Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 418

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

Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices

Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., Ter Braak, C. J. F.·2001·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Nature conservation is increasingly based on a landscape approach rather than a species approach. Landscape planning that includes nature conservation goals requires integrated ecological tools. However, species differ widely in their response to landscape change. We propose a framework of ecologically scaled landscape indices that takes into account this variation. Our approach is based on a combination of field studies of spatially structured populations (metapopulations) and model simulations in artificial landscapes. From these, we seek generalities in the relationship among species features, landscape indices, and metapopulation viability. The concept of ecological species profiles is used to group species according to characteristics that are important in metapopulations' response to landscape change: individual area requirements as the dominant characteristic of extinction risk in landscape patches and dispersal distance as the main determinant of the ability to colonize patches. The ecological profiles and landscape indices are then integrated into two ecologically scaled landscape indices (ESLI): average patch carrying capacity and average patch connectivity. The field data show that the fraction of occupied habitat patches is correlated with the two ESLI. To put the ESLI into a perspective of metapopulation persistence, we determine the viability for six ecological profiles at different degrees of habitat fragmentation using a metapopulation model and computer-generated landscapes. The model results show that the fraction of occupied patches is a good indicator for metapopulation viability. We discuss how ecological profiles, ESLI, and the viability threshold can be applied for landscape planning and design in nature conservation.

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 · 10.1086/317004

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 418

Metadata

Authors
Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., & Ter Braak, C. J. F.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2001-01
Volume
157
Issue
1
Pages
24-41
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2151798228
Cited by
418
References
1
FWCI
34.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/317004
The paper
Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., & Ter Braak, C. J. F. (2001). Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/317004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.