Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 22;196(3):649–665. doi: 10.1007/s00442-021-04967-y

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Networks explicitly characterizing the physical configurations of animal habitats. We illustrate how five dimensions for assessing habitat configuration proposed by Tokeshi and Arakaki (2012) can be integrated and applied to construct animal habitat networks. These dimensions are (1) spatial scale (spatial resolution and extent), (2) composition diversity (heterogeneity), (3) size (area), (4) abundance or density (number of discrete habitat units per area), and (5) spatial arrangement (distribution) of habitat components. (a) A hypothetical landscape composed by forest fragments (numbered components) within a heterogeneous matrix with potential movement corridors (light green, which account for the presences of links between nodes) and physical barriers (light brown, which account for the absence of links between nodes). The physical features and spatial organization of the habitat components can be represented by a connected network at a large spatial scale, with a high composition diversity (fragments of different tree species), different habitat sizes (small and large fragments), high abundance (7 fragments), and heterogeneous spatial arrangement (fragments unequally distributed and connected by movement corridors across the landscape). (b) The physical features and spatial arrangement of habitat components can be characterized at different spatial scales. Here, part of the forest (fragment 2) can be represented by a connected network at a finer spatial scale (e.g. trees as habitat components), with a low composition diversity (the same tree species), small habitat size (single trees), low abundance of components (4 trees), and uniform spatial arrangement. In the two habitat networks, the compositional diversity (or quality) and size (or carrying capacity) of habitat components are characterized by node attributes (colours and sizes), the abundance by the number of nodes in the networks, and the spatial arrangement by the patterns of connectivity and the distribution of link weights (both as a function of the Euclidean distances between habitat components)