Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:33:08.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Network analysis: a tool for studying the connectivity of source–sink systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Ferenc Jordán
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
Ferenc Jordán
Affiliation:
The Microsoft Research — University of Trento, Italy
Jianguo Liu
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Vanessa Hull
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Anita T. Morzillo
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science
Get access

Summary

In order to optimize landscape conservation efforts, the most important landscape elements (patches and corridors) need to be identified quantitatively. A major aspect of functional importance is the role of a landscape element in maintaining connectivity. From a network perspective, different habitat patches and corridors can be ranked according to suitable centrality indices. Choosing and applying different indices may reflect differences in the problems studied (e.g., whether dispersal is limited) or data type (e.g., whether corridor permeability can be quantified). Within this framework, it is possible to consider the quality of patches and corridors or to make a distinction between source and sink patches. Network analytical tools can be used to quantify the local and global properties of directed landscape graphs (depicting source–sink systems). I present two case studies for illustrating how to set quantitative priority ranks of landscape elements and how to match the suitable techniques to particular problems (an undirected network of flightless bush crickets and a directed network of forest-living carabids). In the second case, I also calculate where to build a new corridor and suggest which corridor qualities to improve in the directed landscape graph. I propose a plan for redesigning a future freeway across the studied area. Finally, I argue that setting quantitative priority ranks for landscape elements could increase the efficiency of conservation efforts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 258 - 272
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bodin, O. and Norberg, J. (2007). A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology 22: 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S. P. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 12: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. S., Sheppard, P. M. and Turner, J. R. G. (1974). Quaternary refugia in tropical America: evidence from race formation in Heliconius butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 187: 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, M. D. and Forman, R. T. T. (1993). Landscape graphs: ecological modelling with graph theory to detect configurations common to diverse landscapes. Landscape Ecology 8: 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. E. (1978). Food Webs and Niche Space. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google ScholarPubMed
Croft, D. P., Krause, J. and James, R. (2004). Social networks in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 271: S516–S519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, K. R. and Soulé, M. E. (1999). Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400: 563–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debeljak, M., Dzeroski, S., Jerina, K., Kobler, A. and Adamic, M. (2001). Habitat suitability modelling for red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in south-central Slovenia with classification trees. Ecological Modelling 138: 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, P. C. (1996). Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 326–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunning, J. B., Danielson, B. J. and Pulliam, H. R. (1992). Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estrada, E. and Bodin, O. (2008). Using network centrality measures to manage landscape connectivity. Ecological Applications 18: 1810–1825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenz, C., Massolo, A., Kuonen, D. and Schlaepfer, R. (2001). A wolf habitat suitability prediction study in Valais (Switzerland). Landscape and Urban Planning 55: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harary, F. (1961). A structural analysis of the situation in the Middle East in 1956. Journal of Conflict Resolution 5: 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harary, F. (1969). Graph Theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordán, F. (2008). Predicting target selection by terrorists: a network analysis of the 2005 London underground attacks. International Journal for Critical Infrastructures 4: 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordán, F., Báldi, A., Orci, K. M., Rácz, I. and Varga, Z. (2003). Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecology 18: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordán, F., Magura, T., Tóthmérész, B., Vasas, V. and Ködöböcz, V. (2007). Carabids (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a forest patchwork: a connectivity analysis of the Bereg Plain landscape graph. Landscape Ecology 22: 1527–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lövei, G. L. and Sunderland, K. D. (1996). Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41: 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lövei, G. L., Magura, T., Tóthmérész, B. and Ködöböcz, V. (2006). The influence of matrix and edges on species richness patterns of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in habitat islands. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magura, T., Ködöböcz, V. and Tóthmérész, B. (2001). Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. Journal of Biogeography 28: 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melian, C. J., Bascompte, J. and Jordano, P. (2005). Spatial structure and dynamics in marine food webs. In Aquatic Food Webs (Belgrano, A., Scharler, U. M., Dunne, J. and Ulanowicz, R. E., eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Minor, E. S. and Urban, D. L. (2007). Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecological Applications 17: 1771–1782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minor, E. S. and Urban, D. L. (2008). A graph-theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology 22: 297–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review 45: 167–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orci, K. M. (1997). A comparative study on grasshopper (Orthoptera) communities in the Aggtelek Biosphere Reserve. In Research in Aggtelek National Park and Biosphere Reserve (Tóth, E. and Horváth, R., eds.). ANP Directorate, Aggtelek, Hungary: 109–116.Google Scholar
Pascual-Hortal, L. and Saura, S. (2006). Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the prioritization of habitat patches for conservation. Landscape Ecology 21: 959–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polis, G. A., Anderson, W. B. and Holt, R. D. (1997). Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 289–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricotta, C., Stanisci, A., Avena, G. C. and Blasi, C. (2000). Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach. Community Ecology 1: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothley, K. and Rae, C. (2005). Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10: 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saccheri, I., Kuussaari, M., Kankare, M., Vikman, P., Fortelius, W. and Hanski, I. (1998). Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392: 491–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saenz-Agudelo, P., Jones, G. P., Thorrold, S. R. and Planes, S. (2009). Estimating connectivity in marine populations: an empirical evaluation of assignment tests and parentage analysis under different gene flow scenarios. Molecular Ecology 18: 1765–1776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saura, S. (2007). Evaluating forest landscape connectivity through Conefor Sensinode 2.2. In Patterns and Processes in Forest Landscapes: Multiple Use and Sustainable Management (Lafortezza, R., Chen, J., Sanesi, G. and Crow, T. R., eds.). Springer, Berlin: 403–422.Google Scholar
Saura, S. and Pascual-Hortal, L. (2007). Conefor Sensinode 2.2 User’s Manual: Software for Quantifying the Importance of Habitat Patches for Maintaining Landscape Connectivity through Graphs and Habitat Availability Indices. University of Lleida, Spain.Google Scholar
Schick, R. S. and Lindley, S. T. (2007). Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 1116–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimazaki, H., Tamura, M., Darman, Y., Andronov, V., Parilov, M. P., Nagendran, M. and Higuchi, H. (2004). Network analysis of potential migration routes for oriental white storks (Ciconia boyciana). Ecological Research 19: 683–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape area?Biological Conservation 83: 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tischendorf, L. and Wissel, C. (1997). Corridors as conduits for small animals: attainable distances depending on movement pattern, boundary reaction and corridor width. Oikos 79: 603–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treml, E. A., Halpin, P. N., Urban, D. L. and Pratson, L. F. (2008). Modeling population connectivity by ocean currents, a graph-theoretic approach for marine conservation. Landscape Ecology 23: 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urban, D. and Keitt, T. (2001). Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82: 1205–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varga, Z. (1997). Biogeographical outline of the invertebrate fauna of the Aggtelek Karst and surrounding areas. In Research in Aggtelek National Park and Biosphere Reserve (Tóth, E. and Horváth, R., eds.). ANP Directorate, Aggtelek, Hungary: 87–94.Google Scholar
Vasas, V., Magura, T., Jordán, F. and Tóthmérész, B. (2009). Graph theory in action: evaluating planned highway tracks based on connectivity measures. Landscape Ecology 24: 581–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassermann, S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×