Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union

Opermanis, Otars; MacSharry, Brian; Auniņš, Ainārs; Sipkova, Zelmira

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.031

Cited by 59 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Habitat connectivity refers to the spatial connections among habitat patches, while functional connectivity describes processes through which sub-populations are combined into a single demographic unit by dispersal (Opermanis et al 2012;Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000). Alternatively, connectivity can be defined as the ability of species to move among patches (Moilanen and Nieminen 2002), mediated through different aspects of the landscape, such as the size and distance among patches (MacArthur and Wilson 1967;Moilanen and Nieminen 2002), the presence of corridors (Matter et al 2009;Paillex et al 2007;Staddon et al 2010), the permeability of the matrix habitat (Prevedello and Vieira 2010), and the structure of edges (Cadenasso and Pickett 2001).…”

Section: Habitat Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Food web complexity and stability across habitat connectivity gradients

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of habitat connectivity on food webs have been studied both empirically and theoretically, yet the question of whether empirical results support theoretical predictions for any food web metric other than species richness has received little attention. Our synthesis brings together theory and empirical evidence for how habitat connectivity affects both food web stability and complexity. Food web stability is often predicted to be greatest at intermediate levels of connectivity, representing a compromise between the stabilizing effects of dispersal via rescue effects and prey switching, and the destabilizing effects of dispersal via regional synchronization of population dynamics. Empirical studies of food web stability generally support both this pattern and underlying mechanisms. Food chain length has been predicted to have both increasing and unimodal relationships with connectivity as a result of predators being constrained by the patch occupancy of their prey. Although both patterns have been documented empirically, the underlying mechanisms may differ from those predicted by models. In terms of other measures of food web complexity, habitat connectivity has been empirically found to generally increase link density but either reduce or have no effect on connectance, whereas a unimodal relationship is expected. In general, there is growing concordance between empirical patterns and theoretical predictions for some effects of habitat connectivity on food webs, but many predictions remain to be tested over a full connectivity gradient, and empirical metrics of complexity are rarely modeled. Closing these gaps will allow a deeper understanding of how natural and anthropogenic changes in connectivity can affect real food webs.

show abstract

Section: Habitat Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Food web complexity and stability across habitat connectivity gradients

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, N2k is currently a relatively rigid network since the possibility of adding new sites or changing the location of existing sites is rather limited. However, there is potential to improve its effectiveness through better management of N2k sites and through integration with conservation measures outside the network to improve its spatial functionality (Opermanis et al, 2012;Opermanis et al, 2013;Davis et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Gaps in ecological research on the world's largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: A review of Natura 2000

Orlikowska

Roberge

Blicharska

et al. 2016

Biological Conservation

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The simplest assumption about the matrix is that it is homogeneous and does not influence the movement of organisms among habitat patches. This was a common approach in early connectivity studies (Fahrig and Merriam 1985;Henein and Merriam 1990), and it is also the most parsimonious approach for species for which knowledge about their response to different matrix elements is scarce, or for broad-scale assessments concerning a wide range of target species (e.g., Saura et al 2011;Opermanis et al 2012). However, in reality the matrix is rarely homogeneous in terms of its suitability for dispersal of a given species, and the composition of the matrix influences movement behavior and movement risk (Pflüger and Balkenhol 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing landscape connectivity is important to understand the ecology of landscapes and to evaluate alternative conservation strategies. The question is though, how to quantify connectivity appropriately, especially when the information available about the suitability of the matrix surrounding habitat is limited. Our goal here was to investigate the effects of matrix representation on assessments of the connectivity among habitat patches and of the relative importance of individual patches for the connectivity within a habitat network. We evaluated a set of 50 9 50 km 2 test areas in the Carpathian Mountains and considered three different matrix representations (binary, categorical and continuous) using two types of connections among habitat patches (shortest lines and least-cost paths). We compared connections, and the importance of patches, based on (1) isolation, (2) incidencefunctional, and (3) graph measures. Our results showed that matrix representation can greatly affect assessments of connections (i.e., connection length, effective distance, and spatial location), but not patch prioritization. Although patch importance was not much affected by matrix representation, it was influenced by the connectivity measure and its parameterization. We found the biggest differences in the case of the integral index of connectivity and equally weighted patches, but no consistent pattern in response to changing dispersal distance. Connectivity assessments in more fragmented landscapes were more sensitive to the selection of matrix representation. Although we recommend using continuous matrix representation whenever possible, our results indicated that simpler matrix representations can be also used as a proxy to delineate those patches that are important for overall connectivity, but not to identify connections among habitat patches.

show abstract

Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union

Cited by 59 publications

References 49 publications

Food web complexity and stability across habitat connectivity gradients

Food web complexity and stability across habitat connectivity gradients

Gaps in ecological research on the world's largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: A review of Natura 2000

Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About