Modeling Connectivity of the Whole: A Graph Theoretic Application in Conservation Planning Prioritization

REFERENCES

1. 1. Alagador Diogo,
   2. Trivino Maria,
   3. Cerdeira Jorge Orestes,
   4. Bras Raul,
   5. Cabeza Mar,
   6. Araujo Miguel Bastos

   . 2012. Linking like with like: optimizing connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats. Landscape Ecology 27(2): 291–301.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. 1. AGFD

   . 2012. Arizona Department of Game and Fish. Request for Proposal. Bid Number AGDF12-00001454. March 27, 2012Phoenix, Arizona.
3. 1. Baldwin Robert F.,
   2. Calhoun Aram. J. K.,
   3. deMaynadier Phillip. G

   .2006. Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: A case study using movements and habitat selection of the Wood Frog Rana sylvatica. Journal of Herpetology 40(4): 442–453.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Baldwin Robert F.,
   2. Perkl Ryan M.,
   3. Trombulak Stephen C.,
   4. Burwell Walter B. III.

   2010. Modeling Ecoregional Connectivity. In Landscape-scale Conservation Planning, ed. Trombulak Stephen C., Baldwin Robert F., 349–368. New York, NY. USA.: Springer-Verlag.
5. 1. Beier Paul,
   2. Garding Emily,
   3. Majka Daniel

   2006. Arizona Missing Linkages: Tucson—Tortolita—Santa Catalina Mountains Linkage Design. Report to Arizona Game and Fish Department. School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University.
6. 1. Beier Paul,
   2. Majka Daniel R.,
   3. Spencer Wayne D

   .2008. Forks in the road: Choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22(4): 836–851.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
7. 1. Borgatti Stephen P

   . 2005. Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27: 55–71.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. 1. Carroll Carlos,
   2. McRae Brad H.,
   3. Brookes Allen

   . 2011. Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of gray wolf populations in Western North America. Conservation Biology 26(1): 78–87.

   OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
9. 1. Comer Patrick. J.,
   2. Hak Jon

   . 2012. Landscape Condition in the Conterminous United States. Spatial Model Summary. NatureServe.
10. 1. Compton Bradley W.,
    2. McGarigal Kevin,
    3. Cushman Samuel A.,
    4. Gamble Lloyd R

    .2007. A resistant-kernel model of connectivity for amphibians that breed in vernal pools. Conservation Biology 21(3): 788–799.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 1. Cook Edward A

    . 2002. Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks. Journal of Planning Literature 17(1): 85–168.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
12. 1. Crooks Kevin R.,
    2. Sanjayan M. A.

    2006, ed. Connectivity Conservation, Conservation Biology 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. 1. Elliot Nicholas B.,
    2. Cushman Samuel A.,
    3. Macdonald David W.,
    4. Loveridge Andrew J

    .2014. The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(5): 1169–1178.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Freeman Linton C.,
    2. Borgatti Stephen P.,
    3. White Douglas R

    .1991. Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks 13: 141–154.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. Haddad Nick M.,
    2. Tewksbury Josh J.

    2006. Impacts of corridors on populations and communities. In Connectivity Conservation, ed. Crooks Kevin. R., Sanjayan M., 390–415. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
16. 1. Haddad Nick M.,
    2. Tewksbury Joshua J

    .2005. Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecological Applications 15(1): 250–257.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
17. 1. Harrison Daniel J

    . 1992. Dispersal charecteristics of juvenile coyotes in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Managment 56: 128–138.

    OpenUrl
18. 1. Horskins Kerrilee,
    2. Mather Peter,
    3. Wilson John

    . 2006. Corridors and connectivity: when use and function do not equate. Landscape Ecology 21(5): 641–655.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Leu Matthias,
    2. Hanser Steven E.,
    3. Knick Steven T

    .2008. The human footprint in the west: A large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecological Applications 18(5): 1119–1139.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
20. 1. McRae Brad H.,
    2. Beier Paul

    . 2007. Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(50): 19885–90.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
21. 1. McRae Brad H.,
    2. Dickson Brett G.,
    3. Keitt Timothy H.,
    4. Shah Viral B

    .2008. Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology 89(10): 2712–2724.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 1. Newman Mark E. J

    . 2005. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks 29: 39–54.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. Panitsa Maria,
    2. Koutsias Nikos,
    3. Tsiripidis Ioannis,
    4. Zotos Anastasios,
    5. Dimopoulos Panayotis

    . 2011. Species-based versus habitat-based evaluation for conservation status assessment of habitat types in the East Aegean islands (Greece). Journal for Nature Conservation 19(5): 269–275.

