach where multi-node prioritization is performed with area-weighted fragmentation. We apply it to 20 bird species in Catalonia, Spain. In comparison with single-node and/or topological fragmentation, we observed here a decentralization of the selected reserve sets: they included not only the main core population, but also secondary clusters of well-connected habitat. This may potentially bring two added advantages to the reserve network: spreading of risk, and inclusion of a wider variety of local genetic profiles. We propose combining this approach with topological reachability, to account for peripheral populations and maximize accessibility to the entire network.
node connectivity value based on PC
Probability of Connectivity index
An, W. and Y. Liu. 2016. keyplayer: locating key players in social networks. R package version 1.0.3. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=keyplayer (accessed 20 May2016)
Awade, M., D. Boscolo and J. P. Metzger. 2012. Using binary and probabilistic habitat availability indices derived from graph theory to model bird occurrence in fragmented forests. Landsc. Ecol. 27:185–198.
Baranyi, G., S. Saura, J. Podani and F. Jordán. 2011. Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: Redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecol. Indic. 11:1301–1310.
Barlow, E.J., F. Daunt, S. Wanles and J.M. Reid. 2013. Estimating dispersal distributions at multiple scales: within-colony and among colony dispersal rates, distances and directions in European shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Ibis 155:762–778.
Borgatti, S.P 2006. Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12:21–34.
Briers, R.A. 2002. Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biol. Conserv. 103:77–83.
Bunn, A.G., D.L. Urban and T.H. Keitt. 2000. Landscape connectivity: A conservation application of graph theory. J. Environ. Manage. 59:265–278.
Cabeza, M. 2003. Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecol. Lett. 6:665–672.
Cowling, R.M., R.L. Pressey, A.T. Lombard, P.G. Desmet and A.G. Ellis. 1999. From representation to persistence: Requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Divers. Distrib. 5:51–71.
Den Boer, P.J. 1968. Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta biotheor. 18:165–194.
Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol.Conserv 7:129–146.
Donazar J.A., F. Hiraldo and J. Bustamante. 1993. Factors influencing nest site selection, breeding density and breeding success in the Bearded Vulture (Gypaetus barbatus). J. Appl. Ecol. 30:504–514.
EEA — European Environment Agency. 2014. Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data. Version 17 (12/2013). Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2006-ras-ter-3 (accessed 25 November 2015)
Elorriaga J., I. Zuberogoitia, I. Castillo, A. Azkona, S. Hidalgo, L. Astorkia, F. Ruiz-Moneo and A. Iraeta. 2009. First documented case of long-distance dispersal in the Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus). J. Raptor Res. 43:142–145.
Engelhard, S.L., CM. Huijbers, B. Stewart-Koster, A.D. Olds, T.A. Schlacher and R.M. Connolly. 2017. Prioritizing seascape connectivity in conservation using network analysis. J. Appl.Ecol. 54:1130–1141.
Estrada, E. and Ö. Bodin. 2008. Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol. Appl. 18:1810–1825.
Estrada, J., V. Pedrocchi, L. Brotons and S. Herrando (eds.). 2004. Atles dels ocells nidificants de Catalunya 1999–2002. Institut Català d’Ornitologia/Lynx Edicions,Barcelona, Spain. Available at: http://scoc.ornitologia.org/ (accessed 15 February 2016).
European Commission. 1996. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats of wild fauna and flora. Eur. Community Environ. Legis 4:81–158.
Hanski, I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos. 87:209–219.
Hanski, I. and O. Ovaskainen. 2003. Metapopulation theory for fragmented landscapes. Theor. Pop. Biol. 64:119–127.
Harary, F. 1969. Graph Theory. Addison Wesley, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Hernández-Matías, A., J. Real, R. Pradel, A. Ravayrol, N. Vincent-Martin, F. Bosca and G. Cheylan. 2010. Determinants of territorial recruitment in Bonelli’s eagle (Aquila fasciata) populations. The Auk 127:173–184.
Higgs, A.J. 1981. Island biogeography theory and nature reserve design. J. Biogeogr. 8:117–124.
Hock, K. and P.J. Mumby 2015. Quantifying the reliability of dispersal paths in connectivity networks. J. Royal Soc. Interface 12:20150013.
Inchausti, P. and V. Bretagnolle. 2005. Predicting short-term extinction risk for the declining Little Bustard (Tetrax tetrax) in intensive agricultural habitats. Biol. Conserv. 122:375–384.
IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-2. URL http://www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed 6 October 2017).
Jordán, F. 2001. Adding function to structure — comments on Palmarola landscape connectivity. Community Ecol. 2:133–135.
