Cited by 229

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

BEIER, PAUL, SPENCER, WAYNE, BALDWIN, ROBERT F., McRAE, BRAD H.·2011·Conservation Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01716.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?

  • 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].”
  • 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).”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Anderson M. G., 2010, Conserving the stage: climate change and the geophysical underpinnings of species diversity, Public Library of Science ONE, 5
  3. 10.1007/978-90-481-9575-6_16 · DOI
  4. Ball I. R., 2000, MARXAN (V1.8.2): marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing, a manual
  5. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01082.x · DOI
  6. 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).
  7. 10.1007/978-90-481-9575-6_11 · DOI
  8. 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.025 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01422.x · DOI
  10. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00942.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1890/11-0213.1 · DOI
  12. Carroll C., 2010, Connectivity analysis toolkit user manual. Version 1.0
  13. 10.1890/02-5195 · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00674.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. 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
  16. 10.1890/07-1419.1 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s10980-007-9104-8 · DOI
  18. 10.1515/9781400850624 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s10980-004-3162-y · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99075.x · DOI
  22. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00202.x · DOI
  23. Jones T., 2009, Wildlife corridors in Tanzania
  24. 10.1511/2003.4.344 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00452.x · DOI
  26. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262122986.001.0001 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00079-9 · DOI
  28. Menon V., 2005, Right of passage: elephant corridors of India
  29. Nordhaugen S., 2006, Arizona wildlife linkage assessment
  30. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03629.x · DOI
  31. 10.1890/07-0507.1 · DOI
  32. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00297.x · DOI
  33. 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
  34. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00153-6 · DOI
  35. 10.1023/A:1008165311026 · DOI
  36. 10.1007/s10980-010-9484-z · DOI
  37. 10.1017/CBO9780511754821.016 · DOI
  38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010, Information bulletin 1: form and function
  39. Wildlife Conservation Division, 2010, Regulatory framework for biological corridors in Bhutan
  40. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00080.x · DOI
  41. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.04.005 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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