CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biological corridors and connectivity

Cushman, Samuel A., McRae, Brad, Adriaensen, Frank, Beier, Paul, Shirley, Mark, Zeller, Kathy·2013·Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2
DOI 10.1002/9781118520178.ch21
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The goal of this chapter is to describe the state of the art in quantitative corridor and connectivity modelling. It reviews several critical issues in modelling, and provides expert guidance and examples to help practitioners implement effective programmes to preserve, enhance or create connectivity among wildlife populations. It first reviews the fundamental task of estimating landscape resistance, comparing expert opinion and empirical methods. Next, it describes current methods of predicting connectivity from resistance surfaces. It concludes with discussion of how effectively to validate connectivity model predictions. In recent years least-cost (LC) modelling has become the dominant modelling tool to evaluate functional landscape connectivity, especially in applied studies. Advances in computing have allowed applications of graph algorithms to continuous landscapes instead of simple networks. Circuit and LC models represent two extremes in assumptions about movement and connectivity. A promising graph-theoretic approach to connectivity modelling is centrality analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9781118520178.ch21

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GIS technologies and least-cost analysis tools such as Linkage Mapper and Circuitscape have demonstrated potential in diverse fields, from biodiversity conservation to ecological networks.

    “GIS technologies and least-cost analysis tools, such as Linkage Mapper [19] and Circuitscape [20], have demonstrated their potential in diverse fields, from biodiversity conservation to the study of ecological networks [21–25].”

    From Tracing neanderthal mobility through the romanian carpathians: a GIS-based least-cost connectivity model (2025) · cites this paper as [24]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 94