    OpenUrl
24. 1. Perkl Ryan M,
    2. Baldwin Robert F

    . 2010. Connections between GAP Status 1 lands. http://www.2c1forest.org/atlas/datawarehouse.html [January 26, 2016].
25. 1. Perkl Ryan M

    . 2013. Arizona Landscape Integrity and Wildlife Connectivity Assessment. The University of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. Tucson, AZ.
26. 1. Perkl Ryan M

    . (2016). Measuring Landscape Integrity (LI): development of a hybrid methodology for planning applications. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. (In Press).
27. 1. Perkl Ryan M.,
    2. Baldwin Robert,
    3. Trombulak Stephen,
    4. Smith Garrett

    2016. Landscape network congruency at the ecoregion scale: can we expect corridor ‘umbrellas’? Journal of Land Use Science. (In Press on-line). DOI:10.1080/1747423X.2016.1142015

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. 1. Phillips Steven J.,
    2. Williams Paul,
    3. Midgley Guy,
    4. Archer Aaron

    . 2008. Optimizing dispersal corridors for the cape proteaceae using network flow. Ecological Applications 18(5): 1200–1211.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 1. Rudnick Deborah A.,
    2. Ryan Sadie J,
    3. Beier Paul,
    4. Cushman Samuel A.,
    5. Dieffenbach Fred,
    6. Epps Clinton W.,
    7. Gerber Leah R.,
    8. Hartter Joel,
    9. Jenness Jeff S.,
    10. Kintsch Julia,
    11. Merenlender Adina M.,
    12. Perkl Ryan M.,
    13. Preziosi Damian V.,
    14. Trombulak Stephen C.

    2012. The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology. Report No. 16. Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America.
30. 1. Sanderson Eric W.,
    2. Jaiteh Malanding,
    3. Levy Marc A.,
    4. Redford Kent H.,
    5. Wannebo Antoinette V.,
    6. Woolmer Gillian

    . 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52(10): 891.

    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
31. 1. Spencer Wayne D.,
    2. Beier Paul,
    3. Penrod Kristeen,
    4. Winters Karin,
    5. Paulman Candice,
    6. Rustigian-Romsos Heather,
    7. Strittholt James,
    8. Paris Monica,
    9. Pettler Amy

    . 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, and Federal Highways Administration.
32. 1. Theobald David M.

    2006. Exploring the functional connectivity of landscapes using landscape networks. In Connectivity Conservation, ed. Crooks Kevin. R., Sanjayan C. M., 416–444. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
33. 1. Theobald David M.,
    2. Crooks Kevin R.,
    3. Norman John B

    .2011. Assessing effects of land use on landscape connectivity: loss and fragmentation of western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications 21(7): 2445–2458.

    OpenUrlPubMed
34. 1. Theobald David. M.,
    2. Reed Sarah E.,
    3. Fields Kenyon,
    4. Soule Michael

    . 2012. Connecting natural landscapes using a landscape permeability model to prioritize conservation activities in the United States. Conservation Letters 5(2): 123–133.

    OpenUrl
35. 1. Trombulak Stephen C.,
    2. Baldwin Robert F.,
    3. Woolmer Gillian

    . 2010. The human footprint as a conservation planning tool. In Landscape-scale Conservation Planning, ed. Trombulak Stephen C., Baldwin Robert F., 281–302. New York, NY. USA.: Springer-Verlag.
36. 1. Urban Dean,
    2. Keitt Timothy

    . 2001. Landscape connectivity: A graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82(5): 1205–1218.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
37. 1. Urban Dean L.,
    2. Minor Emily S.,
    3. Treml Eric A.,
    4. Schick Robert S

    .2009. Graph models of habitat mosaics. Ecology Letters 12(3): 260–273.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. 1. WGWC

    . 2011. Western Governors’ Wildlife Council. August. White Paper Version II. Western wildlife Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT): vision, definitions and guidance for state systems and regional viewer: http://www.westgov.org/component/joomdoc/doc_download/1560-wgwc-whitepaper-082011-2012-roster.0 [January 26, 2016].
39. 1. WHCWG

    . 2010. Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group. Washington connected landscapes project: statewide analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, WA. Report.
40. 1. Woolmer Gillian,
    2. Trombulak Stephen C.,
    3. Ray Justina C.,
    4. Doran Patrick J.,
    5. Anderson Mark G.,
    6. Baldwin Robert F.,
    7. Morgan Alexis,
    8. Sanderson Eric W

    .2008. Rescaling the human footprint: A tool for conservation planning at an ecoregional scale. Landscape and Urban Planning 87(1): 42–53.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science