Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
N. H. Carter, J. D. Linnell (2016)
Co‐adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores, 31
R. J. Fletcher, A. Revell, B. E. Reichert, W. M. Kitchens, J. D. Dixon, J. D. Austin (2013)
Network modularity reveals critical scales for connectivity in ecology and evolution, 4
E. T. Game, P. Kareiva, H. P. Possingham (2013)
Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting, 27
M. Ashtiani, M. Mirzaie, M. Jafari (2019)
CINNA: An R/CRAN package to decipher central informative nodes in network analysis, 35
S. A. Cushman, K. S. McKelvey, M. K. Schwartz (2009)
Use of empirically derived source‐destination models to map regional conservation corridors, 23
(2019)
Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
J. F. Benson, P. J. Mahoney, J. A. Sikich, L. E. Serieys, J. P. Pollinger, H. B. Ernest, S. P. Riley (2016)
Interactions between demography, genetics, and landscape connectivity increase extinction probability for a small population of large carnivores in a major metropolitan area, 283
A. Jayadevan, R. Nayak, K. K. Karanth, J. Krishnaswamy, R. DeFries, K. U. Karanth, S. Vaidyanathan (2020)
Navigating paved paradise: Evaluating landscape permeability to movement for large mammals in two conservation priority landscapes in India, 247
R. S. DeFries, T. Rudel, M. Uriarte, M. Hansen (2010)
Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty‐first century, 3
L. Fahrig (1997)
Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction, 61
H. R. Akçakaya, G. Mills, C. P. Doncaster (2007)
Key topics in conservation biology
K. E. Jenks, E. O. Aikens, N. Songsasen, J. Calabrese, C. Fleming, N. Bhumpakphan, S. Wanghongsa, B. Kanchanasaka, M. Songer, P. Leimgruber (2015)
Comparative movement analysis for a sympatric dhole and golden jackal in a human‐dominated landscape, 63
J. Bowman, J. A. Jaeger, L. Fahrig (2002)
Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size, 83
K. R. Crooks, C. L. Burdett, D. M. Theobald, S. R. King, M. Di Marco, C. Rondinini, L. Boitani (2017)
Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals, 114
A. Joshi, S. Vaidyanathan, S. Mondol, A. Edgaonkar, U. Ramakrishnan (2013)
Connectivity of tiger (Panthera tigris) populations in the human‐influenced forest mosaic of central India, 8
C. C. Day, P. A. Zollner, J. H. Gilbert, N. P. McCann (2020)
Individual‐based modeling highlights the importance of mortality and landscape structure in measures of functional connectivity, 35
M. Åkesson, O. Liberg, H. Sand, P. Wabakken, S. Bensch, Ø. Flagstad (2016)
Genetic rescue in a severely inbred wolf population, 25
B. Habib, P. Ghaskadbi, S. Khan, Z. Hussain, P. Nigam (2021)
Not a cakewalk: Insights into movement of large carnivores in human‐dominated landscapes in India, 11
K. R. Hall, R. Anantharaman, V. A. Landau, M. Clark, B. G. Dickson, A. Jones, J. Platt, A. Edelman, V. B. Shah (2021)
Circuitscape in Julia: Empowering dynamic approaches to connectivity assessment, 10
L. Fahrig (2017)
Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se, 48
R. J. Fletcher, N. S. Burrell, B. E. Reichert, D. Vasudev, J. D. Austin (2016)
Divergent perspectives on landscape connectivity reveal consistent effects from genes to communities, 1
R. J. Fletcher, R. K. Didham, C. Banks‐Leite, J. Barlow, R. M. Ewers, J. Rosindell, R. D. Holt, A. Gonzalez, R. Pardini, E. I. Damschen, F. P. L. Melo, L. Ries, J. A. Prevedello, T. Tscharntke, W. F. Laurance, T. Lovejoy, N. M. Haddad (2018)
Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?, 226
I. A. Haidir, Ż. Kaszta, L. L. Sousa, M. I. Lubis, D. W. Macdonald, M. Linkie (2021)
Felids, forest and farmland: Identifying high priority conservation areas in Sumatra, 36
R. J. Fletcher, M. A. Acevedo, E. P. Robertson (2014)
The matrix alters the role of path redundancy on patch colonization rates, 95
M. S. Farhadinia, M. Ahmadi, E. Sharbafi, S. Khosravi, H. Alinezhad, D. W. Macdonald (2015)
Leveraging trans‐boundary conservation partnerships: Persistence of Persian leopard (Panthera pardus saxicolor) in the Iranian Caucasus, 191
J. Geldmann, M. Barnes, L. Coad, I. D. Craigie, M. Hockings, N. D. Burgess (2013)
Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines, 161
A. Gangadharan, S. Vaidyanathan, C. C. St. Clair (2016)
