Plant functional connectivity – integrating landscape structure and effective dispersal

Abstract

Summary Dispersal is essential for species to survive the threats of habitat destruction and climate change. Combining descriptions of dispersal ability with those of landscape structure, the concept of functional connectivity has been popular for understanding and predicting species’ spatial responses to environmental change. Following recent advances, the functional connectivity concept is now able to move beyond landscape structure to consider more explicitly how other external factors such as climate and resources affect species movement. We argue that these factors, in addition to a consideration of the complete dispersal process, are critical for an accurate understanding of functional connectivity for plant species in response to environmental change. We use recent advances in dispersal, landscape and molecular ecology to describe how a range of external factors can influence effective dispersal in plant species, and how the resulting functional connectivity can be assessed. Synthesis. We define plant functional connectivity as the effective dispersal of propagules or pollen among habitat patches in a landscape. Plant functional connectivity is determined by a combination of landscape structure, interactions between plant, environment and dispersal vectors, and the successful establishment of individuals. We hope that this consolidation of recent research will help focus future connectivity research and conservation.

Interspecific variation in ploidy as a key plant trait outlining local extinction risks and community patterns in fragmented landscapes

“…Hence, the absence of a response to increasing spatial isolation in tetra‐ and polyploid diversity observed here. Spatial isolation had little impact on most other diversity metrics, despite being considered a key factor outlining diversity patterns in fragmented landscapes via its effects on seed and gene flow (Auffret, Rico, et al., ). Habitat fragmentation may have advanced past crucial threshold levels (Yeager, Keller, Burns, Pool, & Fodrie, ), explaining the broad lack of its importance as interpatch distances surpass levels which may be bridged by seed and pollen vectors.…”

The r toolbox grainscape for modelling and visualizing landscape connectivity using spatially explicit networks

“…And retrospectively: how has the landscape shaped the observed demographic and genetic structure of the populations? Landscape connectivity models have been used for a variety of purposes including: conservation planning, managing landscape change and habitat fragmentation, constructing corridors and protected area networks, understanding impediments to dispersal and gene flow, estimating the availability of ecosystem services to agriculture, helping wildlife populations adapt to climate change and, reducing risks associated with the spread of human diseases or invasive species (Albert, Rayfield, Dumitru, & Gonzalez, ; Auffret et al, ; Castillo et al, ; Lechner, Sprod, Carter, & Lefroy, ; McGuire, Lawler, McRae, Nuñez, & Theobald, ; Perry, Moloney, & Etherington, ; Rayfield, Pelletier, Dumitru, Cardille, & Gonzalez, ; Sahraoui, Foltête, & Clauzel, ; Saura et al, ; Sousa & Small, ; Travis Belote et al, ; Watts et al, ).…”

Landscape history confounds the ability of the NDVI to detect fine‐scale variation in grassland communities

“…The plant community composition and species richness of semi-natural grasslands are determined by the underlying abiotic environmental conditions (e.g., Ceulemans, Merckx, Hens, & Honnay, 2011;Moeslund et al, 2013), biotic interactions-such as competition (e.g., Hautier, Niklaus, & Hector, 2009)-and by patterns of propagule dispersal among grassland patches. Grazing regimes influence the abiotic and biotic properties of pasture habitats (Karlík & Poschlod, 2009) as well as levels of habitat connectivity (Auffret et al, 2017). Many grassland specialists are poor competitors in nutrient-rich habitats (Ceulemans et al, 2011;Redhead et al, 2014) and, initially, high levels of soil nutrients impose a strong abiotic constraint on the development of semi-natural grassland on previously arable fields (Bakker & Berendse, 1999;Fagan et al, 2008).…”