CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 289

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

Estimating landscape resistance from habitat suitability: effects of data source and nonlinearities

Keeley, Annika T. H., Beier, Paul, Gagnon, Jeffrey W.·2016·Landscape Ecology
DOI 10.1007/s10980-016-0387-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10980-016-0387-5

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

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 three variables (altitude, slope, distance from water) were given increasing values (1, 3, 6, 10) to reflect an exponential increase in energy costs as terrain becomes more resistant.

    “The three variables were given increasing values in relation to the difficulty of crossing the landscape under the conditions imposed by their characteristics. The points awarded were 1, 3, 6 and 10 to clearly differentiate the easily accessible areas from the more difficult ones. The exponential increase in the values reflects a similar exponential increase in energy costs as the terrain becomes”

    From Tracing neanderthal mobility through the romanian carpathians: a GIS-based least-cost connectivity model (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

  • The 100,000 cw-km threshold is similar to those tested in natural habitats in North America [49,55] and exclusion thresholds of 100,000-120,000 cw-km are considered feasible connectivity limits.

    “The 100,000 threshold is similar to those tested in natural habitats in North America [49,55] and exclusion thresholds of 100,000–120,000 cw-km were used, which are considered feasible connectivity limits and are also applied in this study to eliminate energetically improbable corridors.”

