1
Landscape Linkage Modeling
Peter Singleton & Brad McRae
CCLC Meeting, June 18, 2010.
Introduction
• Landscape Configuration is Important!
– Animals need to be able to move at a variety of
scales
– Intra-territorial movements
• Habitat resources need to configured in a way that
they are accessible
– Inter-territorial movements
• Metapopulation function
• Dispersal
• Range Shifts
2
Introduction
Definitions of connectivity:
Merriam 1984: The degree to which absolute isolation is
prevented by landscape elements which allow organisms
to move among patches.
Taylor et al 1993: The degree to which the landscape
impedes or facilitates movement among resource patches.
With et al 1997: The functional relationship among habitat
patches owing to the spatial contagion of habitat and the
movement responses of organisms to landscape structure.
Singleton et al 2002: The quality of a heterogeneous land
area to provide for passage of animals (landscape
permeability).
Introduction
Standard Definitions from Merriam-Webster.com
Connectivity: Connect – 1. to join or fasten together usually
by something intervening (Latin com- + nectere to bind)
Linkage: Link – 1. a connecting structure (Old Norse hlekkr
chain)
Corridor: 1. a passageway into which compartments or
rooms open, 2. an area or narrow stretch of land identified
by a specific common characteristic or purpose, 3. a land
path used by migrating animals (Italian correre to run)
Permeability: Permeate – 1. to diffuse through or penetrate
something 2. to pass through the pores of interstices of
(Latin permeatus, from per- through + meare to go, pass)
3
Introduction
• Structural Connectivity: The spatial arrangement
of different types of habitat or other elements in
the landscape.
• Functional Connectivity: The behavioral
response of individuals, species, or ecological
processes to the physical structure of the
landscape.
– Potential Connectivity
– Actual Connectivity
4
Introduction
Darwin’s Finches - 1837:
Images from Robert Rothman http://people.rit.edu/rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html
5
Introduction
Island Biography
• MacArthur & Wilson 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography
Reserve Design
• Soule 1987 Viable Populations for Conservation
• Meffe & Carroll 1994 Conservation Biology Textbook
Conservation Corridors
• Servheen & Sandstrom 1993 Linkage Zones for Grizzly Bears… End.
Sp. Bul. 18
• Walker & Craighead 1997 Analyzing Wildlife Movement Corridors…
Proc. ESRI Users Conf.
• Around 2000, linkage assessment workshops start happening
• Mid-’00’s, lots of publications addressing corridors / connectivity
Landscape Processes
• Late-’00’s Maturation of landscape genetics & modeling techniques
• Future?
– More empirical data relating landscape process and pattern?
– More sophisticated simulation modeling
– Address climate change adaptation concerns
Introduction
• Types of ecological models
– Conceptual models
• Consistent syntheses of existing information that
allow a systematic exploration of the way we think
a process works
– Statistical models
• Based on empirical information
– Simulation models
• Similar to conceptual models, but provide a more
detailed exploration of a specific process
7
Analysis Approaches
1. Patch Metrics
2. Graph Theory
3. Cost-distance Analysis
•
Combining graph theory and cost-distance
4. Circuit Theory
5. Individual-based Models
8
Analysis Approaches
1. Patch Metrics
Simple
Few Assumptions
Needs Less Input Info
Structural focus
2. Graph Theory
3. Cost-distance Analysis
•
Combining graph theory and cost-distance
4. Circuit Theory
5. Individual-based
Complex
Lots of Assumptions
Needs More Input Info
Process focus
9
Analysis Approaches
1) Patch Metrics
• Quantifies Patch Characteristics or Relationships
Between Patches (e.g. patch size, nearest neighbor)
• Emphasizes Structural Connectivity
• Generally must be summarized across a landscape unit
(e.g. watershed or planning unit)
• Very useful for quantifying landscape patterns (e.g.
historic range of variability, monitoring change,
comparing landscapes)
• Structure, not process oriented
• Don’t provide a lot of information about expected
movement patterns
Landscape Metric Example – Effective Mesh Size
From: Girvetz, Thorne, & Jaeger. 2007. Integrating Habitat Fragmentation Analysis into Transportation Planning Using
The Effective Mesh Size Landscape Metric. 2007 ICOET Proceedings.
10
Landscape Metric Example – Effective Mesh Size
11
From: Girvetz, Thorne, & Jaeger. 2007. Integrating Habitat Fragmentation Analysis into Transportation Planning Using
The Effective Mesh Size Landscape Metric. 2007 ICOET Proceedings.
