CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A bird’s eye view: using circuit theory to study urban landscape connectivity for birds

Grafius, Darren R., Corstanje, Ron, Siriwardena, Gavin M., Plummer, Kate E., Harris, Jim A.·2017·Landscape Ecology
DOI 10.1007/s10980-017-0548-1PMC PMC6979508
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10980-017-0548-1

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 Grafius et al. 2017

    The Introduction says circuit theory considers multiple alternative pathways, and Methods > Connectivity and circuit theory describes cumulative current as a representation of wildlife-flow intensity in an urban landscape. But the Discussion says the study used bird abundance as a proxy rather than direct movement data, and Results > Comparison with observed bird abundance data reports mostly weak or nonsignificant relationships. The paper therefore supports modelling relative movement intensity, not a finding that the model accurately characterizes the frequency of routine movements across urban and other fragmented landscapes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. 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
  2. Beaujean S (2015) Identification of priority corridors to improve the urban ecological network in the city of Liege. MSc thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield
  3. Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2015) Urban residents’ perceptions of birds in the neighborhood: biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. Condor 117:192–202 · DOI
  4. Bennie J, Davies TW, Inger R, Gaston KJ (2014) Mapping artificial lightscapes for ecological studies. Methods Ecol Evol 5:534–540 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bonnington C, Gaston KJ, Evans KL (2013) Fearing the feline: domestic cats reduce avian fecundity through trait-mediated indirect effects that increase nest predation by other species. J Appl Ecol 50:15–24 · DOI
  6. Braaker S, Kormann U, Bontadina F, Obrist MK (2017) Prediction of genetic connectivity in urban ecosystems by combining detailed movement data, genetic data and multi-path modelling. Landsc Urban Plan 160:107–114 · DOI
  7. Braaker S, Moretti M, Boesch R, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Bontadina F (2014) Assessing habitat connectivity for ground-dwelling animals in an urban environment. Ecol Appl 24:1583–1595 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Cox DTC, Gaston KJ (2015) Likeability of garden birds: importance of species knowledge & richness in connecting people to nature. PLoS ONE 10:e0141505 · DOI
  9. Cox DTC, Gaston KJ (2016) Urban bird feeding: connecting people with nature. PLoS ONE 11:e0158717 · DOI
  10. Cox DTC, Inger R, Hancock S, Anderson K, Gaston KJ (2016) Movement of feeder-using songbirds: the influence of urban features. Sci Rep 6:37669 · DOI
  11. Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Maltby LL, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 62:47–55 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Davies ZG, Fuller RA, Loram A, Irvine KN, Sims V, Gaston KJ (2009) A national scale inventory of resource provision for biodiversity within domestic gardens. Biol Conserv 142:761–771 · DOI
  13. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169 · DOI
  14. Ekman J (1989) Ecology of non-breeding social systems of Parus. Wilson Bull 101:263–288
  15. Farine DR, Sheldon BC (2016) Social ecology of a woodland songbird community: from individual movements to the emergence of population social structure. BioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/085944 · DOI
  16. Fernández-Juricic E, Jokimäki J (2001) A habitat island approach to conserving birds in urban landscapes: case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers Conserv 10:2023–2043 · DOI
  17. Galbraith JA, Beggs JR, Jones DN, McNaughton EJ, Krull CR, Stanley MC (2014) Risks and drivers of wild bird feeding in urban areas of New Zealand. Biol Conserv 180:64–74 · DOI
  18. Gil-Tena A, Brotons L, Fortin MJ, Burel F, Saura S (2013) Assessing the role of landscape connectivity in recent woodpecker range expansion in Mediterranean Europe: forest management implications. Eur J For Res 132:181–194 · DOI
  19. Grafius DR, Corstanje R, Warren PH, Evans KL, Hancock S, Harris JA (2016) The impact of land use/land cover scale on modelling urban ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 31:1509–1522 · DOI
  20. Hashimoto H, Natuhara Y, Morimoto Y (2005) A habitat model for Parus major minor using a logistic regression model for the urban area of Osaka, Japan. Landsc Urban Plann 70:245–250 · DOI
  21. Hinsley SA, Hill RA, Bellamy PE, Harrison NM, Speakman JR, Wilson AK, Ferns PN (2008) Effects of structural and functional habitat gaps on breeding woodland birds: working harder for less. Landscape Ecol 23:615–626 · DOI
  22. Hong S-H, Han B-H, Choi S-H, Sung CY, Lee K-J (2013) Planning an ecological network using the predicted movement paths of urban birds. Landsc Ecol Eng 9:165–174 · DOI
  23. Jackson CR, Marnewick K, Lindsey PA, Røskaft E, Robertson MP (2016) Evaluating habitat connectivity methodologies: a case study with endangered African wild dogs in South Africa. Landscape Ecol 31(7):1433–1447 · DOI
