Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Structural connectivity as an indicator of species richness and landscape diversity in Castilla y León (Spain) J. Velázquez a,b , J. Gutiérrez a, ⁎ , A. García-Abril b , A. Hernando b , M. Aparicio c , B. Sánchez a a Catholic University of Ávila, Spain b SILVANET Research Group, E.T.S. de Ingenieros de Montes, Technical University of Madrid, Spain c Tragsa, Spain ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Connectivity Biodiversity Species richness Landscape diversity Shannon index MSPA ABSTRACT Connectivity loss has been identified as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, at both the species and ecosystem levels. This study aims to find possible correlations between structural connectivity and faunal richness and landscape diversity in Spain’s largest region, Castilla y León. Based on data provided by the National Biodiversity Inventory and the CORINE Land Cover land-use mapping for 2000 and 2006, species richness was characterized by the number of species occurring in a grid overlaid on the 10 × 10-km-territory. The Shannon Index for land uses was also calculated in each one of the grid cells, providing information on landscape diversity. Structural connectivity was studied using the Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis, thus providing information on landscape diversity for different edge widths in two different habitat types. Lastly, the analyses showed that there is a slight relationship between structural connectivity and landscape diversity, but not between structural connectivity and faunal richness. 1. Introduction The movement of organisms and materials across landscapes is commonly called connectivity and is important for maintaining ecolo- gical processes (Olds et al., 2012). Connectivity is a vital element in landscape structure because of its importance in species-landscape in- teractions (Tian et al., 2017). Hundreds of habitat network initiatives are underway around the world (Bennett and Mulongoy, 2006) as a means of implementing the 21st-century paradigm of connectivity conservation (Crooks and Sanjayan, 2006; Worboys et al., 2010). Landscape connectivity is important for the ecology and genetics of populations threatened by climate change and habitat fragmentation (Rayfield et al., 2016). Broadly speaking, connectivity is a function of habitat area, quality and arrangement, and the dispersal capabilities of individual species (Hodgson et al., 2009). Today, one of the main nature conservation strategies is to define and apply connectivity criteria. In this sense, connectivity models are useful tools that improve the ability of researchers and managers to plan land use for conservation and preservation (Pelletier et al., 2014). Structural connectivity can be defined as “the land’s ability of the land to allow the movement of organisms among patches with resources”(Taylor et al., 1993; Gurrutxaga and Lozano, 2007). This connectivity is achieved through ecological corridors that are of great importance for biological conservation and evaluation of biodiversity (Vogt et al., 2007). Moreover, it improves the performance of a wildlife reserve (Olds et al., 2011). Related with this, the ability to identify regions of high functional connectivity for multiple wildlife species is essential for habitat conservation and management and for corridor planning (Koen et al., 2014). Although it is becoming increasingly common for corri- dors to be included in biodiversity conservation programmes, their practical conservation value has nevertheless been the subject of fierce debate (Dawson, 1994; Rosenberg et al., 1997; Beier and Noss, 1998). Bienen (2002) draws attention to conservation corridors and the spread of infectious disease. Population viability may depend on habitat area, habitat quality, the spatial arrangement of habitats (aggregations and connections) and the properties of the intervening non-breeding (matrix) land (Hodgson et al., 2011). Previous studies have shown that the width, shape and dimension of connectivity in the habitat affect diversity and abundance of species due to the effect of the special structure of the dispersion distribution and persistence of the species (Galanes and Thomlinson, 2008). On the other hand, many of the methods used to identify wildlife linkages depend on the identification of focal or umbrella species (Beier et al., 2006; Cushman and Landguth, 2012). However, this can pose a challenge because a favourable dispersal habitat for one species might https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.035 Received 4 July 2018; Received in revised form 17 September 2018; Accepted 19 September 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Catholic University of Ávila, Calle Canteros s/n, CP: 05005 Ávila, Spain. E-mail address: javiergvelayos@hotmail.com (J. Gutiérrez). Forest Ecology and Management 432 (2019) 286–297 0378-1127/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. T