CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multi-species genetic connectivity in a terrestrial habitat network

Marrotte, Robby R., Bowman, Jeff, Brown, Michael G.C., Cordes, Chad, Morris, Kimberley Y., Prentice, Melanie B., Wilson, Paul J.·2017·Movement Ecology
DOI 10.1186/s40462-017-0112-2PMC PMC5629812
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1186/s40462-017-0112-2

Cites

4 of 4 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

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?

  • Analysing connectivity according to the needs of a diverse number of species should lead to a more robust and realistic output, as a small number of focal species seldom encompass the whole range of dispersal behaviours.

    “It should lead to a more robust and realistic output, as a small number of focal species seldom encompass the whole range of dispersal behaviours”

    From Omnidirectional and omnifunctional connectivity analyses with a diverse species pool (2020) · cites this paper as Marrotte et al., 2017

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Dakos V, Quinlan A, Baggio JA, Bennett E, Bodin Ö, BurnSilver S. Principles for building resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services. In: Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML, editors. Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
  2. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos. 1993;68:571–3. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Gubbi S, Mukherjee K, Swaminath MH, Poornesha HC. Providing more protected space for tigers Panthera tigris: a landscape conservation approach in the Western Ghats, southern India. Oryx. 2015;50:336–43. · DOI
  4. Schadt S, Knauer F, Kaczensky P, Revilla E, Wiegand T, Trepl L. Rule-based assessment of suitable habitat and path connectivity for the Eurasian Lynx. Ecol Appl. 2002;12:1469–83. · DOI
  5. Rees EE, Pond BA, Tinline RR, Bélanger D. Modelling the effect of landscape heterogeneity on the efficacy of vaccination for wildlife infectious disease control. J Appl Ecol. 2013;50:881–91. · DOI
  6. Dilkina B, Houtman R, Gomes CP, Montgomery CA, McKelvey KS, Kendall K, Graves TA, Bernstein R, Schwartz MK. Trade-offs and efficiencies in optimal budget-constrained multispecies corridor networks. Conserv Biol. 2016; doi: 10.1111/cobi.12814 . · DOI
  7. Santini L, Saura S, Rondinini C. A composite network approach for assessing multi-species connectivity: an application to road defragmentation prioritisation. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0164794. · DOI
  8. Cushman SA, Landguth EL. Multi-taxa population connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Ecol Model. 2012;231:101–12. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos. 2000;90:7–19. · DOI
  10. Lowe WH, Allendorf FW. What can genetics tell us about population connectivity? Mol Ecol. 2010;19:3038–51. · DOI
  11. Keyghobadhi N, Roland J, Strobeck C. Genetic differentiation and gene flow among populations of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus, vary with landscape connectivity. Mol Ecol. 2005;14:1897–909. · DOI
  12. Stevens VM, Verkenne C, Vandewoestijne S, Wesselingh RA, Baguette M. Gene flow and functional connectivity in the natterjack toad. Mol Ecol. 2006;15:2333–44. · DOI
  13. Maag N, Karpati T, Bollmann K. Semi-natural river system maintains functional connectivity and gene flow of the critically endangered gravel grasshopper (Chorthippus pullus). Biol Conserv. 2013;158:88–97. · DOI
  14. Favre-Bac L, Mony C, Ernoult A, Burel F, Arnaud JF. Ditch networks sustains functional connectivity and influences patterns of gene flow in an intensive agricultural landscape. Heredity. 2016;116:200–12. · DOI
  15. Bowman J, Greenhorn JE, Marrotte RR, McKay MM, Morris KY, Prentice MB, Wehtje M. On applications of landscape genetics. Conserv Genet. 2016;17:753–60. · DOI
  16. Waples RS. A multispecies approach to the analysis of gene flow in marine shore fishes. Evolution. 1987;41:385–400. · DOI
  17. Selkoe KA, Gaggiotti OE, Bowen BW, Toonen RJ. Emergent patterns of population genetic structure for a coral reef community. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:3064–79. · DOI
  18. Mech SG, Hallett JG. Evaluating the effectiveness of corridors: a genetic approach. Conserv Biol. 2001;15:467–74. · DOI
  19. Wultsch C, Waits LP, Kelly MJ. A comparative analysis of genetic diversity and structure in jaguars (Panthera onca), pumas (Puma concolor), and ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in fragmented landscapes of a critical Mesoamerican linkage zone. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0151043. · DOI
  20. Albert CH, Rayfield B, Dumitru M, Gonzalez A. Applying network theory to prioritize multi-species habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change. Conserv Biol. 2017; doi: 10.1111/cobi.12943 . · DOI · Paper page
  21. Brudvig LA, Damschen EI, Haddad NM, Levey DJ, Tewksbury JJ. The influence of habitat fragmentation on multiple plant–animal interactions and plant reproduction. Ecology. 2015;96(10):2669–78. · DOI
  22. Brodie JF, Giordano AJ, Dickson B, Hebblewhite M, Bernard H, Mohd-Azlan J, Anderson J, Ambu L. Evaluating multispecies landscape connectivity in a threatened tropical mammal community. Conserv Biol. 2015;29:122-32. · DOI
  23. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E. The application of “least-cost” modeling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;64:233–47. · DOI · Paper page
  24. McRae BH, Beier P. Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. P Natl A Sci. 2007;104:19885–90. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Marrotte RR, Bowman J. The relationship between least-cost and resistance distance. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0174212. · DOI
