Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Corridors in Real Landscapes: A Reply to Simberloff and Cox

NOSS, REED F.·1987·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Habitat corridors have become popular in land‐use plans and conservation strategies, yet few data are available to either support or refute their value. Simberloff and Cox (1987) have criticized what they consider an uncritical acceptance of corridors in conservation planning. Any reasonable conservation strategy must address the overwhelming problem of habitat fragmentation. Although Simberloff and Cox use island analogies to illustrate advantages of isolation, these analogies do not apply directly to problems in landscape planning. Genetics also does not offer unequivocal advice, but the life histories of wide‐ranging animals (eg., the Florida panther) suggest that the maintenance or restoration of connectivity in the landscape is a prudent strategy. Translocation of individuals among reserves—considered by Simberloff and Cox a viable alternative to natural dispersal—is impractical for whole communities of species that are likely to suffer from problems related to fragmentation. Many of the potential disadvantages of corridors could be avoided or mitigated by enlatging cowidor width or by applying ecologically sound zoning regulations. Corridors are not the solution to all of our conservation problems, nor should they be used as a justification for small reserves. But corridors can be a cost‐effective complement to the strategy of large and multiple reserves in real‐life landscapes.

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/j.1523-1739.1987.tb00024.x

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
NOSS, R. F.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1987-08
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
159-164
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2008819116
Cited by
370
References
0
FWCI
8.01
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

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.