The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward Best Practices for Developing Regional Connectivity Maps
Abstract
Abstract: To conserve ecological connectivity (the ability to support animal movement, gene flow, range shifts, and other ecological and evolutionary processes that require large areas), conservation professionals need coarse‐grained maps to serve as decision‐support tools or vision statements and fine‐grained maps to prescribe site‐specific interventions. To date, research has focused primarily on fine‐grained maps (linkage designs) covering small areas. In contrast, we devised 7 steps to coarsely map dozens to hundreds of linkages over a large area, such as a nation, province, or ecoregion. We provide recommendations on how to perform each step on the basis of our experiences with 6 projects: California Missing Linkages (2001), Arizona Wildlife Linkage Assessment (2006), California Essential Habitat Connectivity (2010), Two Countries, One Forest (northeastern United States and southeastern Canada) (2010), Washington State Connected Landscapes (2010), and the Bhutan Biological Corridor Complex (2010). The 2 most difficult steps are mapping natural landscape blocks (areas whose conservation value derives from the species and ecological processes within them) and determining which pairs of blocks can feasibly be connected in a way that promotes conservation. Decision rules for mapping natural landscape blocks and determining which pairs of blocks to connect must reflect not only technical criteria, but also the values and priorities of stakeholders. We recommend blocks be mapped on the basis of a combination of naturalness, protection status, linear barriers, and habitat quality for selected species. We describe manual and automated procedures to identify currently functioning or restorable linkages. Once pairs of blocks have been identified, linkage polygons can be mapped by least‐cost modeling, other approaches from graph theory, or individual‐based movement models. The approaches we outline make assumptions explicit, have outputs that can be improved as underlying data are improved, and help implementers focus strictly on ecological connectivity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The ability to create an omnidirectional connectivity mosaic across a large area addresses the pressing challenge of producing maps of areas important for connectivity.
“The ability to create an omnidirectional connectivity mosaic across a large area addresses the pressing challenge of producing “maps of areas important for connectivity” [52].”
From Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity (2014) · cites this paper as [52]
Landscape connectivity models are widely used in ecology to understand habitat connectivity and species movement and have been applied to model human mobility potential in archaeological contexts.
“Landscape connectivity models are widely used in ecology to understand habitat connectivity and species movement (e.g.Beier et al. 2011;Chetkiewicz, St. Clair, and Boyce 2006;Crooks and Sanjayan 2006;Rayfield, Fortin, and Fall 2011;Taylor et al. 1993) and have been applied to model human mobility potential in archaeological contexts (e.g.Howey 2011; Howey and Burg 2017;Kempf 2020;Kohut 2018).”
From Counter-Mapping Maroon Cartographies: GIS and Anticolonial Modeling in St. Croix (2023) · cites this paper as Beier et al. 2011
Citations
Cites
USING CIRCUIT THEORY TO MODEL CONNECTIVITY IN ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND CONSERVATION
McRae, B. H., Dickson, B. G., Keitt, T. H., & Shah, V. B. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-1861.1 · Cited by 2,244
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Anderson M. G., 2010, Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity, Public Library of Science ONE, 5
- 10.1007/978-90-481-9575-6_16 · DOI
- Ball I. R., 2000, MARXAN (V1.8.2): marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing, a manual
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01082.x · DOI
- Barringer R. et al.2009.Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation of the New England Governors Conference. New England Governors Conference Boston . Available fromhttp://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/NEGCLandConservationReport.pdf(accessed November 2010).
- 10.1007/978-90-481-9575-6_11 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.025 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01422.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1890/11-0213.1 · DOI
- Carroll C., 2010, Connectivity analysis toolkit user manual. Version 1.0
- 10.1890/02-5195 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · DOI · Paper page
- Delaney K. S., 2010, A rapid, strong, and convergent genetic response to urban habitat fragmentation in four divergent and widespread vertebrates, Public Library of Science ONE, 5
- 10.1890/07-1419.1 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10980-007-9104-8 · DOI
- 10.1515/9781400850624 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10980-004-3162-y · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99075.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x · DOI
- Jones T., 2009, Wildlife corridors in Tanzania
- 10.1511/2003.4.344 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00452.x · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262122986.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00079-9 · DOI
- Menon V., 2005, Right of passage: elephant corridors of India
- Nordhaugen S., 2006, Arizona wildlife linkage assessment
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03629.x · DOI
- 10.1890/07-0507.1 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x · DOI
- Singleton P. W.Gaines andJ.Lehmkulhl.2002.Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted distance and least‐cost corridor assessment. Research paper PNW‐RP‐549. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Portland Oregon . · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00153-6 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1008165311026 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10980-010-9484-z · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.016 · DOI
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, Information bulletin 1: form and function
- Wildlife Conservation Division, 2010, Regulatory framework for biological corridors in Bhutan
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00080.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.04.005 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Circuit‐theory applications to connectivity science and conservation
Dickson, B. G., Albano, C. M., Anantharaman, R., Beier, P., Fargione, J., Graves, T. A., Gray, M. E., Hall, K. R., Lawler, J. J., Leonard, P. B., et al. (2019) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13230 · Cited by 461
Self-citationPelletier, D., Clark, M., Anderson, M. G., Rayfield, B., Wulder, M. A., & Cardille, J. A. (2014) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084135 · Cited by 158
Freeman, B., Roehrdanz, P. R., & Peterson, A. T. (2019) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-018-01684-6 · Cited by 38
Counter-Mapping Maroon Cartographies: GIS and Anticolonial Modeling in St. Croix
Dunnavant, J. P., Wernke, S. A., & Kohut, L. E. (2023) · ACME · doi:10.7202/1107310ar · Cited by 12
Yu, Y.-X., Guo, L.-X., & Watanabe, N. (2026) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2026.106527 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- BEIER, P., SPENCER, W., BALDWIN, R. F., & McRAE, B. H.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07-28
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 879-892
- ISSN
- 0888-8892
- 1523-1739
- Cited by
- 229
- 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