CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 318

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patch-based graphs of landscape connectivity: A guide to construction, analysis and application for conservation

Galpern, Paul, Manseau, Micheline, Fall, Andrew·2011·Biological Conservation
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Graph theory has become a popular tool for modelling the functional connectivity of landscapes. We conduct a review of studies that use graph theory to model connectivity among patches of habitat (patch-based graphs), with the intention of identifying typical research questions and their associated graph construction and analysis methods. We identify and examine nine questions of conservation importance that can be answered with these types of graph models, discussing appropriate applications of these questions and presenting a guide for using graph methods to answer them. We also investigate how the connectivity predictions of patch-based graphs have been assessed and emphasize the importance of empirical evaluation. Our findings identify commonality among diverse approaches and methodological gaps with an aim to improve application and to help the integration of graph theory and ecological analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Adriaensen, 2003, The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233, 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Andersson, 2009, Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation, Ecography, 32, 123, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05435.x · DOI
  3. Awade, 2008, Using gap-crossing capacity to evaluate functional connectivity of two Atlantic rainforest birds and their response to fragmentation, Austral Ecology, 33, 863, 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2008.01857.x · DOI
  4. Balkenhol, 2009, Molecular road ecology: exploring the potential of genetics for investigating transportation impacts on wildlife, Molecular Ecology, 18, 4151, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04322.x · DOI
  5. Ball, M.C., Finnegan, L., Manseau, M., Wilson, P.J., 2010. Integrating multiple analytical approaches to spatial delineate and characterize genetic population structure: an application to boreal caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in central Canada. Conservation Genetics. · DOI
  6. Batagelj, V., Mrvar, A., 2004. Pajek – analysis and visualization of large networks. In: Junger, M., Mutzel, P. (Eds.), Graph Drawing Software, pp. 77–103. · DOI
  7. Bodin, 2007, A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape, Landscape Ecology, 22, 31, 10.1007/s10980-006-9015-0 · DOI
  8. Bodin, 2006, The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar, Ecological Applications, 16, 440, 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0440:TVOSSL]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  9. Bowman, 2002, Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size, Ecology, 83, 2049, 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2049:DDOMIP]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  10. Boyce, 1999, Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14, 268, 10.1016/S0169-5347(99)01593-1 · DOI
  11. Briers, 2002, Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures, Biological Conservation, 103, 77, 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00123-9 · DOI
  12. Brooks, 2006, Quantifying population substructure: extending the graph-theoretic approach, Ecology, 87, 864, 10.1890/05-0860 · DOI
  13. Bunn, 2000, Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory, Journal of Environmental Management, 59, 265, 10.1006/jema.2000.0373 · DOI
  14. Calabrese, 2004, A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 529, 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0529:ACGTCM]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Coulon, 2004, Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach, Molecular Ecology, 13, 2841, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02253.x · DOI
  16. Csardi, 2006, The igraph software package for complex network research, International Journal of Complex Systems, 1695
  17. Cushman, 2006, Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling, American Naturalist, 168, 486, 10.1086/506976 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Drielsma, 2007, A raster-based technique for analysing habitat configuration: the cost-benefit approach, Ecological Modelling, 202, 324, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.10.016 · DOI
  19. Estrada, 2008, Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity, Ecological Applications, 18, 1810, 10.1890/07-1419.1 · DOI
  20. Estrada-Pena, 2005, Effects of habitat suitability and landscape patterns on tick (Acarina) metapopulation processes, Landscape Ecology, 20, 529, 10.1007/s10980-004-3318-9 · DOI
  21. Fahrig, 2001, How much habitat is enough?, Biological Conservation, 100, 65, 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00208-1 · DOI
  22. Fahrig, 2002, Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction threshold: a synthesis, Ecological Applications, 12, 346
  23. Fall, 2001, A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics, Ecological Modelling, 141, 1, 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00334-9 · DOI
  24. Fall, 2007, Spatial graphs: principles and applications for habitat connectivity, Ecosystems, 10, 448, 10.1007/s10021-007-9038-7 · DOI
  25. Fortuna, 2006, Spatial network structure and amphibian persistence in stochastic environments, Proceedings of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences, 273, 1429, 10.1098/rspb.2005.3448 · DOI
  26. Fortuna, 2008, Spatial mating networks in insect-pollinated plants, Ecology Letters, 11, 490, 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01167.x · DOI
  27. Fuller, 2006, Incorporating connectivity into conservation planning: a multi-criteria case study from central Mexico, Biological Conservation, 133, 131, 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.040 · DOI
