2 Introduction

2.1 What is connectivity?

Landscape connectivity represents the degree to which landscape composition (including both native (i.e., natural) and anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) disturbances) and configuration impact the ability of organisms to move between suitable habitat patches (Taylor et al. 1993; Blake 2018).

2.2 How can it be measured?

There are three main approaches for quantifying landscape connectivity (Calabrese and Fagan 2004):

Structural connectivity: This can be determined from physical attributes in the landscape, and based on maps alone (i.e., without reference to movement behaviour of a single species).

Potential functional connectivity: This is determined using assumptions on organismal movement behaviour (e.g., by mapping a single species’ habitat and setting dispersal thresholds).

Actual functional connectivity: This is determined using observed data (e.g., species occupancy, radio tracking, mark-recapture, or molecular genetic data), which reflect actual rates of the exchange of organisms (or genes) among habitat patches.

The Equivalent Connected Area (ECA; structural connectivity) index was selected as the metric for the Landscape Connectivity indicator. Landscape connectivity was calculated for three broad habitat types: Upland Forest, Lowland Forest, and Grass-Shrub. We also aggregated the three habitat classes to create a composite indicator of landscape connectivity.

Literature

Blake, Baarda, D. 2018. “Developing a Habitat Connectivity Indicator for Scotland.” Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/23028.
Calabrese, Justin M., and William F. Fagan. 2004. “A Comparison-Shopper’s Guide to Connectivity Metrics.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (10): 529–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0529:ACGTCM]2.0.CO;2.
Taylor, Philip D., Lenore Fahrig, Kringen Henein, and Gray Merriam. 1993. “Connectivity Is a Vital Element of Landscape Structure.” Oikos 68 (3): 571–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3544927.