Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Invasion versus Isolation: Trade‐Offs in Managing Native Salmonids with Barriers to Upstream Movement

Open access
FAUSCH, KURT D., RIEMAN, BRUCE E., DUNHAM, JASON B., YOUNG, MICHAEL K., PETERSON, DOUGLAS P.·2009·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Conservation biologists often face the trade‐off that increasing connectivity in fragmented landscapes to reduce extinction risk of native species can foster invasion by non‐native species that enter via the corridors created, which can then increase extinction risk. This dilemma is acute for stream fishes, especially native salmonids, because their populations are frequently relegated to fragments of headwater habitat threatened by invasion from downstream by 3 cosmopolitan non‐native salmonids. Managers often block these upstream invasions with movement barriers, but isolation of native salmonids in small headwater streams can increase the threat of local extinction. We propose a conceptual framework to address this worldwide problem that focuses on 4 main questions. First, are populations of conservation value present (considering evolutionary legacies, ecological functions, and socioeconomic benefits as distinct values)? Second, are populations vulnerable to invasion and displacement by non‐native salmonids? Third, would these populations be threatened with local extinction if isolated with barriers? And, fourth, how should management be prioritized among multiple populations? We also developed a conceptual model of the joint trade‐off of invasion and isolation threats that considers the opportunities for managers to make strategic decisions. We illustrated use of this framework in an analysis of the invasion‐isolation trade‐off for native cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) in 2 contrasting basins in western North America where invasion and isolation are either present and strong or farther away and apparently weak. These cases demonstrate that decisions to install or remove barriers to conserve native salmonids are often complex and depend on conservation values, environmental context (which influences the threat of invasion and isolation), and additional socioeconomic factors. Explicit analysis with tools such as those we propose can help managers make sound decisions in such complex circumstances.

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.1523-1739.2008.01159.x

Cites

59 of 59 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 59 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
FAUSCH, K. D., RIEMAN, B. E., DUNHAM, J. B., YOUNG, M. K., & PETERSON, D. P.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-07-13
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
859-870
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2072153913
Cited by
300
References
59
FWCI
19.79
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: Invasion versus Isolation: Trade‐Offs in Managing Native Salmonids with Barriers to Upstream Movement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01159.x
The paper
FAUSCH, K. D., RIEMAN, B. E., DUNHAM, J. B., YOUNG, M. K., & PETERSON, D. P. (2009). Invasion versus Isolation: Trade‐Offs in Managing Native Salmonids with Barriers to Upstream Movement. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01159.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.