Abstract
Facing the loss of biodiversity caused by landscape fragmentation, implementation of ecological networks to connect habitats is an important biodiversity conservation issue. It is necessary to develop easily reproducible methods to identify and prioritize actions to maintain or restore ecological corridors. To date, several competing methods are used with recurrent debate on which is best and if expert-based approaches can replace data-driven models. We compared three methods: knowledge-driven (expert based), data-driven (based on species distribution model), and a mixed approach. We quantified their differences in habitat and corridor mapping, and prioritizations of landscape elements in terms of importance for connectivity. Key parameters generating these differences were identified. To put this into practice, the case study of the wildcat (Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777) was chosen. The results highlighted differences and similarities between approaches used. The data-driven approach was more successful in identifying the suitable habitat with regard to wildcat ecology, while the knowledge-driven approach was better able to account for obstacles to wildcat movements in the landscape matrix. However, these two methods converged for the identification of patterns of habitat patches and corridors that are important for global landscape connectivity. For both methods, we identified adjustments that can improve the outcome. The mixed approach largely differed in that it required more inputs to be performed. In the end, conservation actions were identified and could guide nature conservation practitioners in their efforts to restore landscape connectivity.
Highlights
Despite the establishment of protected areas, anthropogenic pres sures on landscapes cause significant fragmentation of species habitats, increasing species extinction rates (Hanski, 2005; Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995). This is the case in landscapes strongly shaped by human activities, such as Western Europe, where natural areas are reduced to small and isolated habitat remnants embedded in an anthropogenic matrix (Jongman, Külvik, & Kristiansen, 2004; Luck, 2007)
The most important factor was the presence of forests dominated by coniferous trees within a 250 m radius, which is positively correlated to the habitat suitability
The list of variables retained in the final model and their relative importance in predicting habitat suitability can be found in Appendix B
Summary
Despite the establishment of protected areas, anthropogenic pres sures on landscapes cause significant fragmentation of species habitats, increasing species extinction rates (Hanski, 2005; Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995). The lack of connectivity could be efficiently addressed by imple menting ecological networks, known as habitat networks (Melin, 1997; Opdam, Steingrover, & Rooij, 2006), which are progressively integrated into conservation planning (Albert et al, 2016; Rayfield, Pelletier, Dumitru, Cardille, & Gonzalez, 2016). The ambition of this conservation tool is to connect isolated populations of targeted species by linking their habitats in a coherent way and in interaction with the landscape matrix (Opdam et al, 2006). To implement ecological net works, habitat areas or biodiversity cores and the corridors connecting them must be identified
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
