CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 235

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach

Pinto, Naiara, Keitt, Timothy H.·2009·Landscape Ecology
DOI 10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The conditional minimum transit cost (CMTC) creates buffer areas connecting pairs of points whose width is directly related to terrain conditions for mobility, and can uncover alternative routes to the single best least cost path.

    “It has the benefit of creating buffer areas connecting pairs of points whose width is directly related with the conditions of terrain for mobility.Besides that, it can also uncover alternative routes to the single best least cost path.”

    From Exploring the inherent affordability for movement in past landscapes (2027) · cites this paper as Pinto & Keitt, 2009

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon P, de Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of “least-cost” modeling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Alagador D, Cerdeira JO (2007) Designing spatially-explicit reserve networks in the presence of mandatory sites. Biol Conserv 137:254–262 · DOI
  3. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9108-4 · DOI
  4. Belisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995. doi: 10.1890/04-0923 · DOI
  5. Bestelmeyer BT, Wiens JA (1996) The effects of land use on the structure of ground-foraging ant communities in the Argentinian Chaco. Ecol Appl 6:1225–1240. doi: 10.2307/2269603 · DOI
  6. Bodin O, Tengo M, Norman A, Lundberg J, Elmqvist T (2005) The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. Ecol Appl 16:440–451. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[0440:TVOSSL]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  7. Boitani L, Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Rondinini C (2007) Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation. Conserv Biol 21:1414–1422 · DOI
  8. Burel F (1996) Hedgerows and their role in agricultural landscapes. Rev Plant Sci 15:169–190. doi: 10.1080/713608130 · DOI
  9. Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Parge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol 18:561–573. doi: 10.1023/A:1026062530600 · DOI
  11. Clevenger AP, Chruszcz B, Gunson K (2001) Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and factors affecting passage by mammals. J Appl Ecol 38:1340–1349. doi: 10.1046/j.0021-8901.2001.00678.x · DOI
  12. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2001) Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge
  13. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI
  14. 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
  15. Farber O, Kadmon R (2003) Assessment of alternative approaches for bioclimatic modeling with special emphasis on the Mahalanobis distance. Ecol Model 160:115–130. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00327-7 · DOI
  16. Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · DOI · Paper page
  17. Goodwin BJ (2003) Is landscape connectivity a dependent of independent variable? Landscape Ecol 18:687–699. doi: 10.1023/B:LAND.0000004184.03500.a8 · DOI
  18. Hansen MR, De Fries R, Townshend JR, Carroll M, Dimiceli C, Sohlberg R (2003) Vegetation continuous fields, MOD44B, 2001 percent tree cover, collection 3. University of Maryland, College Park
  19. Hess GR, Fischer RA (2001) Communicating clearly about corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 55:195–208. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00155-4 · DOI
  20. Hoctor TS, Carr MH, Zwick PD (2000) Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida ecological network. Conserv Biol 14:984–1000. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99075.x · DOI
  21. Keitt TH (2000) Spectral representation of neutral landscapes. Landscape Ecol 15:479–493. doi: 10.1023/A:1008193015770 · DOI
  22. Keitt TH, Urban DL, Milne BL (1997) Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Ecol [online] 1:4. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4 · DOI
  23. Larkin JL, Maehr DS, Hoctor TS, Orlando MA, Whitney K (2004) Landscape linkage and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Anim Conserv 7:23–34. doi: 10.1017/S1367943003001100 · DOI
  24. Laurance WF, Lovejoy HL, Vasconcelos EM, Bruna EM, Didham RK, Stouffer PC, Gascon C, Bierregaard RO, Laurance SG, Sampaio E (2002) Ecosystem decay of forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv Biol 16:605–618. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01025.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lees AC, Peres CA (2008) Conservation value of remnant riparian forest corridors of varying quality for Amazonian birds and mammals. Conserv Biol 22:439–449 · DOI
  26. Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees as keystone structures—implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 132:311–321. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.023 · DOI
  27. Mas AH, Dietsch TV (2003) An index of management intensity for coffee agroecosystems to evaluate butterfly species richness. Ecol Appl 13:1491–1501. doi: 10.1890/01-5229 · DOI
  28. Moguel P, Toledo VM (1999) Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv Biol 13:11–21. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97153.x · DOI
  29. Morellato LPC, Haddad CFB (2000) Introduction: the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Biotropica 32:786–792 · DOI
  30. Oliveira-Filho AT, Fontes MAL (2000) Patterns of floristic differentiation among Atlantic forests in southeastern Brazil and the influence of climate. Biotropica 32:793–810 · DOI
  31. Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2002) Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv Biol 16:174–182. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99536.x · DOI
  32. Perfecto I, Mas A, Diestsch T, Vandermeer J (2003) Conservation of biodiversity in coffee agroecosystems: a tri-taxa comparison in southern Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 12:1239–1252. doi: 10.1023/A:1023039921916 · DOI
  33. Rae C, Rothley K, Dragicevic S (2007) Implications of error and uncertainty for an environmental planning scenario: a sensitivity analysis of GIS-based variables in a reserve design exercise. Landsc Urban Plan 79:210–217. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.01.001 · DOI
  34. Reitsma R, Parrish JD, McLarney W (2001) The role of cacao plantations in maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica. Agrofor Syst 53:185–193. doi: 10.1023/A:1013328621106 · DOI
  35. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99. doi: 10.1086/320863 · DOI
  36. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52:891–904. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  37. Schadt S, Knauer F, Kaczensky P, Revilla E, Wiegand T, Trepl L (2002) Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and patch connectivity for Eurasian Lynx in Germany. Ecol Appl 12:1469–1483. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1469:RBAOSH]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  38. Serra J (1982) Image analysis and mathematical morphology. Academic Press, London
  39. Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M (2006) Gene flow and functional connectivity in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). Mol Ecol 15:2333–2344. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02936.x · DOI
  40. Sutcliffe OL, Bakkestuen V, Fry G, Stabbetorp OE (2003) Modelling the benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly movement. Landsc Urban Plan 63:15–31. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00153-6 · DOI
  41. Tscharntke T, Klein A, Kruess A, Steffan-Dwenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts
  43. Urban DL, Keitt TH (2001) Landscape connectivity: a graph theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:1205–1218 · DOI
  44. Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158:211–220. doi: 10.1086/321318 · DOI
  45. Verbeylen G, De Bruyn L, Adriaesen F, Matthysen E (2003) Does matrix resistance influence red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? Landscape Ecol 18:791–805. doi: 10.1023/B:LAND.0000014492.50765.05 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pinto, N., & Keitt, T. H.
Venue
Landscape Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-11-29
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
253-266
ISSN
  • 0921-2973
  • 1572-9761
DOI
10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y
Cited by
235
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (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