CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coupling Satellite Data with Species Distribution and Connectivity Models as a Tool for Environmental Management and Planning in Matrix-Sensitive Species

Rödder, Dennis, Nekum, Sven, Cord, Anna F., Engler, Jan O.·2016·Environmental Management
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0698-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Climate change and anthropogenic habitat fragmentation are considered major threats for global biodiversity. As a direct consequence, connectivity is increasingly disrupted in many species, which might have serious consequences that could ultimately lead to the extinction of populations. Although a large number of reserves and conservation sites are designated and protected by law, potential habitats acting as inter-population connectivity corridors are, however, mostly ignored in the common practice of environmental planning. In most cases, this is mainly caused by a lack of quantitative measures of functional connectivity available for the planning process. In this study, we highlight the use of fine-scale potential connectivity models (PCMs) derived from multispectral satellite data for the quantification of spatially explicit habitat corridors for matrix-sensitive species of conservation concern. This framework couples a species distribution model with a connectivity model in a two-step framework, where suitability maps from step 1 are transformed into maps of landscape resistance in step 2 filtered by fragmentation thresholds. We illustrate the approach using the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis L.) in the metropolitan area of Cologne, Germany, as a case study. Our model proved to be well suited to identify connected as well as completely isolated populations within the study area. Furthermore, due to its fine resolution, the PCM was also able to detect small linear structure…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00267-016-0698-y

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Circuit theory has been found suitable for characterizing relative frequency of routine movements along multiple potential paths through urban and other fragmented landscapes.

    “Still, circuit theory has been found suitable for characterizing relative frequency of routine movements along multiple potential paths through urban and other fragmented landscapes (e.g., Braaker et al. 2014; Rödder et al. 2016; Grafius et al. 2017).”

    From Circuit‐theory applications to connectivity science and conservation (2019) · cites this paper as Rödder et al. 2016