  1. Adriaensen F., 2003, The application of 'least‐cost' modelling as a functional landscape model, Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 233, 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Adriaensen F., 2007, Restoration and Increase of Connectivity among Fragmented Forest Patches in the Taita Hills, Southeast Kenya
  3. Ahuja R.K., 1993, Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications
  4. Amundson R., 1997, On a state factor model of ecosystems, BioScience, 47, 536, 10.2307/1313122 · DOI
  5. Anderson M.G., 2010, Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity, PLoS ONE, 5, e11554, 10.1371/journal.pone.0011554 · DOI
  6. Beier P., 2010, Use of land facets to plan for climate change: conserving the arenas, not the actors, Conservation Biology, 24, 701, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01422.x · DOI
  7. Beier P., 2006, Connectivity Conservation, 555, 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.025 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Beier P., 2008, Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages, Conservation Biology, 22, 836, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. Beier P., 2009, Uncertainty analysis of least‐cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages, Ecological Applications, 19, 2067, 10.1890/08-1898.1 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Berggren A., 2002, Effect of corridors and habitat edges on dispersal behavior, movement rates, and movement angles in Roesel's bush‐cricket (Metrioptera roeseli), Conservation Biology, 16, 1562, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01203.x · DOI
  11. Boone R.B., 1996, Using diffusion models to simulate the effects of land use on grizzly bear dispersal in the Rocky Mountains, Landscape Ecology, 11, 51, 10.1007/BF02087113 · DOI
  12. Brost B., 2012, Use of land facets to design linkages for climate change, Ecological Applications, 22, 87, 10.1890/11-0213.1 · DOI
  13. Brost B.M.&Beier P.(in press)Comparing linkage designs based on land facets to linkage designs based on focal species.Journal of Applied Ecology.
  14. Brown J.H., 1977, Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction, Ecology, 58, 445, 10.2307/1935620 · DOI
  15. Bunn A.G., 2000, Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory, Journal of Environmental Management, 59, 265, 10.1006/jema.2000.0373 · DOI
  16. Carroll C., 2011, Use of linkage mapping and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve connectivity of Gray Wolf populations in Western North America, Conservation Biology, 26, 78, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01753.x · DOI
  17. Castellón T.D., 2006, An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird, Conservation Biology, 20, 135, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00332.x · DOI
  18. Chardon J.P., 2003, Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled Wood Butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.), Landscape Ecology, 18, 561, 10.1023/A:1026062530600 · DOI
  19. Clevenger A.P., 2002, GIS‐generated, expert‐based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages, Conservation Biology, 16, 503, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00328.x · DOI
  20. Compton B., 2007, A resistant kernel model of connectivity for vernal pool breeding amphibians, Conservation Biology, 21, 788, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · DOI · Paper page
  21. Coulon A., 2008, Inferring the effects of landscape structure on roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) movements using a step selection function, Landscape Ecology, 23, 603, 10.1007/s10980-008-9220-0 · DOI
  22. Cushman S.A., 2006, Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus, Biological Conservation, 128, 231, 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031 · DOI
  23. Cushman S.A., 2010, Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bear, Landscape Ecology, 25, 1613, 10.1007/s10980-010-9534-6 · DOI
  24. Cushman S.A., 2005, Elephants in space and time, Oikos, 109, 331, 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13538.x · DOI
  25. Cushman S.A., 2006, Gene flow in complex landscapes: confronting models with data, American Naturalist, 168, 486, 10.1086/506976 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Cushman S.A., 2008, Using empirically derived source‐destination models to map regional conservation corridors, Conservation Biology, 23, 368, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01111.x · DOI
  27. Cushman S.A., 2010, Spatial Complexity, Informatics and Wildlife Conservation, 349, 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_19 · DOI
  28. Cushman S.A., 2010, Spatial Complexity, Informatics and Wildlife Conservation, 369, 10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_20 · DOI
  29. Cushman S.A., 2011, Climate Change and Connectivity: Assessing Landscape and Species Vulnerability
  30. Doyle P.G., 1984, Random Walks and Electric Networks, 10.5948/UPO9781614440222 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Duke D.L., 2001, Large Mammal Restoration: Ecological and Sociological Challenges in the 21st Century, 261
  32. Fagan W.F., 2006, Connectivity Conservation, 297, 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.014 · DOI
  33. Fahrig L., 2003, Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 34, 487, 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Fahrig L., 1995, Effect of road traffic on amphibian density, Biological Conservation, 73, 177, 10.1016/0006-3207(94)00102-V · DOI
  35. Freeman L.C., 1991, Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow, Social Networks, 13, 141, 10.1016/0378-8733(91)90017-N · DOI
  36. Gamble L.R., 2007, Fidelity and dispersal in the pond‐breeding amphibian, Ambystoma opacum: implications for spatio‐temporal population dynamics and conservation, Biological Conservation, 139, 247, 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.001 · DOI
  37. Gibbs J.P., 1998, Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in southern New England, Journal of Wildlife Management, 62, 584, 10.2307/3802333 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Guerry A.D., 2002, Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration, Conservation Biology, 16, 745, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00557.x · DOI
  39. Gurnell J., 2006, Squirrel poxvirus: landscape scale strategies for managing disease threat, Biological Conservation, 131, 287, 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.009 · DOI
  40. Haddad N.M, 1999, An experimental test of corridor effects on butterfly densities, Ecological Applications, 9, 623, 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0623:AETOCE]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  41. Haddad N.M., 2003, Corridor use by diverse taxa, Ecology, 84, 609, 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0609:CUBDT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  42. Harrison S., 1991, Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations, 73, 10.1016/B978-0-12-284120-0.50008-5 · DOI
  43. Heller N.E., 2009, Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations, Biological Conservation, 142, 14, 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Hess G.R., 2001, Communicating clearly about conservation corridors, Landscape and Urban Planning, 55, 195, 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00155-4 · DOI
  45. Hill C.J., 1995, Linear strips of rainforest vegetation as potential dispersal corridors for rainforest insects, Conservation Biology, 9, 1559, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09061559.x · DOI
  46. Holland E.P., 2007, Landscape as a model: the importance of geometry, PLoS Computational Biology, 3, 1979, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030200 · DOI
  47. Hunter M.L., 1988, Paleoecology and the coarse‐filter approach to maintaining biological diversity, Conservation Biology, 2, 375, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x · DOI