  24. Jones D (2011) An appetite for connection: Why we need to understand the effect and value of feeding wild birds. Emu 111:1–7 · DOI
  25. Jones DN, Reynolds SJ (2008) Feeding birds in our towns and cities: a global research opportunity. J Avian Biol 39:265–271 · DOI
  26. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890
  27. Koen EL, Bowman J, Garroway CJ, Mills SC, Wilson PJ (2012) Landscape resistance and American marten gene flow. Landscape Ecol 27:29–43 · DOI
  28. Kupfer JA (2012) Landscape ecology and biogeography: rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Prog Phys Geogr 36:400–420 · DOI
  29. LaPoint S, Balkenhol N, Hale J, Sadler J, van der Ree R (2015) Ecological connectivity research in urban areas. Funct Ecol 29:868–878 · DOI
  30. Mackenzie JA, Hinsley SA, Harrison NM (2014) Parid foraging choices in urban habitat and their consequences for fitness. Ibis 156:591–605 · DOI
  31. Marulli J, Mallarach JM (2005) A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. Landsc Urban Plan 71:243–262 · DOI
  32. Mason CF (2001) Woodland area, species turnover and the conservation of bird assemblages in lowland England. Biodivers Conserv 10:495–510 · DOI
  33. McClure ML, Hansen AJ, Inman RM (2016) Connecting models to movements: testing connectivity model predictions against empirical migration and dispersal data. Landscape Ecol 31:1–14 · DOI · Paper page
  34. McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK (2015) Adaptation and adaptedness of organisms to urban environments. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:261–280 · DOI
  35. Moilanen A (2011) On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:1543–1547 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2002) How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132:492–500 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Mörtberg UM (2001) Resident bird species in urban forest remnants; landscape and habitat perspectives. Landscape Ecol 16:193–203 · DOI
  38. Office for National Statistics (2013) 2011 census, Key statistics for built up areas in England and Wales (report). United Kingdom Office for National Statistics, London
  39. Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S (2006) Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecol 21:959–967 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Peiser RB, Chang AC (1999) Is it possible to build financially successful new towns? The Milton Keynes experience. Urban Stud 36:1679–1703 · DOI
  41. Perrins CM (1979) British tits. Collins, London
  42. Radford JQ, Bennett AF, Cheers GJ (2005) Landscape-level thresholds of habitat cover for woodland-dependent birds. Biol Conserv 124:317–337 · DOI
  43. Rayfield B, Fortin MJ, Fall A (2010) The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values. Landscape Ecol 25:519–532 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Rosenfeld EJ (2012) Assessing the ecological significance of linkage and connectivity for avian populations in urban areas. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham
  45. Saura S, Torné J (2009) Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. Environ Model Softw 24:135–139 · DOI
  46. Shimazaki A, Yamaura Y, Senzaki M, Yabuhara Y, Akasaka T, Nakamura F (2016) Urban permeability for birds: an approach combining mobbing-call experiments and circuit theory. Urban For Urban Green 19:167–175 · DOI
  47. Song W, Kim E (2015) Landscape factors affecting the distribution of the great tit in fragmented urban forests of Seoul, South Korea. Landscape Ecol Eng. doi: 10.1007/s11355-015-0280-4 · DOI
  48. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19 · DOI
  49. Tremblay MA, St. Clair CC (2009) Factors affecting the permeability of transportation and riparian corridors to the movements of songbirds in an urban landscape. J Appl Ecol 46:1314–1322 · DOI
  50. Tremblay MA, St. Clair CC (2011) Permeability of a heterogeneous urban landscape to the movements of forest songbirds. J Appl Ecol 48:679–688 · DOI
  51. Uezu A, Metzger JP, Vielliard JME (2005) Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biol Conserv 123:507–519 · DOI
  52. Yu D, Liu Y, Xun B, Shao H (2015) Measuring landscape connectivity in a urban area for biological conservation. Clean Soil Air Water 43:605–613 · DOI
  53. Zhou W, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2016) Shifting concepts of urban spatial heterogeneity and their implications for sustainability. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-016-0432-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Grafius, D. R., Corstanje, R., Siriwardena, G. M., Plummer, K. E., & Harris, J. A.
Venue
Landscape Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-06-28
Volume
32
Issue
9
Pages
1771-1787
ISSN
  • 0921-2973
  • 1572-9761
DOI
10.1007/s10980-017-0548-1
PMC
PMC6979508
Cited by
108
References
6
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 (unspecified)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/J015067/1)

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