The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Current approaches to conservation may be inadequate to maintain ecosystem integrity because they are mostly based on rarity status of organisms rather than functional significance. Alternatively, approaches focusing on the protection of ecological networks lead to more appropriate conservation targets to maintain ecosystem integrity. We propose that a shift in focus from species to interaction networks is necessary to achieve pressing conservation management and restoration ecology goals of conserving biodiversity, ecosystem processes and ultimately landscape‐scale delivery of ecosystem services. Using topical examples from the literature, we discuss historical and conceptual advances, current challenges and ways to move forward. We also propose a road map to ecological network conservation, providing a novel ready to use approach to identify clear conservation targets with flexible data requirements. Synthesis and applications. Integration of how environmental and spatial constraints affect the nature and strength of local interaction networks will improve our ability to predict their response to change and to conserve them. This will better protect species, ecosystem processes, and the resulting ecosystem services we depend on.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
Pearson, R. G., & Dawson, T. P. (2003) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1046/j.1466-822x.2003.00042.x · Cited by 4,252
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080023 · Cited by 2,389 · cited 1×
“The main logical implication of spatial variation in biotic interactions is that ecosystem processes likely vary across the landscape, resulting in spatial variation in the provision of ecosystem functions and services (Nelson et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015).”
BackgroundAutomated Discovery of Food Webs from Ecological Data Using Logic-Based Machine Learning
Bohan, D. A., Caron-Lormier, G., Muggleton, S., Raybould, A., & Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029028 · Cited by 83
Cited by
Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept
Fišer, C., Robinson, C. T., & Malard, F. (2018) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.14486 · Cited by 574
Dainese, M., Isaac, N. J. B., Powney, G. D., Bommarco, R., Öckinger, E., Kuussaari, M., Pöyry, J., Benton, T. G., Gabriel, D., Hodgson, J. A., et al. (2017) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13601 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Harvey, E., Gounand, I., Ward, C. L., & Altermatt, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-09-19
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 371-379
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2513288117
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2664.12769
- The paper
- Harvey, E., Gounand, I., Ward, C. L., & Altermatt, F. (2017). Bridging ecology and conservation: from ecological networks to ecosystem function. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12769
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.