1 / 42

Landscape Linkage Modeling

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

hewitt
Download Presentation

Landscape Linkage Modeling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 1 Landscape Linkage Modeling Peter Singleton & Brad McRae CCLC Meeting, June 18, 2010.

  2. 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

  3. 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).

  4. 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)

  5. 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

  6. 4 Introduction Darwin’s Finches - 1837: Images from Robert Rothman http://people.rit.edu/rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 7 Analysis Approaches • Patch Metrics • Graph Theory • Cost-distance Analysis • Combining graph theory and cost-distance • Circuit Theory • Individual-based Models

  10. 8 Analysis Approaches Simple Few Assumptions Needs Less Input Info Structural focus • Patch Metrics • Graph Theory • Cost-distance Analysis • Combining graph theory and cost-distance • Circuit Theory • Individual-based Complex Lots of Assumptions Needs More Input Info Process focus

  11. 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

  12. 10 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 12 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

  15. 13 Graph Theory • 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

  16. 14 Graph Theory From: Urban & Keitt. 2001. Landscape Connectivity: A graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 82:1205-1218

  17. 15 Graph Theory From: Urban & Keitt. 2001. Landscape Connectivity: A graph-theoretic approach. Ecology 82:1205-1218

  18. 16 Analysis Approaches • 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

  19. Cost-distance Analysis 17 Habitat Suitability: 0 = Barrier 1 = Poor 2 = Moderate 3 = Good 10 = Source Analysis Steps: • Identify Patches • Develop Friction Surface • Evaluate Landscape 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!

  20. Cost-distance Analysis 18 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”)

  21. Cost-distance Analysis 19 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

  22. Cost-distance Analysis 20 Step 2: Develop friction surface • Cost Model Parameters: • Population Density • 0 - 10 people/mi2 1.0 • 10 - 25 people/mi2 0.8 • 25 - 50 people/mi2 0.5 • 50 - 100 people/mi2 0.3 • >100 people/mi2 0.1 • Road Density • < 1mi/mi2 1.0 • 1 - 2 mi/mi2 0.8 • 2 - 6 mi/mi2 0.5 • 6 - 10 mi/mi2 0.2 • >10 mi/mi2 0.1 • Land Cover • All Forest & Wetlands 1.0 • Alpine, shrub, 0.8 • grasslands • Agriculture, bare 0.3 • Water, urban, ice 0.1 • Slope • 0 - 20% 1.0 • 20 - 40% 0.8 • >40% 0.6 Road Density Land Cover 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. 21 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

  24. 22 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

  25. Cost-distance Analysis 23 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

  26. Cost-distance Analysis 24 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

  27. Fracture Zone Minimum Cost Distance (km) Actual Linear Distance (km) Cost Distance / Linear Distance Ratio Fraser River Canyon 288.1 27.9 10.3 Upper Columbia River 423.5 46.3 9.1 I-90 Snoqualmie Pass 630.4 33.5 18.8 Okanogan Valley 633.5 80.8 7.8 Southwestern Washington 6943.8 116.2 82.6 Cost-distance Analysis 25 Step 3: Evaluate the landscape 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

  28. 26 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.

  29. 27 A Digression: Integrating Cost-Distance Analysis and Graph Theory 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.

  30. 28 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.

  31. Simple landscapes Resistance distance Least-cost path distance 29 A B C D E F Slide by Brad McRae

  32. High Low 30 A more realistic landscape Circuit theory: Least-cost path: Slide by Brad McRae

  33. Integrating Cost-Distance & Circuit Resistance Analysis Sage Grouse Cores & Resistance Surface Circuit Resistance Least-Cost Corridors

  34. 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)

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 35 Discussion Different approaches provide different information and require different inputs and assumptions Information Data Model Provided Inputs Assumptions Focus Landscape Metrics Less Less Fewer (implicit) Structure Graphs Cost-distance Circuit Theory IBM / SEPM More More More (explicit) Function

  39. 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.

  40. 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

  41. 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?

  42. 38 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 …

More Related