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Addison PFE, Rumpff L, Bau SS, Carey JM, Chee YE, Jarrad FC, McBride MF, Burgman MA (2013) Practical solutions for making models indispensable in conservation decision-making. Divers Distrib 19:490–502. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12054 · DOI
  2. Andersen LW, Fog K, Damgaard C (2004) Habitat fragmentation causes bottlenecks and inbreeding in the European tree frog (Hyla arborea). Proc R Soc B 271:1293–1302. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2720 · DOI
  3. Andrén H (1994) Effects on habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3545823 · DOI
  4. Baguette M, Blanchet S, Legrand D, Stevens VM, Turlure C (2013) Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol Rev 88:310–326. doi: 10.1111/brv.12000 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P, Thuiller W, Courchamp F (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 15:365–377. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x · DOI
  6. Berglind S-A (2000) Demography and management of relict sand lizard Lacerta agilis populations on the edge of extinction. Ecol Bull 48:123–142. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20113253
  7. Berglind S-A (2004) Sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) in central Sweden—modeling juvenile reintroduction and spatial management strategies for metapopulation establishment. In: Akcakaya HR (ed) Species conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  8. Blanke I (1999) Erfassung und Lebensweise der Zauneidechse (Lacerta agilis) an Bahnanlagen (Capture and life history of the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) along railroads). Zeitschrift für Feldherpetologie 6:147–159
  9. Blanke I (2010) Die Zauneidechse - Zwischen Licht und Schatten (The sand lizard—between light and shade). Laurenti, Bielefeld
  10. Caldwell LK (1991) Analysis–assessment–decision: the anatomy of rational policymaking. Impact Assess Bull 9:81–92. doi: 10.1080/07349165.1991.9726069 · DOI
  11. Canter L, Ross B (2010) State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assess Project Apprais 28:261–268. doi: 10.3152/146155110X12838715793200 · DOI
  12. Council of the European Commission (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Communities Ser L 206:7–49
  13. Crist EP, Cicone RC (1984) Application of the tasseled cap concept to simulated thematic mapper data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 50:343–352
  14. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York · DOI
  15. De Smedt P (2010) The use of impact assessment tools to support sustainable policy objectives in Europe. Ecol Soc 15:30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art30/ · DOI
  16. Devictor V, van Swaay C, Brereton T, Brotons L, Chamberlain D, Heliölä J, Herrando S, Julliard R, Kuussaari M, Lindström Å, Reif J, Roy DB, Schweiger O, Settele J, Stefanescu C, Van Strien A, Van Turnhout C, Vermouzek Z, WallisDe Vries M, Wynhoff I, Jiguet F (2012) Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat Clim Chang 2:121–124. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1347 · DOI
  17. Dickerson W, Montgomery J (1993) Substantive scientific and technical guidance for NEPA analysis: pitfalls in the real world. Environ Prof 15:7–11
  18. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, García Marquéz JR, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T, McClean C, Osborne PE, Reineking B, Schröder B, Skidmore AK, Zurell D, Lautenbach S (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Driezen K, Adriaesen F, Rondinini C, Doncaster CP, Matthysen E (2007) Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: a case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Ecol Model 209:314–322. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.07.002 · DOI
  20. Duinker PN, Burbidge EL, Boardley SR, Greig LA (2013) Scientific dimensions of cumulative effects assessment: toward improvements in guidance for practice. Environ Rev 21:40–52. doi: 10.1139/er-2012-0035 · DOI
  21. Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR, Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton JMcC, Peterson AT, Phillips SJ, Richardson KS, Scachetti Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J, Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x · DOI · Paper page
  22. Elith J, Phillips SJ, Hastie T (2011) A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers Distrib 17:43–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. Ellwanger G (2004) Lacerta agilis (Linnaeus, 1758). In: Petersen B, Ellwanger G, Bless R, Boye P, Schröder E, Ssymank A (eds) The European conservation network Natura 2000—ecology and distribution of species listed in the habitat directive in Germany: vertebrates, vol 2. BfN, Bonn Bad-Godesberg, pp 90–97
  24. Fagan WF, Calabrese JM (2006) Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York
  25. Fahring L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x · DOI
  27. Fithian W, Hastie T (2013) Finite-sample equivalence in statistical models for presence-only data. Ann Appl Stat 7:1917–1939. doi: 10.1214/13-AOAS667 · DOI
  28. Franklin J (2009) Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  29. Geneletti D (2006) Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:257–267. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2005.10.003 · DOI
  30. Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01450.x · DOI
  31. Glandt D, Bischoff W (1988) Biology and conservation of the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). Mertensiella 1:1–257
  32. Gontier M (2006) Integrating landscape ecology in environmental impact assessment using GIS and ecological modeling. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Bakkaveen, pp 345–354 · DOI
  33. Gontier M, Mörtberg U, Balfors B (2010) Comparing GIS-based habitat models for applications in EIA and SEA. Environ Impact Assess Rev 30:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.003 · DOI
  34. Guillera-Arroita G, Lahoz-Monfort JJ, Elith J, Gordon A, Kujala H, Lentini PE, McCarthy MA, Tingley R, Wintle BA (2015) Is my species distribution model fit for purpose? Matching data and models to applications. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. doi: 10.1111/geb.12268 · DOI
  35. Guisan A, Tingley R, Baumgartner JB, Naujokaitis-Lewis I, Sutcliffe PR, Tulloch AI, Reagan TJ, Brotons L, McDonald-Madden E, Mantyka-Pringle C, Martin TG, Rhodes JR, Maggini R, Setterfield SA, Elith J, Schwartz MW, Wintle BA, Broennimann O, Austin M, Ferrier S, Kearney MR, Possingham HP, Buckley YM (2013) Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol Lett 16:1424–1435. doi: 10.1111/ele.12189 · DOI
  36. Habel JC, Schmitt T (2012) The burden of genetic diversity. Biol Conserv 147:270–274. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.028 · DOI
  37. Hale ML, Lurz PWW, Shirley MDF, Rushton S, Fuller RM, Wolff K (2001) Impact of landscape management on the genetic structure of red squirrel populations. Science 293:2246–2248. doi: 10.1126/science.1062574 · DOI
  38. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162 · DOI
  39. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49 · DOI
  40. Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Araújo MB, Virkkala R, Thuiller W, Sykes MT (2006) Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modeling under climate change. Prog Phys Geogr 30:751–777. doi: 10.1177/0309133306071957 · DOI
  41. Hernandez PA, Graham CH, Master LL, Albert DL (2006) The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29:773–785. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2006.04700.x · DOI
  42. Hof C, Levinsky I, Araújo MB, Rahbek C (2011) Rethinking species’ ability to cope with rapid climate change. Glob Chang Biol 17:2987–2990. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02418.x · DOI
