Limits...
The spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity in fragmented landscapes.

Auffret AG, Plue J, Cousins SA - Ambio (2015)

Bottom Line: Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place.Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together.In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Landscape Ecology, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, alistair.auffret@natgeo.su.se.

ABSTRACT
Connectivity is key for understanding how ecological systems respond to the challenges of land-use change and habitat fragmentation. Structural and functional connectivity are both established concepts in ecology, but the temporal component of connectivity deserves more attention. Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place. Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together. In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Populations of seed dispersal vectors across the parish of Överselö, Selaön (52 km2) based on available data between 1626 and 2014. Livestock (horses, cattle and sheep) are shown in absolute numbers (left axis) using data from Dahlström et al. (2006; 1626–1972—circles), apart from the most recent point taken from the 1999 Swedish agricultural register (square). Human populations (1760–1950) are redrawn from a figure without data points from Dahlström et al. (2006), circles indicate the beginning and end of this data series. The most recent point from 2014 was communicated by Strängnäs municipality (square). Deer data represent the number of animals (roe deer, fallow deer and red deer; right axis) registered shot at the finest available resolution for each year, adjusted to the area of Överselö (Auffret and Plue 2014)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4289002&req=5

Fig4: Populations of seed dispersal vectors across the parish of Överselö, Selaön (52 km2) based on available data between 1626 and 2014. Livestock (horses, cattle and sheep) are shown in absolute numbers (left axis) using data from Dahlström et al. (2006; 1626–1972—circles), apart from the most recent point taken from the 1999 Swedish agricultural register (square). Human populations (1760–1950) are redrawn from a figure without data points from Dahlström et al. (2006), circles indicate the beginning and end of this data series. The most recent point from 2014 was communicated by Strängnäs municipality (square). Deer data represent the number of animals (roe deer, fallow deer and red deer; right axis) registered shot at the finest available resolution for each year, adjusted to the area of Överselö (Auffret and Plue 2014)

Mentions: Functional-trait approaches have indicated that the loss of structural connectivity has negatively affected functional connectivity, resulting in species loss and a reduction in traits relating to long-distance seed dispersal at the community level (Ozinga et al. 2009; Lindborg et al. 2012). On Selaön, Lindborg et al. (2014) found that the proportion of both animal-dispersed species and relative short-distance dispersers in remnant grassland communities decreased with increasing distance from the nearest intact semi-natural grassland. This is understandable, as increasing isolation from a species source should decrease the probability of successful dispersal, establishment, and potential replacement of species which may go locally extinct. This dispersal limitation is further supported by the fact that humans and livestock moving through the landscape have probably been valuable dispersers of grassland plant species in the past (Auffret 2011). On Selaön, both the human population and livestock numbers have generally declined alongside grassland loss (Fig. 4), and at the same time, their movement has become restricted through both management change and losses in structural connectivity.Fig. 4


The spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity in fragmented landscapes.

Auffret AG, Plue J, Cousins SA - Ambio (2015)

Populations of seed dispersal vectors across the parish of Överselö, Selaön (52 km2) based on available data between 1626 and 2014. Livestock (horses, cattle and sheep) are shown in absolute numbers (left axis) using data from Dahlström et al. (2006; 1626–1972—circles), apart from the most recent point taken from the 1999 Swedish agricultural register (square). Human populations (1760–1950) are redrawn from a figure without data points from Dahlström et al. (2006), circles indicate the beginning and end of this data series. The most recent point from 2014 was communicated by Strängnäs municipality (square). Deer data represent the number of animals (roe deer, fallow deer and red deer; right axis) registered shot at the finest available resolution for each year, adjusted to the area of Överselö (Auffret and Plue 2014)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4289002&req=5

Fig4: Populations of seed dispersal vectors across the parish of Överselö, Selaön (52 km2) based on available data between 1626 and 2014. Livestock (horses, cattle and sheep) are shown in absolute numbers (left axis) using data from Dahlström et al. (2006; 1626–1972—circles), apart from the most recent point taken from the 1999 Swedish agricultural register (square). Human populations (1760–1950) are redrawn from a figure without data points from Dahlström et al. (2006), circles indicate the beginning and end of this data series. The most recent point from 2014 was communicated by Strängnäs municipality (square). Deer data represent the number of animals (roe deer, fallow deer and red deer; right axis) registered shot at the finest available resolution for each year, adjusted to the area of Överselö (Auffret and Plue 2014)
Mentions: Functional-trait approaches have indicated that the loss of structural connectivity has negatively affected functional connectivity, resulting in species loss and a reduction in traits relating to long-distance seed dispersal at the community level (Ozinga et al. 2009; Lindborg et al. 2012). On Selaön, Lindborg et al. (2014) found that the proportion of both animal-dispersed species and relative short-distance dispersers in remnant grassland communities decreased with increasing distance from the nearest intact semi-natural grassland. This is understandable, as increasing isolation from a species source should decrease the probability of successful dispersal, establishment, and potential replacement of species which may go locally extinct. This dispersal limitation is further supported by the fact that humans and livestock moving through the landscape have probably been valuable dispersers of grassland plant species in the past (Auffret 2011). On Selaön, both the human population and livestock numbers have generally declined alongside grassland loss (Fig. 4), and at the same time, their movement has become restricted through both management change and losses in structural connectivity.Fig. 4

Bottom Line: Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place.Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together.In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Landscape Ecology, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, alistair.auffret@natgeo.su.se.

ABSTRACT
Connectivity is key for understanding how ecological systems respond to the challenges of land-use change and habitat fragmentation. Structural and functional connectivity are both established concepts in ecology, but the temporal component of connectivity deserves more attention. Whereas functional connectivity is often associated with spatial patterns (spatial functional connectivity), temporal functional connectivity relates to the persistence of organisms in time, in the same place. Both temporal and spatial processes determine biodiversity responses to changes in landscape structure, and it is therefore necessary that all aspects of connectivity are considered together. In this perspective, we use a case study to outline why we believe that both the spatial and temporal components of functional connectivity are important for understanding biodiversity patterns in the present-day landscape, and how they can also help us to make better-informed decisions about conserving and restoring landscapes and improving resilience to future change.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus