Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Theoretical Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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):233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andren H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat—a review. Oikos 71(3):355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Blanchet S, Legrand D, Stevens VM, Turlure C (2013) Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol Rev 88(2):310–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85(10):2671–2676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry F, deMaynadier PG, Hunter ML Jr (2008) Identifying road mortality threat at multiple spatial scales for semi-aquatic turtles. Biol Conserv 141(10):2550–2563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL (2009) Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl 19(8):2067–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86(4):1023–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2003) Using patch isolation metrics to predict animal movement in binary landscapes. Landsc Ecol 18(1):17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1778–1788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossenbroek JM, Johnson LE, Peters B, Lodge DM (2007) Forecasting the expansion of zebra mussels in the United States. Conserv Biol 21(3):800–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2(10):529–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1321–1334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:3592–3602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 384–404

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Gardner RH (1987) Assessing regional impacts of growth declines using a forest succession model. J Environ Manag 24(1):83–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28(10):605–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:3549–3564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1263–1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 417–442

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2007) Landscape heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics. In: Wu J, Hobbs R (eds) Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 78–91

  • Fahrig L, Merriam G (1985) Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66(6):1762–1768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer M (2006) Spatial analysis and geocomputation. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham AS, O’Kelly ME (1989) Spatial interaction models: formulations and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Gustafson EJ (2004) Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol Model 171(4):339–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99(3):552–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77(1):94–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:123–131

  • Kadoya T (2009) Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Popul Ecol 51(1):5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 167:298–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol 23(8):879–890

    Google Scholar 

  • King AW, With KA (2002) Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecol Model 147(1):23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):695–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kool JT, Moilanen A, Treml EA (2013) Population connectivity: recent advances and new perspectives. Landsc Ecol 28(2):165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35 (1):9-14

  • 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 15:71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20(2):427–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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):153–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89(10):2712–2724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48(6):1543–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83(4):1131–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy HT, Lovett-Doust J (2004) Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? Oikos 105(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy MA, Dezzani R, Pilliod DS, Storfer A (2010) Landscape genetics of high mountain frog metapopulations. Mol Ecol 19(17):3634–3649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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–R23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):e64656

  • Rayfield B, Fortin M-J, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landsc Ecol 25(4):519–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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–E153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158(1):87–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saupe D (1988) Algorithms for random fractals. In: Petigen HO, Saupe D (eds) The science of fractal images. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 71–113

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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):668–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Branch LC (2011) Habitat quality of source patches and connectivity in fragmented landscapes. Biodivers Conserv 20(8):1611–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A, Smith TE (1995) Gravity models of spatial interaction behavior. Advances in spatial and network economics. Springer, Berlin

  • Shima JS, Noonburg EG, Phillips NE (2010) Life history and matrix heterogeneity interact to shape metapopulation connectivity in spatially structured environments. Ecology 91(4):1215–1224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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):293–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban DL, Minor ES, Treml EA, Schick RS (2009) Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecol Lett 12(3):260–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158(3):211–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Villard MA, Metzger JP (2014) Beyond the fragmentation debate: a conceptual model to predict when habitat configuration really matters. J Appl Ecol 51(2):309–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9(1):64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AG (1967) A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transp Res 1(3):253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A (2010) Entropy in urban and regional modelling: retrospect and prospect. Geogr Anal 42(4):364–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Gardner RH, Turner MG (1997) Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments. Oikos 78(1):151–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27(6):777–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1551–1570

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Funding

This work was supported by funding from Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures, Alberta Enterprise and Advanced Education and the University of Calgary.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada

    Shantel J. Koenig & Darren J. Bender

Authors
  1. Shantel J. Koenig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darren J. Bender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shantel J. Koenig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koenig, S.J., Bender, D.J. Generalizing matrix structure affects the identification of least-cost paths and patch connectivity. Theor Ecol 11, 95–109 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-017-0351-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-017-0351-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation