CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ecological differences and limiting factors in different regional contexts: landscape genetics of the stone marten in the Iberian Peninsula

Vergara, María, Cushman, Samuel A., Ruiz-González, Aritz·2017·Landscape Ecology
DOI 10.1007/s10980-017-0512-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10980-017-0512-0

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Spatial variability in movement behaviour can result in radically different estimates of landscape resistance and connectivity.

    “For example, seasonal variability in the landscape can substantially alter movement patterns42,43, and spatial variability in movement behaviour can result in radically different estimates of landscape resistance and connectivity44,45.”

    From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [44]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Adamack AT, Gruber B (2014) PopGenReport: simplifying basic population genetic analyses in R. Methods Ecol Evol 5:384–387 · DOI
  2. Anderson CD, Epperson BK, Fortin MJ, Holderegger R, James PMA, Rosenberg MS, Scribner KT, Spear S (2010) Considering spatial and temporal scale in landscape-genetic studies of gene flow. Mol Ecol 19:3565–3575 · DOI
  3. Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Storfer A (2015) Current status, future opportunities, and remaining challenges in landscape genetics. In: Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Storfer A (eds) Landscape genetics: concepts, methods, applications. Wiley, Chichester, pp 247–256 · DOI
  4. Balkenhol N, Gugerli F, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Coulon A, Arntzen JW, Holderegger R, Wagner HH (2009) Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? Landscape Ecol 24:455–463 · DOI
  5. Basto MP (2014) Population and landscape genetics of the stone marten and red fox in Portugal: implications for conservation management of common carnivores. MSc Thesis. University of Lisbon
  6. Bradburd GS, Ralph PL, Coop GM (2013) Disentangling the effects of geographic and ecological isolation on genetic differentiation. Evolution 67:3258–3273 · DOI
  7. Castillo J, 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
  8. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:3592–3602 · DOI
  9. Cushman SA, Max T, Meneses N, Evans LM, Ferrier S, Honchak B, Whitham TG, Allan GJ (2014) Landscape genetic connectivity in a riparian foundation tree is jointly driven by climatic gradients and river networks. Ecol Appl 24:1000–1014 · DOI
  10. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Cushman SA, McRae BR, McGarigal K (2015) Basics of landscape ecology: an introduction to landscapes and population processes for landscape geneticists. In: Balkenhol N, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Storfer A (eds) Landscape genetics: concepts, methods, applications. Wiley, Chichester, pp 11–34
  12. Cushman SA, Shirk A, Landguth EL (2012) Separating the effects of habitat area, fragmentation and matrix resistance on genetic differentiation in complex landscapes. Landscape Ecol 27:369–380 · DOI
  13. Cushman SA, Shirk A, Landguth E (2013a) Landscape genetics and limiting factors. Conserv Genet 14:263–274 · DOI
  14. Cushman SA, Wasserman T, Landguth E, Shirk A (2013b) Re-evaluating causal modeling with Mantel tests in landscape genetics. Diversity 5:51–72 · DOI
  15. Goslee SC, Urban DL (2007) The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J Stat Softw 22:1–19 · DOI
  16. Goudet J (1995) FSTAT (version 1.2): a computer program to calculate F-statistics. J Hered 86:485–486 · DOI
  17. Graves T, Beier P, Royle JA (2013) Current approaches using genetic distances produce poor estimates of landscape resistance to interindividual dispersal. Mol Ecol 22:3888–3903 · DOI
  18. Graves T, Wasserman TN, Ribeiro MC, Landguth EL, Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Higgins CB, Fortin MJ, Cushman SA, Waits LP (2012) The influence of landscape characteristics and home-range size on the quantification of landscape-genetics relationships. Landsc Ecol 27:253–266 · DOI
  19. Guillot G, Rousset F (2011) On the use of the simple and partial Mantel tests in presence of spatial auto-correlation. Syst Biol 2011:1–13
  20. Guillot G, Rousset F (2013) Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods Ecol Evol 4:336–344 · DOI
  21. Hapeman P, Latch EK, Fike J, Rhodes OE, Kilpatrick CW (2011) Landscape genetics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the Northeast: dispersal barriers and historical influences. J Hered 102:251–259 · DOI
  22. Hardy O, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGEDI: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2:618–620 · DOI
  23. Hargrove WW, Pickering J (1992) Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecol 6:251–258 · DOI
  24. Johnson DH (2006) The many faces of replication. Crop Sci 46:2486–2491 · DOI
  25. Jombart T (2008) Adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405 · DOI
  26. Landguth EL, Cushman SA, Schwartz M, McKelvey K, Murphy M, Luikart G (2010) Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:4179–4191 · DOI
