Forest Patch Connectivity: The Case of the Kranj–Sora Basin, Slovenia




forestry, geography, forest habitat patches, patch connectivity, graph theory, Kranj–Sora Basin, Slovenia


This article features a spatial analysis of forest patches, trees, and shrubs outside forests in part of the Kranj–Sora Basin in central Slovenia. Forest patch connectivity is explored using methods derived from graph theory. The graph nodes represent the forest patches and the edges between them represent the shortest connections calculated using a raster layer containing data on the resistance of individual land-use types. The contribution of an individual forest patch to habitat connectivity and availability is calculated using selected indicators. The findings show that the largest forest patches complemented by smaller patches constitute the basic connectivity tool. Thus, habitat size and close-to-nature structure are vital for the conservation of species over short distances. In conclusion, guidelines are presented for managing and mitigating the effects of further clearing the remaining natural vegetation.


Download data is not yet available.


Adriaensen, F., Chardon, J. P., De Blust, G., Swinnen, E., Villalba, S., Gulinck, H., Matthysen, E. 2003: The application of “least-cost” modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape and Urban Planning 64-4. DOI:

Andren, H. 1994: Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71-3.

Bailey, S. 2007: Increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes: an investigation of evidence for biodiversity gain in woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management 238, 1–3. DOI:

Baranyi, G., Saura, S., Podani, J., Jordán, F. 2011: Contribution of habitat patches to network connectivity: Redundancy and uniqueness of topological indices. Ecological Indicators 11-5. DOI:

Bodin, Ö., Norberg, J. 2007: A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology 22-1. DOI:

Bodin, Ö., Saura, S. 2010: Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: Integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments. Ecological Modelling 221-19. DOI:

Bunn, A. G., Urban, D. L., Keitt, T. H. 2000: Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management 59-4. DOI:

Collinge, S. K. 1996: Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 36-1. DOI:

Crouzeilles, R., Prevedello, J. A., Figueiredo, M. D. S. L., Lorini, M. L., Grelle, C. E. V. 2014: The effects of the number, size and isolation of patches along a gradient of native vegetation cover: how can we increment habitat availability? Landscape Ecology 29-3. DOI:

Drielsma, M., Manion, G., Ferrier, S. 2007: The spatial links tool: automated mapping of habitat linkages in variegated landscapes. Ecological Modelling 200, 3–4. DOI:

Driezen, K., Adriaensen, F., Rondinini, C., Doncaster, C. P., Matthysen, E. 2007: Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: A case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecological Modelling 209, 2–4. DOI:

Flather, C. H., Bevers, M. 2002: Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. The American Naturalist 159-1. DOI:

Foltête, J. C., Clauzel, C., Vuidel, G. 2012: A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environmental Modelling & Software 38. DOI:

Forman, R. T. T. 1995: Land Mosaics. The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge.

Grafični podatki RABA za celo Slovenijo. Podatkovna zbirka Dejanska raba kmetijskih in gozdnih zemljišč. Ljubljana, Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. URL: (10. 9. 2012)

Laita, A., Kotiaho, J. S., Mönkkönen, M. 2011: Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity? Landscape Ecology 26-7. DOI:

Lee, J. T., Woddy, S. J., Thompson, S. 2001: Targeting sites for conservation: using a patch-based ranking scheme to assess conservation potential. Journal of Environmental Management 61-4. DOI:

Mazaris, A. D., Papanikolaou, A. D., Barbet-Massin, M., Kallimanis, A. S., Jiguet, F., Schmeller, D. S., Pantis, J. D. 2013: Evaluating the connectivity of a protected areas’ network under the prism of global change: the efficiency of the European Natura 2000 network for four birds of prey. PloS One 8-3. DOI:

Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020. 2013. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief 5. URL: (13. 11. 2014)

Pascual-Hortal, L., Saura, S. 2006: Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecology 21-7. DOI:

Petek, F. 2005: Typology of Slovenia's Alpine region with emphasis on land use. Tipologija Slovenskega Alpskega sveta s poudarkom na rabi in spremembah rabe tal. Acta geographica Slovenica 45-1. DOI:

Polenšek, M. 2015: Omrežje gozdnih zaplat in drevnine kot izhodišče urejanja kmetijske krajine na primeru izbranega dela Kranjskega polja. Magistrsko delo, Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana.

Rejec Brancelj, I. 2001: Kmetijsko obremenjevanje okolja v Sloveniji. Pokrajinski vidiki obremenjevanja iz razpršenih virov. Ljubljana.

Revilla, E., Wiegand, T., Palomares, F., Ferreras, P., Delibes, M. 2004: Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. The American Naturalist 164-5. DOI:

Ricketts, T. H. 2001: The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American Naturalist 158-1. DOI:

Russell, R. E., Swihart, R. K., Feng, Z. 2003: Population consequences of movement decisions in a patchy landscape. Oikos 103-1.

Saura, S., Estreguil, C., Mouton, C., Rodríguez-Freire, M. 2011: Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends: application to European forests (1990–2000). Ecological Indicators 11-2. DOI:

Saura, S., Pascual-Hortal, L. 2007: A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 2–3. DOI:

Saura, S., Rubio, L. 2010: A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape. Ecography 33-3. DOI:

Saura, S., Torné, J. 2009: Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environmental Modelling & Software 24-1. DOI:

Urban, D., Keitt, T. 2001: Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82-5. DOI:[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2

Zetterberg, A. 2011: Connecting the dots: network analysis, landscape ecology, and practical application. Stockholm.

Zetterberg, A., Mörtberg, U. M., Balfors, B. 2010: Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landscape and Urban Planning 95-4. DOI:




How to Cite

Polenšek, M., & Pirnat, J. (2018). Forest Patch Connectivity: The Case of the Kranj–Sora Basin, Slovenia. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 58(1), 83–95.