The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Graph‐Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape Connectivity and Conservation Planning
Abstract
Abstract: Connectivity of habitat patches is thought to be important for movement of genes, individuals, populations, and species over multiple temporal and spatial scales. We used graph theory to characterize multiple aspects of landscape connectivity in a habitat network in the North Carolina Piedmont (U.S.A). . We compared this landscape with simulated networks with known topology, resistance to disturbance, and rate of movement. We introduced graph measures such as compartmentalization and clustering, which can be used to identify locations on the landscape that may be especially resilient to human development or areas that may be most suitable for conservation. Our analyses indicated that for songbirds the Piedmont habitat network was well connected. Furthermore, the habitat network had commonalities with planar networks, which exhibit slow movement, and scale‐free networks, which are resistant to random disturbances. These results suggest that connectivity in the habitat network was high enough to prevent the negative consequences of isolation but not so high as to allow rapid spread of disease. Our graph‐theory framework provided insight into regional and emergent global network properties in an intuitive and visual way and allowed us to make inferences about rates and paths of species movements and vulnerability to disturbance. This approach can be applied easily to assessing habitat connectivity in any fragmented or patchy landscape.
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
Error and attack tolerance of complex networks
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35019019 · Cited by 7,534
Barabási, A.-L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0503-60 · Cited by 2,494
Cited by
Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Ponzoni, F. J., & Hirota, M. M. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021 · Cited by 4,282
Saura, S., & Rubio, L. (2010) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x · Cited by 558
Graph models of habitat mosaics
Urban, D. L., Minor, E. S., Treml, E. A., & Schick, R. S. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01271.x · Cited by 539
Self-citationConnectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures
Rayfield, B., Fortin, M.-J., & Fall, A. (2011) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-2190.1 · Cited by 391
Galpern, P., Manseau, M., & Fall, A. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.002 · Cited by 318
Metadata
- Authors
- MINOR, E. S., & URBAN, D. L.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01-31
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 297-307
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W1966469744
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.51
- 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: A Graph‐Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape Connectivity and Conservation Planning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00871.x
- The paper
- MINOR, E. S., & URBAN, D. L. (2008). A Graph‐Theory Framework for Evaluating Landscape Connectivity and Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00871.x
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.