    From Tracing neanderthal mobility through the romanian carpathians: a GIS-based least-cost connectivity model (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, deBlust 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 · Paper page
  2. Alderman JA, Krausman PR, Leopold BD (1989) Diel activity of female desert bighorn sheep in western Arizona. J Wildl Manag 53:264–271 · DOI
  3. Baguette M, Blanchet S, Legrand D, Stevens VM, Turlure C (2013) Individual dispersal, landscape connectivity and ecological networks. Biol Rev 88:310–326 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Beck JL, Smith KT, Flinders JT, Clyde CL (2013) Seasonal habitat selection by elk in north central Utah. West N Am Nat 73:442–456 · DOI
  5. Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL (2009) Uncertainty analysis of least−cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl 19:2067–2077 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008a) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Beier P, Penrod KL, Luke C, Spencer W, Cabañero C (2006) South Coast Missing Linkages: restoring connectivity to wildlands in the largest metropolitan area in the USA. In: Crooks K, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 55–586
  8. Beier P, Spencer WD, Baldwin R, McRae B (2011) Best science practices for regional connectivity mapping. Conserv Biol 25:879–892 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bowne DR, Peles JD, Barrett GW (1999) Effects of landscape spatial structure on movement patterns of the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Landscape Ecol 14:53–65 · DOI
  10. Boyce MS, Mao JS, Merrill EH, Fortin D, Turner MG, Fryxell J, Turchin P (2003) Scale and heterogeneity in habitat selection by elk in Yellowstone National Park. Ecoscience 10:421–431 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Calcagno V, de Mazancourt C (2010) glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J Stat Software 34:1–29 · DOI
  12. Calenge C (2006) The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519 · DOI
  13. Castillo JA, Epps CW, Davis AR, Cushman SA (2014) Landscape effects on gene flow for a climate-sensitive montane species, the American pika. Mol Ecol 23:843–856 · DOI
  14. Charney ND (2012) Evaluating expert opinion and spatial scale in an amphibian model. Ecol Model 242:37–45 · DOI
  15. Coe PK, Johnson BK, Wisdom MJ, Cook JG, Vavra M, Nielson RM (2011) Validation of elk resource selection models with spatially independent data. J Wildl Manag 75:159–170 · DOI
  16. Compton BW, Rhymer JM, McCollough M (2002) Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833–843 · DOI
  17. Cushman SA, Chase M, Griffin C (2010) Mapping landscape resistance to identify corridors and barriers for elephant movement in Southern Africa. In: Cushman SA, Huettmann F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Springer Verlag, Japan, pp 349–367 · DOI
  18. Cushman SA, Raphael MG, Ruggiero LF, Shirk AS, Wasserman TN, O’Doherty EC (2011) Limiting factors and landscape connectivity: the American marten in the Rocky Mountains. Landscape Ecol 26:1137–1149 · DOI
  19. Dodd NL, Gagnon JW, Boe S, Schweinsburg RE (2006) Characteristics of elk—vehicle collisions and comparison to GPS-determined highway crossing patterns. In: Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on ecology and transportation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, pp 461–477, 29 Aug–2 Sept 2005
  20. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, Marquéz JR, Gruber B, Lafourcade B, Leitão PJ, Münkemüller T (2013) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Elliot NB, Cushman SA, Macdonald DW, Loveridge AJ (2014) The devil is in the dispersers: predictions of landscape connectivity change with demography. J Appl Ecol 51:1169–1178 · DOI · Paper page
  22. ESRI (2011) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands
  23. Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100:125–136 · DOI
  24. Fortin D, Morales JM, Boyce MS (2005) Elk winter foraging at fine scale in Yellowstone National Park. Oecologia 145:334–342 · DOI
  25. Gastón A, Blázquez-Cabrera S, Garrote G, Mateo-Sánchez MC, Beier P, Simón MA, Saura S (2016) Response to agriculture by a woodland species depends on cover type and behavioural state: insights from resident and dispersing Iberian lynx. J Appl Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12629 · DOI
  26. Green RA, Bear GD (1990) Seasonal cycles and daily activity patterns of Rocky Mountain elk. J Wildl Manag 54:272–279 · DOI
  27. Haddad NM, Tewksbury JJ (2005) Low-quality habitat corridors as movement conduits for two butterfly species. Ecol Appl 15:250–257 · DOI
  28. Hilty JA, Lidicker WZ Jr, Merenlender A (2012) Corridor ecology: the science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
  29. 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
  30. Hoglander CJ (2012) Developed waters for wildlife conservation: collaborative approaches and landscape models for desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) conservation. Thesis, Northern Arizona University
  31. Hunter RD, Fisher RN, Crooks KR (2003) Landscape level connectivity in coastal southern California USA as assessed through carnivore habitat suitability. Nat Area J 23:302–314
  32. Jenness J (2013) DEM surface tools. Jenness Enterprises, Flagstaff
  33. Johnson BK, Kern JW, Wisdom MJ, Findholt SL, Kie JG (2000) Resource selection and spatial separation of mule deer and elk during spring. J Wildl Manag 64:685–697 · DOI
  34. Keeley ATK (2015) Comparing estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University
  35. Larkin JL, Maehr DS, Hoctor TS, Orlando MA, Whitney K (2004) Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Anim Conserv 7:23–34 · DOI