  26. Legendre P, Fortin MJ. Comparison of the Mantel test and alternative approaches for detecting complex multivariate relationships in the spatial analysis of genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010;10:831–44. · DOI
  27. Guillot G, Rousset F. Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4:336–44. · DOI
  28. Cushman SA, Wasserman TN, Landguth EL, Shirk AJ. Re-evaluation causal modeling with Mantel tests in landscape genetics. Diversity. 2013;5:51–72. · DOI
  29. Cushman SA, Landguth EL. Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:2592–3602. · DOI
  30. Balkenhol N, Waits LP, Dezzani RJ. Statistical approaches in landscape genetics: an evaluation of methods for linking landscape and genetic data. Ecography. 2009;32:818–30. · DOI
  31. Koen EL, Bowman J, Wilson PJ. Node-based measures of genetic connectivity. Mol Ecol Resour. 2016;16:69–79. · DOI
  32. Moilanen A, Nieminen M. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology. 2002;83:1131–45. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair AR, Brashares JS. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. P Natl A Sci. 2008;105:20770–5. · DOI
  34. Hanski I, Moilanen A, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M. The quantitative incidence function model and persistence of an endangered butterfly metapopulation. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:578–90. · DOI
  35. Li H, Li D, Li T, Qiao Q, Yang J, Zhang H. Application of least-cost path model to identify a giant panda dispersal corridor network after that Wenchuan earthquake: Case study of Wolong Nature Reserve in China. Ecol Model. 2010;221:944–52. · DOI
  36. Doyle PG, Snell JL. Random walks and electric networks. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America; 1984. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Koen EL, Bowman J, Garroway CJ, Mills SC, Wilson PJ. Landscape resistance and American marten gene flow. Landsc Ecol. 2012;27:29–43. · DOI
  38. Walpole AA, Bowman J, Murray DL, Wilson PJ. Functional connectivity of lynx at their southern range periphery in Ontario, Canada. Landsc Ecol. 2012;27:761–73. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Bennie J, Davies TW, Inger R, Gaston KJ. Mapping artificial lightscapes for ecological studies. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014;5:534–40. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Garroway CJ, Bowman J, Carr D, Wilson PJ. Applications of graph theory to landscape genetics. Evol Appl. 2008;1:620–30. · DOI
  41. Garroway CJ, Bowman J, Wilson PJ. Using a genetic network to parameterize a landscape resistance surface for fishers, Martes pennanti. Mol Ecol. 2011;20:3978–88. · DOI
  42. Garroway CJ, Bowman J, Cascaden TJ, Holloway GL, Mahan CG, Malcolm JR, Steele MA, Turner G, Wilson PJ. Climate change induced hybridization in flying squirrels. Glob Chang Biol. 2010;16:113–21. · DOI
  43. Lalor JL. Selection on functional genes across a flying squirrel (genus Glaucomys) hybrid zone. Peterborough: MSc thesis, Trent University; 2014.
  44. Dyer RJ, Nason JD. Population Graphs: The graph theoretic shape of genetic structure. Mol Ecol. 2004;13:1713–27. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Dyer RJ. Population Graphs and Landscape Genetics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2015;46:327–42. · DOI
  46. Andrén H. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos. 1994;71:355–66. · DOI
  47. Fahrig L. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:487–515. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Swift TL, Hannon SJ. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss: a review of the concepts, evidence, and applications. Biol Rev. 2010;1:35–53. · DOI
  49. Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Diamond AW, Taylor PD. Independent effects of habitat amount and fragmentation on songbirds in a forest mosaic. Ecol Appl. 2006;16:1076–1089.57. · DOI
  50. Koen EL, Bowman J, Garroway CJ, Wilson PJ. The sensitivity of genetic connectivity measures to unsampled and under-sampled sites. PLoS One. 2013;8:e56204. · DOI
  51. Hale ML, Burg TM, Steeves TE. Sampling for microsatellite-based population genetic studies: 25 to 30 individuals per population is enough to accurately estimate allele frequencies. PLoS One. 2012;7:e45170. · DOI
  52. Leonard PB, Duffy EB, Baldwin RF, McRae BH, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK. gflow: software for modelling circuit theory-based connectivity at any scale. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016; doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12689 . · DOI · Paper page
  53. Beier P, Majka DR, Newell SL. Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. Ecol Appl. 2009;19:2067–77. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Gittleman JL, Harvey PH. Carnivore Home-Range Size, metabolic needs and ecology. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1982;10:57–63. · DOI
  55. Weaver JL, Paquet PC, Ruggiero LF. Resilience and Conservation of Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:964–76. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Marrotte, R. R., Bowman, J., Brown, M. G. C., Cordes, C., Morris, K. Y., Prentice, M. B., & Wilson, P. J.
ORCID
Bowman, Jeff
Venue
Movement Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-10-06
Volume
5
Issue
1
ISSN
2051-3933
DOI
10.1186/s40462-017-0112-2
PMC
PMC5629812
Cited by
50
References
4
Language
en
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discovery Grant)
  • Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

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