CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Impact of spatial scale on the identification of critical habitat patches for the maintenance of landscape connectivity

Pascual-Hortal, Lucía, Saura, Santiago·2007·Landscape and Urban Planning
DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.003

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?

  • Several authors have alluded to the idea that artificial boundaries might influence the results of least cost path and landscape resistance models, but no one has directly addressed the issue.

    “Several authors have alluded to the idea that artificial boundaries might influence the results of least cost path and landscape resistance models [2], [11], [15]–[18], but to our knowledge, no one has directly addressed the issue.”

    From The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement (2010) · cites this paper as [17]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Benson, 1995, Effects of sensor spatial-resolution on landscape structure parameters, Landscape Ecol., 10, 113, 10.1007/BF00153828 · DOI
  2. Bunn, 2000, Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory, J. Environ. Manage., 59, 265, 10.1006/jema.2000.0373 · DOI
  3. Calabrese, 2004, A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics, Front. Ecol. Environ., 2, 529, 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0529:ACGTCM]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Chust, 2004, Land cover mapping with patch-derived landscape indices, Landscape Urban Plan., 69, 437, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.12.002 · DOI
  5. Davis, 1977, Method of smoothing digital thematic maps, Remote Sens. Environ., 6, 45, 10.1016/0034-4257(77)90018-9 · DOI
  6. García-Gigorro, 2005, Forest fragmentation estimated from remotely sensed data: comparison across scales possible?, Forest Sci., 51, 51, 10.1093/forestscience/51.1.51 · DOI
  7. Ivits, 2005, Landscape structure assessment with image grey-values and object-based classification at three spatial resolutions, Int. J. Remote Sens., 26, 2975, 10.1080/01431160500057798 · DOI
  8. Jaeger, 2000, Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation, Landscape Ecol., 15, 115, 10.1023/A:1008129329289 · DOI
  9. Jordan, 2003, Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation, Landscape Ecol., 18, 83, 10.1023/A:1022958003528 · DOI
  10. Keitt, 1997, Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes, Conserv. Ecol., 1, 4, 10.5751/ES-00015-010104 · DOI
  11. Knight, 2003, An experimental assessment of minimum mapping unit size, IEEE T Geosci. Remote., 41, 2132, 10.1109/TGRS.2003.816587 · DOI
  12. Marull, 2005, A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: application to the Barcelona Metropolitan Area, Landscape Urban Plan., 71, 243, 10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00079-9 · DOI
  13. Mayer, 2003, Consideration of grain and extent in landscape studies of terrestrial vertebrate ecology, Landscape Urban Plan., 65, 201, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00057-4 · DOI
  14. Moilanen, 2002, Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology, Ecology, 83, 1131, 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1131:SCMISE]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Nikolakaki, 2004, A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches, Landscape Urban Plan., 68, 77, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00167-1 · DOI
  16. O’Neill, 1996, Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale, Landscape Ecol., 11, 169, 10.1007/BF02447515 · DOI
  17. Pascual-Hortal, 2006, Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches for conservation, Landscape Ecol., 21, 959, 10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z · DOI · Paper page
  18. Ricotta, 2000, Quantifying the network connectivity of landscape mosaics: a graph-theoretical approach, Commun. Ecol., 1, 89, 10.1556/ComEc.1.2000.1.12 · DOI
  19. Saura, 2002, Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover data spatial configuration and composition, Int. J. Remote Sens., 23, 4853, 10.1080/01431160110114493 · DOI
  20. Saura, 2004, Effects of remote sensor spatial resolution and data aggregation on selected fragmentation indices, Landscape Ecol., 19, 197, 10.1023/B:LAND.0000021724.60785.65 · DOI
  21. Saura, 2007, Scaling functions for landscape pattern metrics derived from remotely sensed data: are their subpixel estimates really accurate?, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 62, 201, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2007.03.004 · DOI
  22. Saura, 2001, Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., 67, 1027
  23. Saura, S., Pascual-Hortal, L., 2007. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape Urban Plan. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005. · DOI
  24. Schumaker, 1996, Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity, Ecology, 77, 1210, 10.2307/2265590 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Stohlgren, 1997, Multiscale sampling of plant diversity: effects of minimum mapping unit size, Ecol. Appl., 7, 1064, 10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[1064:MSOPDE]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  26. Sutherland, 2000, Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals, Conserv. Ecol., 4, 16, 10.5751/ES-00184-040116 · DOI
  27. Taylor, 1993, Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure, Oikos, 68, 571, 10.2307/3544927 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Tischendorf, 2000, How should we measure landscape connectivity?, Landscape Ecol., 15, 633, 10.1023/A:1008177324187 · DOI
  29. Tischendorf, 2000, On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity, Oikos, 90, 7, 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x · DOI
  30. Turner, 1989, Predicting the spread of disturbance across heterogeneous landscapes, Oikos, 55, 121, 10.2307/3565881 · DOI
  31. Urban, 2001, Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective, Ecology, 82, 1205, 10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  32. Weiers, 2004, Mapping and indicator approaches for the assessment of habitats at different scales using remote sensing and GIS methods, Landscape Urban Plan., 67, 43, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00028-8 · DOI
  33. Wickham, 1995, Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size, Int. J. Remote Sens., 16, 3585, 10.1080/01431169508954647 · DOI
  34. Wu, 2002, Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics, Landscape Ecol., 17, 761, 10.1023/A:1022995922992 · DOI
  35. Wu, 2004, Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations, Landscape Ecol., 19, 125, 10.1023/B:LAND.0000021711.40074.ae · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pascual-Hortal, L., & Saura, S.
Venue
Landscape and Urban Planning
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-11
Volume
83
Issue
2-3
Pages
176-186
ISSN
0169-2046
DOI
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.003
Cited by
110
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (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