Analysis Approaches
2) Graph Theory
• Focused on quantifying relationships between patches
• More focused on process
• Solidly based in mathematical theory with many
applications in other fields (e.g. geography, computer
science, logistics)
• Provides a language for describing relationships
between patches
12
Graph Theory
13
Vocabulary:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Patch (Node) – the points of interest
Link (Edge) – connections between the nodes
Path – a sequence of connected nodes
Tree – a set of paths that do not return to the same node
Spanning Tree – a tree that includes every node in the graph
Connected Graph – a graph with a path between every pair of nodes
Component (Subgraph) – part of the graph where every node is
adjacent to another node in that part of the graph
• Node-connectivity – the minimum number of nodes that must be
removed from a connected graph before it becomes disconnected
• Line-connectivity – the minimum number of links that must be removed
before a graph becomes disconnected
From: Urban & Keitt. 2001. Landscape Connectivity: A graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 82:1205-1218
Graph Theory
From: Urban & Keitt. 2001. Landscape Connectivity: A graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 82:1205-1218
14
Graph Theory
15
From: Urban & Keitt. 2001. Landscape Connectivity: A graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 82:1205-1218
Analysis Approaches
16
3) Cost-distance Analysis
• More focus on matrix
• Can quantify isolation between patches
• Spatially explicit – can identify routes and bottlenecks
• Based on the concept of “movement cost” that has some
foundation in foraging theory, but lacks extensive empirical
documentation
• Several important assumptions about parameters and scale
must be considered
Cost-distance Analysis
17
Analysis Steps:
1) Identify Patches
2) Develop Friction
Surface
3) Evaluate
Landscape
3
1
2
10
1
0
2
1
1
1
3
3
10
3
1
2
1
3
2
10
3
0
2
3
3
3
1
1
10
1
3
2
6
5
2
10
6
103
4
3
3
4
5
4
10
1
4
6
Habitat Suitability:
0 = Barrier
1 = Poor
2 = Moderate
3 = Good
10 = Source
Travel Cost:
0 = 99
1=3
2=2
3=1
10 = Source
Cost-distance
22
16
There are critical assumptions at each one of these steps!
Cost-distance Analysis
Results from cost-distance analysis:
• Minimum cost-distance
• Cost / Euclidean ratios
• nth best corridor area delineations
• Spatially explicit maps
Many cost-distance applications have failed to take advantage of this
information by focusing on least-cost paths or corridors
(“Failing to see the landscape for the corridor”)
18
Cost-distance Analysis
Step 1: Identifying source patches:
Large roadless areas and units highlighted in focal species management plans.
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
19
Cost-distance Analysis
Step 2: Develop friction surface
Road Density
Land Cover
20
Cost Model Parameters:
Population Density
0 - 10 people/mi2
10 - 25 people/mi2
25 - 50 people/mi2
50 - 100 people/mi2
>100 people/mi2
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
Road Density
< 1mi/mi2
1 - 2 mi/mi2
2 - 6 mi/mi2
6 - 10 mi/mi2
>10 mi/mi2
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.1
Land Cover
All Forest & Wetlands
Alpine, shrub,
grasslands
Agriculture, bare
Water, urban, ice
Slope
0 - 20%
20 - 40%
>40%
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
Cost-distance Analysis
Step 2: Develop friction surface
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
21
22
Step 2: Develop friction surface
Cell Weighted Distance (m)
Cost-distance Analysis
9000
8100
7200
6300
5400
4500
3600
2700
1800
900
900
0.01 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Dispersal Habitat Suitability
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
Cost-distance Analysis
Step 3: Evaluate the landscape
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
23
Cost-distance Analysis
Step 3: Evaluate the landscape
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
24
Cost-distance Analysis
25
Step 3: Evaluate the landscape
Minimum Cost
Distance (km)
Actual Linear
Distance (km)
Cost Distance /
Linear Distance
Ratio
Fraser River
Canyon
Upper Columbia
River
I-90 Snoqualmie
Pass
Okanogan Valley
288.1
27.9
10.3
423.5
46.3
9.1
630.4
33.5
18.8
633.5
80.8
7.8
Southwestern
Washington
6943.8
116.2
82.6
Fracture Zone
Pretty easy to understand with a simple patch – linkage structure,
but when things get more complex…
From: Singleton et al. 2002. Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Weighted-Distance
and Least-Cost Corridor Assessment. USFS PNW Research Station PNW-RP-549
A Digression: Integrating Cost-Distance Analysis
and Graph Theory
From: O’Brien et al 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for
woodland Caribou: an application of graph theory. Biological Conservation 130:70-83.
