Cited by 489

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

Forks in the Road: Choices in Procedures for Designing Wildland Linkages

BEIER, PAUL, MAJKA, DANIEL R., SPENCER, WAYNE D.·2008·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Models are commonly used to identify lands that will best maintain the ability of wildlife to move between wildland blocks through matrix lands after the remaining matrix has become incompatible with wildlife movement. We offer a roadmap of 16 choices and assumptions that arise in designing linkages to facilitate movement or gene flow of focal species between 2 or more predefined wildland blocks. We recommend designing linkages to serve multiple (rather than one) focal species likely to serve as a collective umbrella for all native species and ecological processes, explicitly acknowledging untested assumptions, and using uncertainty analysis to illustrate potential effects of model uncertainty. Such uncertainty is best displayed to stakeholders as maps of modeled linkages under different assumptions. We also recommend modeling corridor dwellers (species that require more than one generation to move their genes between wildland blocks) differently from passage species (for which an individual can move between wildland blocks within a few weeks). We identify a problem, which we call the subjective translation problem, that arises because the analyst must subjectively decide how to translate measurements of resource selection into resistance. This problem can be overcome by estimating resistance from observations of animal movement, genetic distances, or interpatch movements. There is room for substantial improvement in the procedures used to design linkages robust to climate change and in tools that allow stakeholders to compare an optimal linkage design to alternative designs that minimize costs or achieve other conservation goals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several authors have alluded to the idea that artificial boundaries might influence the results of least cost path and landscape resistance models, but no one has directly addressed the issue.

    “Several authors have alluded to the idea that artificial boundaries might influence the results of least cost path and landscape resistance models [2], [11], [15]–[18], but to our knowledge, no one has directly addressed the issue.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Andelman S., 1999, The Nature Conservancy
  3. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01082.x · DOI
  4. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.07010094.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.025 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x · DOI · Paper page
  7. Beier P., 1992, A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 20, 434
  8. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00161.x · DOI
  9. 10.1007/s10980-005-5956-y · DOI
  10. 10.1890/04-0906 · DOI
  11. Carr M. H., 2002, Final report. Southeastern ecological framework
  12. 10.1890/02-5195 · DOI
  13. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110050 · DOI
  14. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00328.x · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00215.x · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00292.x · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00804.x · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01325.x · DOI
  19. Environmental Law Institute, 2003, Conservation thresholds for land use planners
  20. 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00213-5 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80002-3 · DOI
  22. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98519.x · DOI
  23. 10.1007/s10980-007-9104-8 · DOI
  24. 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[0852:OUDMTA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  25. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.00070.x · DOI
  26. 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[0609:CUBDT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  27. 10.1890/03-5327 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/s10980-004-3162-y · DOI
  29. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.620293.x · DOI
  30. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99075.x · DOI
  31. 10.1007/s10980-005-5203-6 · DOI
  32. Hunter R. D., 2003, Landscape‐level connectivity in coastal southern California USA as assessed through carnivore habitat suitability, Natural Areas Journal, 23, 302
  33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Climate Change 2001: synthesis
  34. 10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00050-7 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.007 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.2193/2005-709 · DOI
  37. Kobler A. andM.Adamic.1999.Brown bears in Slovenia: identifying locations for construction of wildlife bridges across highways. InG.Evink P.Garrett andD.Zeigler editors.Proceedings of International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Available fromhttp://www.icoet.net/ICOWET/99proceedings.asp(accessed January 2008).
  38. 10.1017/S1367943003001100 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/1467-9671.00035 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00079-9 · DOI
  41. 10.1073/pnas.0706568104 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1016/0006-3207(95)90029-2 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/B978-012497781-5/50016-5 · DOI
  44. Morrison S. A., 2008, Implementing corridors in a connectivity endgame: some lessons from mountain lions, Conservation Biology
  45. National Highway Cooperative Research Program, 2004, Environmental stewardship practices, procedures, and policies for highway construction and maintenance
  46. National Research Council (NRC), 2005, Assessing and managing the ecological impacts of paved roads
  47. Newell S. L.2006.An evaluation of a science‐based approach to habitat linkage design.MS thesis. Northern Arizona University Flagstaff Arizona .
  48. 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.026 · DOI
  49. 10.1007/0-387-22648-6_17 · DOI
  50. Quinby P., 1999, Opportunities for wildlife habitat connectivity between Algonquin Provincial Park and the Adirondack Park
  51. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x · DOI
  52. Rubert L.2007.Identifying habitat suitability and potential linkages for swamp rabbit conservation in southern Illinois.MS thesis.Southern Illinois University Carbondale Illinois .
  53. 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1469:RBAOSH]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  54. Servheen C. J. S.Walker andP.Sandstrom.2001.Identification and management of linkage zones for grizzly bears between the large blocks of public land in the northern Rocky Mountains.Proceedings of International Conference on Ecology and Transportation161–179.
  55. 10.2737/PNW-RP-549 · DOI
  56. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, 2005, Linking Colorado's landscapes: a statewide assessment of wildlife linkages, phase I report
  57. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00153-6 · DOI
  58. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981, Standards for the development of suitability index models
  59. 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2000.230512.x · DOI
  60. Ventura County, 2005, Guidelines for safe wildlife passage
  61. 10.1023/B:LAND.0000014492.50765.05 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Walker R. andL.Craighead.1997.Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. 1997.In Proceedings of the 1997 International ESRI Users conference.Environmental Sciences Research Institute Redlands California . Available fromhttp://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/proc97/to150/pap116/p116.htm(accessed January 2008).
  63. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00145.x · DOI
  64. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00080.x · DOI
  65. 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00187-0 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
BEIER, P., MAJKA, D. R., & SPENCER, W. D.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
836-851
ISSN
  • 0888-8892
  • 1523-1739
Cited by
489
References
1
Language
en

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