  48. Jenny H., 1941, Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology, 10.1097/00010694-194111000-00009 · DOI
  49. Kareiva P.M., 1983, Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk, Oecologia, 56, 234, 10.1007/BF00379695 · DOI · Paper page
  50. King A.W., 2002, Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter?, Ecological Modelling, 147, 23, 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00400-8 · DOI
  51. Landguth E.L., 2010, Relationships between migration rates and landscape resistance assessed using individual‐based simulations, Molecular Ecology Resources, 10, 854, 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02867.x · DOI
  52. Landguth E.L., 2011, UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator, Ecography, 35, 9, 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07149.x · DOI
  53. Lima S.L., 1996, Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 131, 10.1016/0169-5347(96)81094-9 · DOI
  54. Lookingbill T.R., 2010, Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity, Ecological Applications, 20, 427, 10.1890/09-0073.1 · DOI
  55. Lovejoy T.E., 2005, Climate Change and Biodiversity
  56. McRae B.H., 2011, Linkage Mapper Connectivity Analysis Software
  57. McRae B.H., 2009, Circuitscape User Guide
  58. Minor E.S., 2010, Network analysis of protected‐area connectivity for mammals in the United States, Conservation Biology, 24, 1549, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01558.x · DOI
  59. Minor E.S., 2007, Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning, Ecological Applications, 17, 1771, 10.1890/06-1073.1 · DOI
  60. Morrison S.A., 2009, Conserving connectivity: some lessons from Mountain Lions in Southern California, Conservation Biology, 23, 275, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01079.x · DOI
  61. Morzillo A.T., 2011, An integration of habitat evaluation, individual based modeling, and graph theory for a potential black bear population recovery in southeastern Texas, USA, Landscape Ecology, 26, 69, 10.1007/s10980-010-9536-4 · DOI
  62. Newman M.E., 2005, A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks, Social Networks, 27, 39, 10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009 · DOI
  63. Osborn F.V., 2003, Linking two elephant refuges with a corridor in the communal lands of Zimbabwe, African Journal of Ecology, 41, 68, 10.1046/j.1365-2028.2003.00413.x · DOI
  64. Phillips S.J., 2008, Optimizing dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae using network flow, Ecological Applications, 18, 1200, 10.1890/07-0507.1 · DOI
  65. Pinto N., 2009, Beyond the least‐cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph theoretic approach, Landscape Ecology, 24, 253, 10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y · DOI · Paper page
  66. Quinby P.A., 2006, Evaluating regional wildlife corridor mapping: a cast study of breeding birds in Northern New York State, Adirondack Journal of Environmental Studies, 13, 27
  67. Rayfield B., 2011, Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures, Ecology, 92, 847, 10.1890/09-2190.1 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Reh W., 1990, The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog (Rana temporaria), Biological Conservation, 54, 239, 10.1016/0006-3207(90)90054-S · DOI
  69. Rosenberg D.K., 1997, Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy, BioScience, 47, 677, 10.2307/1313208 · DOI
  70. Rouget M., 2006, Designing large‐scale conservation corridors for pattern and process, Conservation Biology, 20, 549, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x · DOI
  71. Semlitsch R.D., 2003, Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles, Conservation Biology, 17, 1219, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02177.x · DOI
  72. Seoane J., 2005, Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution, Conservation Biology, 19, 512, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00364.x · DOI
  73. Servheen C., 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, 161
  74. Shanahan D.F., 2011, Models based on individual‐level movement predict spatial patterns of genetic relatedness for two Australian forest birds, Landscape Ecology, 26, 137, 10.1007/s10980-010-9542-6 · DOI
  75. Shepherd B., 2006, Ecology and Society
  76. Shirk A., 2010, Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new multi‐scale model selection framework, Molecular Ecology, 19, 3603, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04745.x · DOI · Paper page
  77. Short Bull R.A., 2011, Why replication is important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains, Molecular Ecology, 20, 1092, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04944.x · DOI
  78. Simberloff D., 1992, Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?, Conservation Biology, 6, 493, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06040493.x · DOI
  79. Singleton P.H., 2002, Landscape Permeability for Large Carnivores in Washington: A Geographic Information System Weighted‐Distance and Least‐Cost Corridor Assessment
  80. Spear S.F., 2010, Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis, Molecular Ecology, 19, 3576, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04657.x · DOI · Paper page
  81. Turner M.G., 1995, Usefulness of spatially explicit population models in land management, Ecological Applications, 5, 12, 10.2307/1942046 · DOI
  82. Urban D., 2001, Landscape connectivity: a graph‐theoretic perspective, Ecology, 82, 1205, 10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  83. Van Dyck H., 2005, Dispersal in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements?, Basic and Applied Ecology, 6, 535, 10.1016/j.baae.2005.03.005 · DOI
  84. Van Horne B., 1983, Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality, Journal of Wildlife Management, 47, 893, 10.2307/3808148 · DOI
  85. Waples R.S., 1998, Separating the wheat from the chaff: patterns of genetic differentiation in high gene flow species, Journal of Heredity, 89, 438, 10.1093/jhered/89.5.438 · DOI
  86. Wasserman T.N., 2010, Spatial scaling and multi‐model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho, Landscape Ecology, 25, 1601, 10.1007/s10980-010-9525-7 · DOI
  87. Weyrauch S.L., 2004, Patch and landscape characteristics associated with the distribution of woodland amphibians in an agricultural fragmented landscape: an information‐theoretic approach, Biological Conservation, 115, 443, 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00161-7 · DOI
  88. WHCWG, 2010, Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis
  89. Wiegand T., 1999, Finding the missing link between landscape structure and population dynamics: a spatially explicit perspective, American Naturalist, 154, 605, 10.1086/303272 · DOI
  90. Wiens J.A., 1997, Metapopulation Dynamics, Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution, 43
  91. Williams P., 2005, Planning for climate change: identifying minimum‐dispersal corridors for the Cape Proteaceae, Conservation Biology, 19, 1063, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00080.x · DOI
  92. Wilson P.J., 2003, Effect of habitat fragmentation on levels and patterns of genetic diversity in natural populations of peat moss Polytrichum commone, Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 881, 10.1098/rspb.2002.2324 · DOI
  93. With K.A., 1997, Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments, Oikos, 78, 151, 10.2307/3545811 · DOI
  94. Zeller K.A., 2011, Integrating occupancy modeling and interview data for corridor identification: a case study for jaguars in Nicaragua, Biological Conservation, 144, 892, 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.12.003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cushman, S. A., McRae, B., Adriaensen, F., Beier, P., Shirley, M., & Zeller, K.
Venue
Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-25
Pages
384-404
DOI
10.1002/9781118520178.ch21
Cited by
179
References
4
Language
en
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review