Community Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 176–185 | Cite as

Multi-node protection of landscape connectivity: habitat availability and topological reachability

  • J. Pereira


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.


Conservation priorities Ecological networks Graph theory Habitat connectivity Habitat fragmentation Multinode centrality Natura 2000 Probability of Connectivity index Protected Areas Reserve design 



node connectivity value based on PC


Probability of Connectivity index


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



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.

Supplementary material

42974_2018_19020176_MOESM1_ESM.csv (7 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 6.88 KB.
42974_2018_19020176_MOESM2_ESM.csv (0 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 423 bytes.
42974_2018_19020176_MOESM3_ESM.r (7 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 7.23 KB.
42974_2018_19020176_MOESM4_ESM.r (2 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 1.86 KB.
42974_2018_19020176_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (9.1 mb)
Supplementary material, approximately 9.12 MB.


  1. An, W. and Y. Liu. 2016. keyplayer: locating key players in social networks. R package version 1.0.3. Available at: (accessed 20 May2016)
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgatti, S.P 2006. Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Briers, R.A. 2002. Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biol. Conserv. 103:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabeza, M. 2003. Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecol. Lett. 6:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Den Boer, P.J. 1968. Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta biotheor. 18:165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol.Conserv 7:129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EEA — European Environment Agency. 2014. Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data. Version 17 (12/2013). Available at: (accessed 25 November 2015)
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Estrada, E. and Ö. Bodin. 2008. Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecol. Appl. 18:1810–1825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 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: (accessed 15 February 2016).
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Hanski, I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity and metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos. 87:209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski, I. and O. Ovaskainen. 2003. Metapopulation theory for fragmented landscapes. Theor. Pop. Biol. 64:119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harary, F. 1969. Graph Theory. Addison Wesley, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgs, A.J. 1981. Island biogeography theory and nature reserve design. J. Biogeogr. 8:117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hock, K. and P.J. Mumby 2015. Quantifying the reliability of dispersal paths in connectivity networks. J. Royal Soc. Interface 12:20150013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IUCN. 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-2. URL (Accessed 6 October 2017).
  27. Jordán, F. 2001. Adding function to structure — comments on Palmarola landscape connectivity. Community Ecol. 2:133–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science. 241 (4872):1455–1460.Google Scholar
  30. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  31. Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 405:243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Margules, C. and M.B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a review. Biol. Conserv. 21:79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martín, L.F. and E.H. Bucher. 1993. Natal dispersal and first breeding age in monk parakeets. The Auk 110:930–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ovaskainen, O. 2002. Long-term persistence of species and the SLOSS problem. J. Theor. Biol. 218:419–433.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pereira, J. and F. Jordán. 2017. Multi-node selection of patches for protecting habitat connectivity: Fragmentation versus reachability. Ecol. Indic. 81:192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. QGIS Development Team. 2016. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. URL (Accessed 25 March 2016).
  41. R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL (Accessed 2 Setember 2016).
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Safriel, U.N., S. Volis and S. Kark. 1994. Core and peripheral populations and global climate change. Israel J. Plant Sci. 42:331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santini, L., S. Saura and C. Rondinini. 2016. Connectivity of the global network of protected areas. Divers. Distrib. 22:199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stewart, R.R. and H.P. Possingham. 2005. Efficiency, costs and tradeoffs in marine reserve system design. Environ. Model.Assess. 10:203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Urban, D.L., E.S. Minor, E.A. Treml and R.S. Schick. 2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol. Lett. 12:260–273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams, J.C., CS. ReVelle and S.A. Levin. 2005. Spatial attributes and reserve design models: A review. Environ. Model. Assess. 10:163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2018

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Pereira
    • 1
  1. 1.MTA Centre for Ecological ResearchDanube Research InstituteBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations