Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 248

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data

Open access
Zeller, Katherine A., Jennings, Megan K., Vickers, T. Winston, Ernest, Holly B., Cushman, Samuel A., Boyce, Walter M.·2018·Diversity and Distributions

Abstract

Aim: There is enormous interest in applying connectivity modelling to resistance surfaces for identifying corridors for conservation action. However, the multiple analytical approaches used to estimate resistance surfaces and predict connectivity across resistance surfaces have not been rigorously compared, and it is unclear what methods provide the best inferences about population connectivity. Using a large empirical data set on puma (Puma concolor), we are the first to compare several of the most common approaches for estimating resistance and modelling connectivity and validate them with dispersal data. Location: Southern California, USA. Methods: We estimate resistance using presence‐only data, GPS telemetry data from puma home ranges and genetic data using a variety of analytical methods. We model connectivity with cost distance and circuit theory algorithms. We then measure the ability of each data type and connectivity algorithm to capture GPS telemetry points of dispersing pumas. Results: We found that resource selection functions based on GPS telemetry points and paths outperformed species distribution models when applied using cost distance connectivity algorithms. Point and path selection functions were not statistically different in their performance, but point selection functions were more sensitive to the transformation used to convert relative probability of use to resistance. Point and path selection functions and landscape genetics outperformed other methods when applied with cost distance; no methods outperformed one another with circuit theory. Main conclusions: We conclude that path or point selection functions, or landscape genetic models, should be used to estimate landscape resistance for wildlife. In cases where resource limitations prohibit the collection of GPS collar or genetic data, our results suggest that species distribution models, while weaker, may still be sufficient for resistance estimation. We recommend the use of cost distance‐based approaches, such as least‐cost corridors and resistant kernels, for estimating connectivity and identifying functional corridors for terrestrial wildlife.

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 · 10.1111/ddi.12742

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 248

Metadata

Authors
Zeller, K. A., Jennings, M. K., Vickers, T. W., Ernest, H. B., Cushman, S. A., & Boyce, W. M.
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-25
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
868-879
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
OpenAlex
W2792563852
Cited by
248
References
4
FWCI
14.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ddi.12742
The paper
Zeller, K. A., Jennings, M. K., Vickers, T. W., Ernest, H. B., Cushman, S. A., & Boyce, W. M. (2018). Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Diversity and Distributions. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12742

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.