Highway(s) overhead: Strong differences in wetland connectivity and protected status challenge waterbird migration along the four Palearctic-Afrotropical flyways

Aim Waterbirds that travel seasonally between Europe and Africa use wetlands along four major Palearctic‐Afrotropical flyways. However, it is unknown to what extent the overall connectivity of these flyways may be threatened by ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Here, we contrasted the wetland co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diversity & distributions 2022-05, Vol.28 (5), p.1067-1080
Hauptverfasser: Deboelpaep, Evelien, Partoens, Lisa, Koedam, Nico, Vanschoenwinkel, Bram
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1080
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1067
container_title Diversity & distributions
container_volume 28
creator Deboelpaep, Evelien
Partoens, Lisa
Koedam, Nico
Vanschoenwinkel, Bram
description Aim Waterbirds that travel seasonally between Europe and Africa use wetlands along four major Palearctic‐Afrotropical flyways. However, it is unknown to what extent the overall connectivity of these flyways may be threatened by ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Here, we contrasted the wetland connectivity along these four flyways, applying graph‐theoretic connectivity metrics on an intercontinental scale. We also explored for which flyway connectivity is most at risk. We then identified the most important wetlands by their contribution to connectivity in each flyway. Location Western Palearctic, Afrotropics. Methods Based on high‐resolution wetland maps, we calculated directional probabilistic connectivity metrics. Estimates of overall connectivity of each flyway were obtained, as well as the relative importance of wetlands, for birds with different migration strategies: short‐distance hoppers and long‐distance jumpers. Results The East‐Atlantic flyway and Eastern Mediterranean flyway had higher overall functional connectivity than the two central routes, reflecting the larger barrier represented by the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert. Fewer than 5% of all wetlands supported more than 70% of the total connectivity of the network in each flyway, regardless of the considered migration strategy. These wetlands were either large, strategically positioned or both. Removing non‐protected wetlands from the analysis showed that the connectivity of some flyways could be jeopardized and that the East‐Atlantic and Eastern Mediterranean flyway may be most vulnerable to additional habitat loss. Main conclusions Our results illustrate (i) the major contribution of unprotected wetlands to flyway connectivity, (ii) the importance of integrating migration ecology into site‐based connectivity analyses and (iii) the utility of graph‐based connectivity metrics to inform conservation prioritization under present and future scenarios.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/ddi.13508
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_JFNAL</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2652021783</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48659276</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48659276</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3548-ab0fa02230cfd14dbde2aaba93674bdb5630615211cce826ddd2268064dc637b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1jzFPwzAQRi0EEqUwIGYkJBY6pLXP9sUZUQu0UiUWmC07dmiiQordUuXfYwiwcct3w_vu9Ag5Z3TM0kycq8eMS6oOyICJHDKBAg7TzhGzQjI8JicxNpRSziUMyMW8flntTXcTR1fthw8rb9wpOarMOvqznxyS5_u7p-k8Wz4-LKa3y6zkUqjMWFoZCsBpWTkmnHUejLGm4JgL66xETpFJYKwsvQJ0zgGgoihciTy3fEiu-7ub0L7vfNzqpt2Ft_RSA0qgwHLFEzXqqTK0MQZf6U2oX03oNKP6y1knZ_3tnNhJz-7rte_-B_VstvhtXPaNJm7b8NcQCmUBOfJPRWVezg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2652021783</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Highway(s) overhead: Strong differences in wetland connectivity and protected status challenge waterbird migration along the four Palearctic-Afrotropical flyways</title><source>Jstor Journals Open Access</source><creator>Deboelpaep, Evelien ; Partoens, Lisa ; Koedam, Nico ; Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</creator><creatorcontrib>Deboelpaep, Evelien ; Partoens, Lisa ; Koedam, Nico ; Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</creatorcontrib><description>Aim Waterbirds that travel seasonally between Europe and Africa use wetlands along four major Palearctic‐Afrotropical flyways. However, it is unknown to what extent the overall connectivity of these flyways may be threatened by ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Here, we contrasted the wetland connectivity along these four flyways, applying graph‐theoretic connectivity metrics on an intercontinental scale. We also explored for which flyway connectivity is most at risk. We then identified the most important wetlands by their contribution to connectivity in each flyway. Location Western Palearctic, Afrotropics. Methods Based on high‐resolution wetland maps, we calculated directional probabilistic connectivity metrics. Estimates of overall connectivity of each flyway were obtained, as well as the relative importance of wetlands, for birds with different migration strategies: short‐distance hoppers and long‐distance jumpers. Results The East‐Atlantic flyway and Eastern Mediterranean flyway had higher overall functional connectivity than the two central routes, reflecting the larger barrier represented by the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert. Fewer than 5% of all wetlands supported more than 70% of the total connectivity of the network in each flyway, regardless of the considered migration strategy. These wetlands were either large, strategically positioned or both. Removing non‐protected wetlands from the analysis showed that the connectivity of some flyways could be jeopardized and that the East‐Atlantic and Eastern Mediterranean flyway may be most vulnerable to additional habitat loss. Main conclusions Our results illustrate (i) the major contribution of unprotected wetlands to flyway connectivity, (ii) the importance of integrating migration ecology into site‐based connectivity analyses and (iii) the utility of graph‐based connectivity metrics to inform conservation prioritization under present and future scenarios.