Jordán, F., A. Báldi, K.-M. Orci, I. Rácz and Z. Varga. 2003. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landsc. Ecol. 18:83–92.
Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science. 241 (4872):1455–1460.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 405:243–253.
Margules, C. and M.B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biol. Conserv. 21:79–109.
Martín, L.F. and E.H. Bucher. 1993. Natal dispersal and first breeding age in monk parakeets. The Auk 110:930–933.
Meriggi, A., R.M.D. Stella, A. Brangi, M. Ferloni, E. Masseroni, E. Merli and L. Pompilio. 2007. The reintroduction of grey and redlegged partridges (Perdix perdix and Alectoris rufa) in central Italy: a metapopulation approach. Ital. J. Zool. 74(3):215–237.
Ovaskainen, O. 2002. Long-term persistence of species and the SLOSS problem. J. Theor. Biol. 218:419–433.
Pascual-Hortal, L. and S. Saura. 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.
Pereira, J. and F. Jordán. 2017. Multi-node selection of patches for protecting habitat connectivity: Fragmentation versus reachability. Ecol. Indic. 81:192–200.
Pereira, J., S. Saura and F. Jordán. 2017. Single-node vs. multi-node centrality in landscape graph analysis: Key habitat patches and their protection for 20 bird species in NE Spain. Methods in Ecol. Evol. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12783.
Prevedello, J.A. and M.V Vieira. 2010. Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers.Conserv. 19:1205–1223.
QGIS Development Team. 2016. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. URL http://qgis.osgeo.org. (Accessed 25 March 2016).
R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/. (Accessed 2 Setember 2016).
Rodrigues, A.S.L., H.R. Akçakaya, S.J. Andelman, M.I. Bakarr, L. Boitani, T.M. Brooks, J.S. Chanson, L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, K.J. Gaston, M. Hoffmann, PA. Marquet, J.D. Pilgrim, R.L. Pressey, J. Schipper, W. Sechrest, S.N. Stuart, L.G. Underhill, R.W. Waller, M.E.J. Watts, X. Yan. 2004. Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. BioScience 54:1092–1100.
Rodriguez, A., G. Jansson and H. Andren. 2007. Composition of an avian guild in spatially structured habitats supports a competition-colonization trade-off. Proc. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 274(1616):1403–1411.
Rubio, L., Ö. Bodin, L. Brotons and S. Saura. 2015. Connectivity conservation priorities for individual patches evaluated in the present landscape: how durable and effective are they in the long term? Ecography 38:782–791.
Safriel, U.N., S. Volis and S. Kark. 1994. Core and peripheral populations and global climate change. Israel J. Plant Sci. 42:331–345.
Santini, L., S. Saura and C. Rondinini. 2016. Connectivity of the global network of protected areas. Divers. Distrib. 22:199–211.
Saura, S. 2010. Measuring connectivity in habitat mosaics: the equivalence of two existing network indices and progress beyond them. Community Ecol. 11 (2):217–222.
Saura, S. and J. Torné. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ. Model. Softw. 24:135–139.
Saura, S. and L. Pascual-Hortal. 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.
Stewart, R.R. and H.P. Possingham. 2005. Efficiency, costs and tradeoffs in marine reserve system design. Environ. Model.Assess. 10:203–213.
Sutherland, G.D., A.S. Harestad, K. Price and K.P Lertzman. 2000. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conserv. Ecol. 4:16.
Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573.
Urban, D.L., E.S. Minor, E.A. Treml and R.S. Schick. 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol. Lett. 12:260–273.
Wiens, D.J., R.T. Reynols and B.R. Noon. 2006. Juvenile movement and natal dispersal of Northern Goshawks in Arizona. The Condor 108:253–269.
Williams, J.C., CS. ReVelle and S.A. Levin. 2005. Spatial attributes and reserve design models: A review. Environ. Model. Assess. 10:163–181.
The Catalan Breeding Bird Atlas data was provided by the Instituto Catalán de Ornitología (ICO), and gathered with the support of Generalitat de Catalunya and of Obra Social de CatalunyaCaixa. I am very grateful to F. Jordán for invaluable advice throughout the project. S. Saura is deeply acknowledged for earlier discussions on this topic. I thank A. Endrédi for technical advice, and P. Muñoz and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. This work was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office - NK..IH.. grant OTKA K 116071.
About this article
Cite this article
Pereira, J. Multi-node protection of landscape connectivity: habitat availability and topological reachability. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 19, 176–185 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2018.19.2.10
- Conservation priorities
- Ecological networks
- Graph theory
- Habitat connectivity
- Habitat fragmentation
- Multinode centrality
- Natura 2000
- Probability of Connectivity index
- Protected Areas
- Reserve design