Categorizing species by niche characteristics can clarify conservation planning in rapidly‐developing landscapes, 19
S. Dolrenry, J. Stenglein, L. Hazzah, R. S. Lutz, L. Frank (2014)
A metapopulation approach to African lion (Panthera leo) conservation, 9
A. Harihar, P. Chanchani, J. Borah, R. J. Crouthers, Y. Darman, T. N. E. Gray, S. Mohamad, B. M. Rawson, M. D. Rayan, J. L. Roberts, R. Steinmetz, S. Sunarto, F. A. Widodo, M. Anwar, S. R. Bhatta, J. P. P. Chakravarthi, Y. Chang, G. Congdon, C. Dave, J. Vattakaven (2018)
Recovery planning towards doubling wild tiger Panthera tigris numbers: Detailing 18 recovery sites from across the range, 13
J. L. Huang, M. Andrello, A. C. Martensen, S. Saura, D. F. Liu, J. H. He, M. J. Fortin (2020)
Importance of spatio–temporal connectivity to maintain species experiencing range shifts, 43
C. T. Darimont, P. C. Paquet, A. Treves, K. A. Artelle, G. Chapron (2018)
Political populations of large carnivores, 32
M. Ahmadi, B. N. Balouchi, H. Jowkar, M. R. Hemami, D. Fadakar, S. Malakouti‐Khah, S. Ostrowski (2017)
Combining landscape suitability and habitat connectivity to conserve the last surviving population of cheetah in Asia, 23
A. Datta, M. O. Anand, R. Naniwadekar (2008)
Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north‐east India, 141
Elevated rates of anthropogenic impacts on land‐use regimes have pushed terrestrial megafauna to the brink of extinction. Consequently, it is critical to adopt conservation approaches that safeguard individual populations while retaining connectivity among these populations. Conserving spatially structured populations of imperiled species at large scales is often complex; and the past decades have therefore seen a rise in spatial conservation prioritization exercises aimed at shaping landscape‐scale conservation programmes. We present a framework for informing nationwide connectivity conservation, linking ecological and administrative scales, to maximize relevance for management. We assessed connectivity of the endangered dhole Cuon alpinus among 155 potential source populations across India using a data‐driven approach combined with graph and circuit theory. We used clustering algorithms to identify ecologically meaningful conservation landscapes; within each landscape, we identified priority source populations based on their connectedness and quantified pixel‐specific habitat accessibility. We superimposed administrative boundaries on our findings to provide conservation recommendations at this management‐relevant scale. We first mapped potential dhole movement across India. Dhole populations fell within three primary clusters—Western and Eastern Ghats (WEG), Central Indian Landscape (CIL) and North‐East India (NEI)—of which NEI had the highest forest cover, most diffuse connectivity and lowest human density, while WEG had the highest protected area coverage and overall connectedness. Within each conservation landscape, we evaluated the relative importance of Protected Areas and accessibility to high‐quality patches. Parts of the Eastern Ghats had low habitat accessibility, yet high potential for dhole landscape connectivity. In 114 identified administrative units of priority for habitat restoration, we highlight those with low accessibility, that is, areas where restoration needs to be spatially targeted for maximum benefits. Synthesis and applications. We make recommendations for spatially informed habitat restoration to enhance dhole connectivity in India, highlighting the importance of improving matrix permeability where dhole movement is currently restricted. More broadly, the framework we present is useful across species and management contexts, as it combines spatial and administrative scales to make ecologically informed assessments of high relevance to management. Synergistically integrating species ecology, threats and administrative considerations in connectivity conservation plans can enhance success of species conservation programmes.
Journal of Applied Ecology – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2022
Keywords: circuit theory; connectivity; conservation landscapes; dhole; India; management; modularity; spatial prioritization
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.