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-4642</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13508</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley</publisher><subject>Aquatic birds ; Bird migration ; Environmental degradation ; flyways ; functional connectivity ; Graph theory ; Habitat loss ; Habitats ; Hoppers ; migratory waterbirds ; probability of connectivity ; protected areas ; RESEARCH ARTICLE ; trans‐Saharan migration ; Waterfowl ; wetland networks ; Wetlands</subject><ispartof>Diversity &amp; distributions, 2022-05, Vol.28 (5), p.1067-1080</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2022. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3548-ab0fa02230cfd14dbde2aaba93674bdb5630615211cce826ddd2268064dc637b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3548-ab0fa02230cfd14dbde2aaba93674bdb5630615211cce826ddd2268064dc637b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5834-4031</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48659276$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48659276$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1411,11541,25332,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451,54499,54505</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48659276$$EView_record_in_JSTOR$$FView_record_in_$$GJSTOR</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Deboelpaep, Evelien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Partoens, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koedam, Nico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</creatorcontrib><title>Highway(s) overhead: Strong differences in wetland connectivity and protected status challenge waterbird migration along the four Palearctic-Afrotropical flyways</title><title>Diversity &amp; distributions</title><description>Aim Waterbirds that travel seasonally between Europe and Africa use wetlands along four major Palearctic‐Afrotropical flyways. However, it is unknown to what extent the overall connectivity of these flyways may be threatened by ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Here, we contrasted the wetland connectivity along these four flyways, applying graph‐theoretic connectivity metrics on an intercontinental scale. We also explored for which flyway connectivity is most at risk. We then identified the most important wetlands by their contribution to connectivity in each flyway. Location Western Palearctic, Afrotropics. Methods Based on high‐resolution wetland maps, we calculated directional probabilistic connectivity metrics. Estimates of overall connectivity of each flyway were obtained, as well as the relative importance of wetlands, for birds with different migration strategies: short‐distance hoppers and long‐distance jumpers. Results The East‐Atlantic flyway and Eastern Mediterranean flyway had higher overall functional connectivity than the two central routes, reflecting the larger barrier represented by the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert. Fewer than 5% of all wetlands supported more than 70% of the total connectivity of the network in each flyway, regardless of the considered migration strategy. These wetlands were either large, strategically positioned or both. Removing non‐protected wetlands from the analysis showed that the connectivity of some flyways could be jeopardized and that the East‐Atlantic and Eastern Mediterranean flyway may be most vulnerable to additional habitat loss. Main conclusions Our results illustrate (i) the major contribution of unprotected wetlands to flyway connectivity, (ii) the importance of integrating migration ecology into site‐based connectivity analyses and (iii) the utility of graph‐based connectivity metrics to inform conservation prioritization under present and future scenarios.</description><subject>Aquatic birds</subject><subject>Bird migration</subject><subject>Environmental degradation</subject><subject>flyways</subject><subject>functional connectivity</subject><subject>Graph theory</subject><subject>Habitat loss</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Hoppers</subject><subject>migratory waterbirds</subject><subject>probability of connectivity</subject><subject>protected areas</subject><subject>RESEARCH ARTICLE</subject><subject>trans‐Saharan migration</subject><subject>Waterfowl</subject><subject>wetland networks</subject><subject>Wetlands</subject><issn>1366-9516</issn><issn>1472-4642</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1jzFPwzAQRi0EEqUwIGYkJBY6pLXP9sUZUQu0UiUWmC07dmiiQordUuXfYwiwcct3w_vu9Ag5Z3TM0kycq8eMS6oOyICJHDKBAg7TzhGzQjI8JicxNpRSziUMyMW8flntTXcTR1fthw8rb9wpOarMOvqznxyS5_u7p-k8Wz4-LKa3y6zkUqjMWFoZCsBpWTkmnHUejLGm4JgL66xETpFJYKwsvQJ0zgGgoihciTy3fEiu-7ub0L7vfNzqpt2Ft_RSA0qgwHLFEzXqqTK0MQZf6U2oX03oNKP6y1knZ_3tnNhJz-7rte_-B_VstvhtXPaNJm7b8NcQCmUBOfJPRWVezg</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Deboelpaep, Evelien</creator><creator>Partoens, Lisa</creator><creator>Koedam, Nico</creator><creator>Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5834-4031</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Highway(s) overhead</title><author>Deboelpaep, Evelien ; Partoens, Lisa ; Koedam, Nico ; Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3548-ab0fa02230cfd14dbde2aaba93674bdb5630615211cce826ddd2268064dc637b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aquatic birds</topic><topic>Bird migration</topic><topic>Environmental degradation</topic><topic>flyways</topic><topic>functional connectivity</topic><topic>Graph theory</topic><topic>Habitat loss</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Hoppers</topic><topic>migratory waterbirds</topic><topic>probability of connectivity</topic><topic>protected areas</topic><topic>RESEARCH ARTICLE</topic><topic>trans‐Saharan migration</topic><topic>Waterfowl</topic><topic>wetland networks</topic><topic>Wetlands</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Deboelpaep, Evelien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Partoens, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koedam, Nico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Diversity &amp; distributions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Deboelpaep, Evelien</au><au>Partoens, Lisa</au><au>Koedam, Nico</au><au>Vanschoenwinkel, Bram</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Highway(s) overhead: Strong differences in wetland connectivity and protected status challenge waterbird migration along the four Palearctic-Afrotropical flyways</atitle><jtitle>Diversity &amp; distributions</jtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1067</spage><epage>1080</epage><pages>1067-1080</pages><issn>1366-9516</issn><eissn>1472-4642</eissn><abstract>Aim Waterbirds that travel seasonally between Europe and Africa use wetlands along four major Palearctic‐Afrotropical flyways. However, it is unknown to what extent the overall connectivity of these flyways may be threatened by ongoing habitat loss and degradation. Here, we contrasted the wetland connectivity along these four flyways, applying graph‐theoretic connectivity metrics on an intercontinental scale. We also explored for which flyway connectivity is most at risk. We then identified the most important wetlands by their contribution to connectivity in each flyway. Location Western Palearctic, Afrotropics. Methods Based on high‐resolution wetland maps, we calculated directional probabilistic connectivity metrics. Estimates of overall connectivity of each flyway were obtained, as well as the relative importance of wetlands, for birds with different migration strategies: short‐distance hoppers and long‐distance jumpers. Results The East‐Atlantic flyway and Eastern Mediterranean flyway had higher overall functional connectivity than the two central routes, reflecting the larger barrier represented by the Mediterranean Sea and Sahara Desert. Fewer than 5% of all wetlands supported more than 70% of the total connectivity of the network in each flyway, regardless of the considered migration strategy. These wetlands were either large, strategically positioned or both. Removing non‐protected wetlands from the analysis showed that the connectivity of some flyways could be jeopardized and that the East‐Atlantic and Eastern Mediterranean flyway may be most vulnerable to additional habitat loss. Main conclusions Our results illustrate (i) the major contribution of unprotected wetlands to flyway connectivity, (ii) the importance of integrating migration ecology into site‐based connectivity analyses and (iii) the utility of graph‐based connectivity metrics to inform conservation prioritization under present and future scenarios.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/ddi.13508</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5834-4031</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1366-9516
ispartof Diversity & distributions, 2022-05, Vol.28 (5), p.1067-1080
issn 1366-9516
1472-4642
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2652021783
source Jstor Journals Open Access
subjects Aquatic birds
Bird migration
Environmental degradation
flyways
functional connectivity
Graph theory
Habitat loss
Habitats
Hoppers
migratory waterbirds
probability of connectivity
protected areas
RESEARCH ARTICLE
trans‐Saharan migration
Waterfowl
wetland networks
Wetlands
title Highway(s) overhead: Strong differences in wetland connectivity and protected status challenge waterbird migration along the four Palearctic-Afrotropical flyways
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T03%3A46%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_JFNAL&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Highway(s)%20overhead:%20Strong%20differences%20in%20wetland%20connectivity%20and%20protected%20status%20challenge%20waterbird%20migration%20along%20the%20four%20Palearctic-Afrotropical%20flyways&rft.jtitle=Diversity%20&%20distributions&rft.au=Deboelpaep,%20Evelien&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1067&rft.epage=1080&rft.pages=1067-1080&rft.issn=1366-9516&rft.eissn=1472-4642&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ddi.13508&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_JFNAL%3E48659276%3C/jstor_JFNAL%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2652021783&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48659276&rfr_iscdi=true