  27. Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35:9–14 · DOI
  28. Larroque J, Ruette S, Vandel JM, Devillard S (2015) Divergent landscape effects on genetic differentiation in two populations of the European pine marten (Martes martes). Landscape Ecol 31:517 · DOI
  29. Larroque J, Ruette S, Vandel J-M, Queney G, Devillard S (2016) Age and sex-dependent effects of landscape cover and trapping on the spatial genetic structure of the stone marten (Martes foina). Conserv Genet 17:1293–1306 · DOI
  30. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220
  31. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 18:189–197 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Nagai T, Raichev E, Tsunoda H (2012) Preliminary study on microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA variation of the stone marten Martes foina in Bulgaria. Mamm Study 37:353–358 · DOI
  33. Oyler-McCance SJ, Fedy BC, Landguth EL (2013) Sample design effects in landscape genetics. Conserv Genet 14:275–285 · DOI
  34. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539 · DOI
  35. Radford JQ, Bennett AF, Cheers GJ (2005) Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol Conserv 124:317–337 · DOI
  36. Reig S (2007) Martes foina Erxleben, 1777. In: Palomo L, Gisbert J, Blanco J (eds) Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Mamíferos Terrestres de España. Dirección General de Biodiversidad-SECEM-SECEMU, Madrid, pp 305–307
  37. Riley SJ, DeGloria SD, Elliot R (1999) A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Intermt J Sci 5:1–4
  38. Rousset F (2000) Genetic differentiation between individuals. J Evol Biol 13:58–62 · DOI
  39. Ruiz-González A, Gurrutxaga M, Cushman SA, Randi E, Gómez-Moliner B (2014) Landscape genetics for the empirical assessment of resistance surfaces: the European pine marten (Martes martes) as a target-species of a regional ecological network. PLoS ONE 9:19
  40. Santos MJ, Santos-Reis M (2010) Stone marten (Martes foina) habitat in a Mediterranean ecosystem: effects of scale, sex, and interspecific interactions. Eur J Wildl Res 56:275–286 · DOI
  41. Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS (2009) Why sampling scheme matters: the effect of sampling scheme on landscape genetic results. Conserv Genet 10:441–452 · DOI
  42. Segelbacher G, Cushman SA, Epperson BK, Fortin MJ, Francois O, Hardy OJ, Holderegger R, Taberlet P, Waits LP, Manel S (2010) Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges. Conserv Genet 11:375–385 · DOI
  43. Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2017) A comparison of regression methods for model selection in individual-based landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Res (in review) · DOI
  44. Shirk AJ, Raphael MG, Cushman SA (2014) Spatiotemporal variation in resource selection: insights from the American marten (Martes americana). Ecol Appl 24:1434–1444 · DOI
  45. 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
  46. Short Bull RA, Cushman SA, Mace R, Chilton T, Kendall KC, Landguth EL, Schwartz MK, McKelvey K, Allendorf FW, Luikart G (2011) Why replication is important in landscape genetics: American black bear in the Rocky Mountains. Mol Ecol 20:1092–1107 · DOI
  47. Turner MG, Gardner RH (1991) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. The analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. In: Ecological studies, vol 82. Springer, New York · DOI
  48. Vergara M, Basto M, Madeira M, Gómez-Moliner B, Santos-Reis M, Fernandes C, Ruiz-González A (2015a) Inferring population genetic structure in widely and continuously distributed carnivores: the stone marten (Martes foina) as a case study. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0134257 · DOI
  49. Vergara M, Cushman SA, Urra F, Ruiz-González A (2015b) Shaken but not stirred: multiscale habitat suitability modeling of sympatric marten species (Martes martes and Martes foina) in the northern Iberian Peninsula. Landscape Ecol 31:1241–1260 · DOI
  50. Virgós E, García FJ (2002) Patch occupancy by stone martens Martes foina in fragmented landscapes of central Spain: the role of fragment size, isolation and habitat structure. Acta Oecol 23:231–237 · DOI
  51. 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
  52. Weir B, Cockerham C (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370 · DOI
  53. Wiens JA, Chr N, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380 · DOI
  54. Zeller KA, Creech TG, Millette KL, Crowhurst RS, Long RA, Wagner HH, Balkenhol N, Landguth EL (2016) Using simulations to evaluate Mantel-based methods for assessing landscape resistance to gene flow. Ecol Evol 6:4115–4128 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Vergara, M., Cushman, S. A., & Ruiz-González, A.
Venue
Landscape Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-04-09
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
1269-1283
ISSN
  • 0921-2973
  • 1572-9761
DOI
10.1007/s10980-017-0512-0
Cited by
29
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Funders
Eusko Jaurlaritza (RBFI-2012-446, DKR-2012-64)

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