  28. Girvan, 2002, Community structure in social and biological networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99, 7821, 10.1073/pnas.122653799 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hodgson, 2009, Climate change, connectivity and conservation decision making: back to basics, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 964, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01695.x · DOI
  30. Jantz, 2008, Using widely available geospatial data sets to assess the influence of roads and buffers on habitat core areas and connectivity, Natural Areas Journal, 28, 261, 10.3375/0885-8608(2008)28[261:UWAGDS]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  31. Jordan, 2003, Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation, Landscape Ecology, 18, 83, 10.1023/A:1022958003528 · DOI
  32. Jordan, 2007, Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph, Landscape Ecology, 22, 1527, 10.1007/s10980-007-9149-8 · DOI
  33. Keil, 1992, Classes of graphs which approximate the complete euclidean graph, Discrete & Computational Geometry, 7, 13, 10.1007/BF02187821 · DOI
  34. Kininmonth, 2010, Graph theoretic topology of the Great but small Barrier Reef world, Theoretical Ecology, 3, 75, 10.1007/s12080-009-0055-3 · DOI
  35. Koper, 2009, Generalized estimating equations and generalized linear mixed-effects models for modelling resource selection, Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 590, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01642.x · DOI
  36. Lookingbill, 2010, Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity, Ecological Applications, 20, 427, 10.1890/09-0073.1 · DOI
  37. Manel, 2003, Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 189, 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00008-9 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Margosian, 2009, Connectivity of the American agricultural landscape: assessing the national risk of crop pest and disease spread, Bioscience, 59, 141, 10.1525/bio.2009.59.2.7 · DOI
  39. Minor, 2007, Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning, Ecological Applications, 17, 1771, 10.1890/06-1073.1 · DOI
  40. Minor, 2008, A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning, Conservation Biology, 22, 297, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00871.x · DOI
  41. Minor, 2009, The role of landscape connectivity in assembling exotic plant communities: a network analysis, Ecology, 90, 1802, 10.1890/08-1015.1 · DOI
  42. Neel, 2008, Patch connectivity and genetic diversity conservation in the federally endangered and narrowly endemnoc plant species Astragalms albens (Fabaceae), Biological Conservation, 141, 938, 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.031 · DOI
  43. O’Brien, 2006, Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory, Biological Conservation, 130, 70, 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.014 · DOI
  44. Pascual-Hortal, 2006, Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation, Landscape Ecology, 21, 959, 10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z · DOI · Paper page
  45. Pascual-Hortal, 2007, Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 176, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.003 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Pascual-Hortal, 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), European Journal of Forest Research, 127, 23, 10.1007/s10342-006-0165-z · DOI
  47. Pinto, 2009, Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach, Landscape Ecology, 24, 253, 10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y · DOI · Paper page
  48. Rayfield, 2008, Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Quebec boreal forest, Biological Conservation, 141, 438, 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.013 · DOI
  49. Saura, 2007, A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 91, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005 · DOI
  50. Saura, 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, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x · DOI · Paper page
  51. Saura, 2009, Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity, Environmental Modelling & Software, 24, 135, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.05.005 · DOI
  52. Schick, 2007, Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network, Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 1116, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01383.x · DOI
  53. Solberg, 2006, An evaluation of field and non-invasive genetic methods to estimate brown bear (Ursus arctos) population size, Biological Conservation, 128, 158, 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.025 · DOI
  54. Spear, 2010, Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis, Molecular Ecology, 19, 3576, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04657.x · DOI · Paper page
  55. Treml, 2008, Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation, Landscape Ecology, 23, 19, 10.1007/s10980-007-9138-y · DOI
  56. Urban, 2001, Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective, Ecology, 82, 1205, 10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  57. Urban, 2009, Graph models of habitat mosaics, Ecology Letters, 12, 260, 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01271.x · DOI · Paper page
  58. Vasas, 2009, Graph theory in action: evaluating planned highway tracks based on connectivity measures, Landscape Ecology, 24, 581, 10.1007/s10980-009-9346-8 · DOI
  59. Wilson, 2008, A study of graph spectra for comparing graphs and trees, Pattern Recognition, 41, 2833, 10.1016/j.patcog.2008.03.011 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Galpern, P., Manseau, M., & Fall, A.
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
144
Issue
1
Pages
44-55
ISSN
0006-3207
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.002
Cited by
318
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review