26
A Digression: Integrating Cost-Distance Analysis
and Graph Theory
27
FunConn ArcGIS Toolbox: http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/starmap/
From: Theobald et al. 2006. FunConn v1 User’s Manual: ArcGIS tools for Functional Connectivity Modeling. Colorado State University.
Analysis Approaches
4) Circuit Theory
• Based on electrical
engineering theory
• Generates a measure of
“flow” through each cell in a
landscape
• Integrates all possible
pathways into calculations
• Corresponds well with
random-walk models
• Resistance measures can be
used in graph-theory
applications
From: McRae et al. 2008. Using Circuit Theory to Model Connectivity in Ecology,
Evolution, and Conservation. Ecology.
28
Simple landscapes
C
D
E
F
Resistance distance
B
Least-cost path distance
A
29
Slide by Brad McRae
30
A more realistic landscape
High
Low
Circuit theory:
Least-cost path:
Slide by
Brad
McRae
Integrating Cost-Distance &
Circuit Resistance Analysis
Sage Grouse Cores
& Resistance Surface
Circuit Resistance
Least-Cost Corridors
Analysis Approaches
31
5) Individual Based Models & Other Approaches
• Individual-based movement models (IBM)
– Simulates movement of an individual through the landscape (e.g.
PATH)
– Many scales, from dispersal (coarse) to foraging (fine)
• Population viability models (PVA)
– Uses demographic information to project population persistence
(covered in another chapter)
• Spatially explicit population models (SEPMs)
– Integrates PVA with a heterogeneous landscape where vital rates vary
(e.g. Ramas GIS)
Individual-based model example: HexSim
32
HexSim:
• IBM & SEPM
• Flexible cell and group resolution
• Survival / reproduction / dispersal probabilities
are related to the habitat characteristics of the
cell
• Models individual dispersal movements through
the landscape
• Flexible assumptions about behavior (originally
developed for spotted owl PVA, but is being
applied to a variety of species)
• Developed by Nathan Schumacher, EPA,
Corvallis OR (http://www.epa.gov/hexsim/)
Individual-based model example: HexSim
33
From: USFWS 2008. Final
Recovery Plan for the Northern
Spotted Owl. May 2008. USFWS
Region 1, Portland OR.
Analysis by Marcot & Raphael
Images by Bruce Marcot
Individual-based model example: Patch / HexSim
34
From: Carroll 2005. Carnivore Restoration in the Northeastern U.S. and Southeastern Canada: A Regional-Scale Analysis of
Habitat and Population Viability for Wolf, Lynx, and Marten. Wildlands Project – Special Paper No. 2. Richmond VA
Discussion
35
Different approaches provide different information
and require different inputs and assumptions
Landscape Metrics
Graphs
Cost-distance
Circuit Theory
IBM / SEPM
Information
Provided
Less
Data Model
Inputs Assumptions Focus
Less Fewer (implicit) Structure
More
More
More (explicit) Function
36
Discussion
All of these modeling approaches involve major
assumptions about:
• Habitat associations
– Parameterizing source areas or habitat patch
characteristics
• Dispersal behavior
– Resistance to movement
Some projects have addressed some of these
issues by using parameters based on empirical
RSFs, but assumptions about dispersal habitat
selection remain difficult.
Discussion
• Challenges common to all of these
approaches:
– Identifying areas to link up (cores)
– Parameterizing resistance layers
– Interpreting cumulative resistance indices
• How much resistance is too much?
– Communicating uncertainty while providing useful
information to decision makers
• Lots of cartographic challenges
– Conceptual models can be very difficult to interpret
• Models provide information, not answers
– Too much focus on corridor delineation and not
enough on assessing relative permeability values
37
Discussion
The future of linkage modeling
• Better empirical techniques:
– Integration of detection probability and movement
probabilty into resource selection analysis
• Model validation:
– Landscape genetics
– GPS telemetry studies
• Simulation Modeling
– HexSim, CDPOP
• Climate Change
– How do we integrate climate change concerns into
connnectivity analysis?
Closing
Pete’s cornball philosophy of landscape modeling:
• Know your question
• Know your data
• Keep it simple
• Own your assumptions
• Be open to surprises, but always check twice
• All models are wrong, but some models are useful
• Models provide information, not answers
• Validate, validate, validate …
38