Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape

Kupfer, John A.·2012·Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment

Abstract

Landscape pattern indicators or ‘metrics’ provide simple measures of landscape structure that can be easily calculated with readily available data and software. Unfortunately, the ecological relevance of many metrics (i.e. the relationship between metric values and the real-world ecological processes that they are meant to serve as proxies for) is often unproven and questionable, and concerns are regularly voiced that such metrics fail to capture important aspects of landscape function. In this paper, I provide a review of landscape measures that may better link landscape pattern and function, ranging from approaches that extend existing metrics by incorporating a more functional component (e.g. core area measures, least cost distances) to those rooted in graph, network, and electrical circuit theory. While more ‘functional’ approaches are becoming increasingly popular, the selection of appropriate landscape metrics in many applications involves tradeoffs regarding data requirements, ease of calculation, functional basis, and simplicity of interpretation by a range of specialist and non-specialist stakeholders. Regardless, there continues to be a need for landscape metrics because they are seen by many land managers and stakeholders as simple, intuitive tools for assessing and monitoring changes in landscape pattern and, by extension, the effects on underlying ecological processes. Future needs include: (1) the development of more user-friendly landscape analysis software that can simplify graph-based analyses and visualization; and (2) studies that clarify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, including the potential limitations and biases in graph and network-based measures.

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 · 10.1177/0309133312439594

Cites

125 of 125 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 125 references

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
Kupfer, J. A.
Venue
Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment
Published
2012-04-02
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
400-420
ISSN
  • 0309-1333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0296
OpenAlex
W2083720831
Cited by
347
References
125
FWCI
11.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0309133312439594
The paper
Kupfer, J. A. (2012). Landscape ecology and biogeography: Rethinking landscape metrics in a post-FRAGSTATS landscape. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133312439594

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.