Cited by 32Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementSpecies Distribution and Climate Change

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A new cost-distance model for human accessibility and an evaluation of accessibility bias in permanent vegetation plots in great smoky mountains national park, USA

Jobe, R. Todd, White, Peter S.·2009·Journal of Vegetation Science

Abstract

Question: Can a new cost‐distance model help us to evaluate the potential for accessibility bias in ecological observations? How much accessibility bias is present in the vegetation monitoring plots accumulated over the last three decades in Great Smoky Mountains National Park? Location: Great Smoky Mountains National Park, North Carolina and Tennessee, USA. Methods: Distance, slope, stream crossings, and vegetation density were incorporated into a least‐cost model of energetic expenditure for human access to locations. Results: Estimated round‐trip energy costs for the park ranged from 0 to 1.62 × 10 5 J kg−1. The estimated round‐trip energetic expenditure for the surveys ranged from 53 to 1.51 × 10 5 J kg−1. Their distribution was more accessible than the random expectation. Ten (17%) of the vegetation types in the park are significantly under‐sampled relative to their area, and 16 (29%) are over‐sampled. Plots in 18 of the 40 vegetation types exhibited a significant positive correlation with accessibility. Conclusions: The least‐cost model is an improvement over previous attempts to quantify accessibility. The bias in plot locations suggests using a least‐cost model to test for bias in cases in which human accessibility is confounded with other sources of ecosystem variation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01108.x

Cites

27 of 27 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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Anon. (ESRI), 2006, ArcGIS 9.2, version 9.2
  2. Brody A.J., 1989, Effects of Roads on Black Bear Movements in Western North‐Carolina, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17, 5
  3. Gore J.A., 1996, Methods in stream ecology, 53
  4. Imhof E., 1950, Gelaende und Karte
  5. Jenkins M.A., 2007, Thematic accuracy assessment: Great Smoky Mountains National Park
  6. Rose J., 1994, Energetics of Walking
  7. Weakley A.S., 2008, Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, northern Florida, and surrounding areas

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jobe, R. T., & White, P. S.
Venue
Journal of Vegetation Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-26
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
1099-1109
ISSN
  • 1100-9233 (ISSN-L)
  • 1654-1103
OpenAlex
W2164779030
Cited by
32
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Vegetation Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
Keywords
least-cost path, human accessibility, permanent vegetation plots, energy expenditure, sampling bias, vegetation monitoring, Great Smoky Mountains National Park

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