  36. Lewis JS, Rachlow JL, Garton EO, Vierling LA (2007) Effects of habitat on GPS collar performance: using data screening to reduce location error. J Appl Ecol 44:663–671 · DOI
  37. Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, Thomas DL, McDonald TL, Erickson WP (2002) Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies. Kluwer, Dordrecht
  38. Mao JS, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Singer FJ, Vales DJ, Vore JM, Merrill EH (2005) Habitat selection by elk before and after wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. J Wildl Manag 69:1691–1707 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Mateo-Sánchez MC, Balkenhol N, Cushman S, Pérez T, Domínguez A, Saura S (2015) A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? Landscape Ecol 30:1405–1420 · DOI
  40. McClure-Rainey M (2012) Validating alternative methods of modeling wildlife corridors using relocation data from migrating elk and dispersing wolverines. Dissertation, Montana State University
  41. Petersburg ML, Alldredge AW, de Vergie WJ (2000) Emigration and survival of 2-year-old male elk in northwestern Colorado. Wildl Soc Bull 28:708–716
  42. Poor EE, Loucks C, Jakes A, Urban DL (2012) Comparing habitat suitability and connectivity modeling methods for conserving pronghorn migrations. PLoS ONE 7:e49390 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ (2010) Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landscape Ecol 25:1547–1560 · DOI
  44. Rettie WJ, McLoughlin PD (1999) Overcoming radio telemetry bias is habitat-selection studies. Can J Zool 77:1175–1184 · DOI
  45. Richards-Zawacki CL (2009) Effects of slope and riparian habitat connectivity on gene flow in an endangered Panamanian frog, Atelopus varius. Divers Distrib 15:796–806 · DOI
  46. Sappington J, Longshore KM, Thompson DB (2007) Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. J Wildl Manag 71:1419–1426 · DOI
  47. Sawyer SC, Epps CW, Brashares JS (2011) Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? J Appl Ecol 48:668–678 · DOI
  48. Selonen V, Hanski IK (2006) Habitat exploration and use in dispersing juvenile flying squirrels. J Anim Ecol 75:1440–1449 · DOI
  49. Seoane J, Bustamante J, Díaz-Delgado R (2005) Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conserv Biol 19:512–522 · DOI
  50. Shirk AJ, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rice CG, Warheit KI (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19:3603–3619 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Singleton PH, Gaines WL, Lehmkuhl JF (2002) Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Research Paper PNW-RP-549 US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland · DOI
  52. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19:3576–3591 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 230–242 · DOI
  54. Stamps JA, Krishnan VV (1999) A learning-based model of territory establishment. Q Rev Biol 74:291–318 · DOI
  55. Trainor AM, Walters JR, Morris WF, Sexton J, Moody A (2013) Empirical estimation of dispersal resistance surfaces: a case study with red-cockaded woodpeckers. Landscape Ecol 28:755–767 · DOI
  56. Trakhtenbrot A, Nathan R, Perry G, Richardson DM (2005) The importance of long-distance dispersal in biodiversity conservation. Divers Distrib 11:173–181 · DOI
  57. Turner JC, Douglas CL, Hallum CR, Krausman PR, Ramey RR (2004) Determination of critical habitat for the endangered Nelson’s bighorn sheep in southern California. Wildl Soc Bull 32:427–448 · DOI
  58. Van Deelen TR, McKinney LB, Joselyn MG, Buhnerkempe JE (1997) Can we restore elk to southern Illinois? The use of existing digital land-cover data to evaluate potential habitat. Wildl Soc Bull 25:886–894
  59. Wait S, McNally H (2004) Selection of habitats by wintering elk in a rapidly subdividing area of La Plata County. In: Shaw WW, Harris LK, Vandruff L (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on urban wildlife conservation, Tucson, 2004
  60. Walker R, Craighead L (1997) Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. In: Proceedings of the 1997 international ESRI users conference, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, San Diego, 7–11 July 1997
  61. Wallace MC, Krausman PR (1997) Movements and home-ranges of elk in eastern Arizona. In: deVos JC Jr (ed) Proceedings of the 1997 deer/elk workshop, Rio Rico, 1997
  62. Wasserman TN, Cushman SA, Schwartz MK, Wallin DO (2010) Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho. Landscape Ecol 25:1601–1612 · DOI
  63. Wikramanayake E, McKnight M, Dinerstein E, Joshi A, Gurung B, Smith D (2004) Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated ecosystems. Conserv Biol 18:839–844 · DOI
  64. Wood AK (1989) Comparative distribution and habitat use by antelope and mule deer. J Mammal 70:335–340 · DOI
  65. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Beier P, Cushman SA, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2014) Sensitivity of landscape resistance estimates based on point selection functions to scale and behavioral state: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol 29:541–557 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Beier P, Vickers TW, Boyce WM (2015) Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0301-6 · DOI
  67. Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27:777–797 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Keeley, A. T. H., Beier, P., & Gagnon, J. W.
Venue
Landscape Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-04-25
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
2151-2162
ISSN
  • 0921-2973
  • 1572-9761
DOI
10.1007/s10980-016-0387-5
Cited by
289
References
3
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