Contributed Paper Effect of Planning for Connectivity on Linear Reserve Networks PIA E. LENTINI, ∗ † PHILIP GIBBONS,† JOSIE CARWARDINE,‡ JOERN FISCHER,§ MICHAEL DRIELSMA, ∗∗ †† AND TARA G. MARTIN‡ ∗ School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia, email pia.lentini@unimelb.edu.au †The Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia ‡CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, EcoSciences Precinct, Dutton Park QLD 4102, Australia §Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335 Lueneburg, Germany ∗∗ Biodiversity and Cultural Heritage Unit, New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, The University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia ††School of Environmental and Rural Science, The University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia Abstract: Although the concept of connectivity is decades old, it remains poorly understood and defined, and some argue that habitat quality and area should take precedence in conservation planning instead. However, fragmented landscapes are often characterized by linear features that are inherently connected, such as streams and hedgerows. For these, both representation and connectivity targets may be met with little effect on the cost, area, or quality of the reserve network. We assessed how connectivity approaches affect planning outcomes for linear habitat networks by using the stock-route network of Australia as a case study. With the objective of representing vegetation communities across the network at a minimal cost, we ran scenarios with a range of representation targets (10%, 30%, 50%, and 70%) and used 3 approaches to account for connectivity (boundary length modifier, Euclidean distance, and landscape-value [LV]). We found that decisions regarding the target and connectivity approach used affected the spatial allocation of reserve systems. At targets ≥50%, networks designed with the Euclidean distance and LV approaches consisted of a greater number of small reserves. Hence, by maximizing both representation and connectivity, these networks compromised on larger contiguous areas. However, targets this high are rarely used in real-world conservation planning. Approaches for incorporating connectivity into the planning of linear reserve networks that account for both the spatial arrangement of reserves and the characteristics of the intervening matrix highlight important sections that link the landscape and that may otherwise be overlooked. Keywords: connectivity metrics, corridor, linear feature, Marxan, sensitivity, systematic conservation, target- based conservation, traveling stock route El Efecto de la Planeaci´ on para la Conectividad en Redes de Reservas Lineales Resumen: Aunque el concepto de conectividad tiene varias d´ ecadas sigue poco entendido y definido y hay quienes discuten que la calidad de h´ abitat y ´ area deber´ ıa partir del planeamiento de conservaci´ on. Sin embargo los paisajes fragmentados caracterizados generalmente est´ an por caracteres lineales que est´ an inherentemente conectados, como arroyos e hileras de arbustos. Para ´ estos, tanto la representaci´ on como los objetivos de conectividad pueden ser enfrentados con pocos efectos en el costo, ´ area, o calidad de los sistemas de la reserva. Evaluamos como las aproximaciones de conectividad afectan los resultados de planeaci´ on para sistemas de h´ abitats lineales utilizando el sistema de rutas de ganado de Australia como un estudio de caso. Con el objetivo de representar a las comunidades vegetales a trav´ es del sistema con un costo m´ ınimo realizamos escenarios con un rango de objetivos de representaci´ on (10%, 30%, 50% y 70%) y utilizamos 3 aproximaciones que representaron la conectividad (modificador de la longitud de frontera, distancia Euclid- iana y valor de paisaje). Encontramos que las decisiones correspondientes al objetivo y a la aproximaci´ on de conectividad que se usaron afectaron la colocaci´ on espacial de los sistemas de reservas. En objetivos ≥50%, los Paper submitted June 1, 2012; revised manuscript accepted December 9, 2012. 1 Conservation Biology, Volume xx, No. x, 1–12 C  2013 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12060