The DOI matches its Crossref record.
MEASURING LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: THE CHALLENGE OF BEHAVIORAL LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
Abstract
The recognition of behavior as a link between process and pattern in landscape ecology is exemplified by the concept of functional connectivity: the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement among resource patches. In this paper, I first argue that the actual operational definitions of this concept as applied to animal movement are not fully consistent with its formal definition. For instance, I question that a high likelihood of movement among the different points of primary habitat implies a high connectivity and contend that such a view can lead to misinterpretations. I also address two more hurdles to the measurement of functional connectivity: the fact that functional connectivity may not be equal along all axes and directions of movement and individual variation in functional connectivity within a given landscape. These points bring me to suggest that the concept of functional connectivity be bridged to the one of travel costs used in behavioral ecology. This would help define unequivocal operational definitions of functional connectivity as its measurement would then be dictated by its ecological role within specific models (e.g., travel costs within group membership models of foraging theory). I argue further that this ecological role shall in turn determine the motivation underlying the movement of individuals, implying that the latter should preferably be standardized when measuring functional connectivity in the field. I finally present some methods to do so. These include translocation and playback experiments, food-titration and giving-up densities experiments, and manipulating feeding and breeding site locations and success.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Graph models of habitat mosaics
Urban, D. L., Minor, E. S., Treml, E. A., & Schick, R. S. (2009) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01271.x · Cited by 539
Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures
Rayfield, B., Fortin, M.-J., & Fall, A. (2011) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/09-2190.1 · Cited by 391
Connectivity metrics for conservation planning and monitoring
Keeley, A. T. H., Beier, P., & Jenness, J. S. (2021) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109008 · Cited by 243
Beyond the least-cost path: evaluating corridor redundancy using a graph-theoretic approach
Pinto, N., & Keitt, T. H. (2009) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9303-y · Cited by 235
The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values
Rayfield, B., Fortin, M.-J., & Fall, A. (2010) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9436-7 · Cited by 229
Swaisgood, R. R. (2007) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.027 · Cited by 184
Howey, M. C. L. (2011) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.024 · Cited by 168
Connectivity measures: a review
Kindlmann, P., & Burel, F. (2008) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4 · Cited by 124
Validation of functional connectivity modeling: The Achilles’ heel of landscape connectivity mapping
Laliberté, J., & St-Laurent, M.-H. (2020) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103878 · Cited by 86
Wade, A. A., McKelvey, K. S., & Schwartz, M. K. (2015) · doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-333 · Cited by 51
Kupfer, J. A., & Franklin, S. B. (2009) · Geography Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00245.x · Cited by 31
Biogeography and landscape ecology
Kent, M. (2007) · Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/0309133307079059 · Cited by 21
Howey, M. C. L. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.10.007 · Cited by 12
Kelly, D. R., Clark, M. M., Palace, M., & Howey, M. C. L. (2023) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2022.105710 · Cited by 9
Thomas, K. (2022) · Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology · doi:10.5334/jcaa.98 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Bélisle, M.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1988-1995
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2100766713
- Cited by
- 495
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.37
- 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
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.