  43. Ims RA (1995) Movement patterns related to spatial structures. In: Hansson L, Fahring L, Merriam G (eds) Mosaic landscapes and ecological processes. Chapman and Hall, London
  44. Johnson ML, Gaines MS (1987) The selective basis for dispersal of the prairie vole, Microtus ochrogaster. Ecology 68:684–694 · DOI
  45. Keyghobadi N (2007) The genetic implications of habitat fragmentation for animals. Can J Zool 85:1049–1064. doi: 10.1139/Z07-095 · DOI
  46. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conserv Biol 11:849–856 · DOI
  47. Mandelik Y, Dayan T, Feitelson E (2005) Issues and dilemmas in ecological scoping: scientific, procedural and economic perspectives. Impact Assess Project Apprais 23:55–63. doi: 10.3152/147154605781765724 · DOI
  48. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19885–19890. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706568104 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Merow C, Smith MJ, Silander JA Jr (2013) A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36:1058–1069. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x · DOI · Paper page
  50. Metzger J-P, Décamps H (1997) The structural connectivity threshold: a hypothesis in conservation biology at the landscape scale. Acta Oecol 18:1–12. doi: 10.1016/S1146-609X(97)80075-6 · DOI
  51. Mimet A, Houet T, Julliard R, Simon L (2013) Assessing functional connectivity: a landscape approach for handling multiple ecological requirements. Methods Ecol Evol 4:453–463 · DOI
  52. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515 · DOI
  53. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2006) Connectivity and metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. In: Sanjayan M, Crooks KR (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  54. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures for metapopulation studies. Ecology 83:1131–1145 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Morris P, Therivel R (2001) Methods of environmental impact assessment. Spon, London · DOI
  56. Nicholson E, Ovaskainen O (2009) Conservation priorization using metapopulation models. In: Moilanan A, Wilson KA, Possingham H (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods & computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  57. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42. doi: 10.1038/nature01286 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, Peterson AT (2007) Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J Biogeogr 34:102–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01594.x · DOI
  59. Peterson AT, Soberón J, Pearson RG, Anderson RP, Martínez-Meyer E, Nakamura M, Araújo MB (2011) Ecological niches and geographic distributions. Princeton University Press, Princeton · DOI
  60. Petterson B (1985) Extinction of an isolated population of the middle spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos medius (L.) in Sweden and its relation to general theories on extinction. Biol Conserv 32:335–353. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(85)90022-9 · DOI
  61. Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175. doi: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x · DOI · Paper page
  62. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Mod 190:231–259. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Possingham HP, Andelman SJ, Noon BR, Trombulak S, Pulliam HR (2001) Making smart conservation decisions. In: Soule MA, Orians GH (eds) Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade. Island Press, Washington, pp 225–244
  64. Rhodes JR, Wiegand T, McAlpine CA, Callaghan J, Lunney D, Bowen M, Possingham HP (2006) Modeling species’ distributions to improve conservation in semiurban landscapes: Koala case study. Conserv Biol 20:449–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00330.x · DOI
  65. Roberge JM, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85 · DOI
  66. Roberts DA, Yamaguchi Y, Lyon RJP (1985) Calibration of airborne imaging spectrometer data to percent reflectance using field measurements. In: Proceedings of the 19th international symposium of remote sensing of the environment, Ann Arbor, October 21–25, 1985
  67. Rödder D, Lötters S (2010) Explanative power of variables used in species distribution modeling: an issue of general model transferability or niche shift in the invasive greenhouse frog (Eleutherodactylus planirostris). Naturwissenschaften 97:781–796. doi: 10.1007/s00114-010-0694-7 · DOI
  68. Rödder D, Schmidtlein S, Veith M, Lötters S (2009) Alien invasive slider turtle in unpredicted habitat: a matter of niche shift or of predictors studied? PLoS one e7843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007843 · DOI
  69. Rödder D, Engler JO, Bonke R, Weinsheimer F, Pertel W (2010) Fading of the last giants: an assessment of habitat availability of the Sunda gharial Tomistoma schlegelii and coverage with protected areas. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 20:678–684. doi: 10.1002/aqc.1137 · DOI
  70. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J App Ecol 48:668–678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01970.x · DOI
  71. Schaller J (1990) Geographical information system applications in environmental impact assessment. In: Scholten HJ, Stillwell JCH (eds) Geographical information systems for urban and regional planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 107–117 · DOI
  72. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner KIM (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04657.x · DOI · Paper page
  73. Therivel R, Ross B (2007) Cumulative effects assessment: does scale matter? Environ Impact Assess Rev 27:365–385. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.02.001 · DOI
  74. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont IJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, Ferreira de Siqueira M, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, Van Jaarsveld AS, Midgely GE, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148. doi: 10.1038/nature02121 · DOI
  75. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction dept. Nature 371:65–66 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71 · DOI
  77. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, ter Braak CJF, Bergers PJM (2001) Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–41 · DOI
  78. Wilson K, Cabeza M, Klein CJ (2009) Fundamental concepts of spatial conservation prioritization. In: Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham HP (eds) Spatial conservation prioritization: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford Universtiy Press, Oxford, pp 16–27 · DOI
  79. Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, Peterson AT, Graham CH, Guisan A (2008) Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers Distrib 14:763–773. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00482.x · DOI · Paper page
  80. Zachos FE, Althoff C, Steynitz YV, Eckert I, Hartl GB (2007) Genetic analysis of an isolated red deer (Cervus elaphus) population showing signs of inbreeding depression. Eur J Wildl Res 53:61–67. doi: 10.1007/s10344-006-0065-z · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rödder, D., Nekum, S., Cord, A. F., & Engler, J. O.
Venue
Environmental Management
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-04-19
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
130-143
ISSN
  • 0364-152X
  • 1432-1009
DOI
10.1007/s00267-016-0698-y
Cited by
21
References
3
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Funders
  • Cologne environmental state agency
  • Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (AZ 20012/207)

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