The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
USING NETWORK CENTRALITY MEASURES TO MANAGE LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY
Open accessAbstract
We use a graph‐theoretical landscape modeling approach to investigate how to identify central patches in the landscape as well as how these central patches influence (1) organism movement within the local neighborhood and (2) the dispersal of organisms beyond the local neighborhood. Organism movements were theoretically estimated based on the spatial configuration of the habitat patches in the studied landscape. We find that centrality depends on the way the graph‐theoretical model of habitat patches is constructed, although even the simplest network representation, not taking strength and directionality of potential organisms flows into account, still provides a coarse‐grained assessment of the most important patches according to their contribution to landscape connectivity. Moreover, we identify (at least) two general classes of centrality. One accounts for the local flow of organisms in the neighborhood of a patch, and the other accounts for the ability to maintain connectivity beyond the scale of the local neighborhood. Finally, we study how habitat patches with high scores on different network centrality measures are distributed in a fragmented agricultural landscape in Madagascar. Results show that patches with high degree and betweenness centrality are widely spread, while patches with high subgraph and closeness centrality are clumped together in dense clusters. This finding may enable multispecies analyses of single‐species network models.
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
Cites
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
Freeman, L. C. (1978) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 · Cited by 17,062
Borgatti, S. P. (2005) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.008 · Cited by 3,191
Cited by
Saura, S., Bodin, Ö., & Fortin, M. (2014) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12179 · Cited by 632
Self-citationSaura, S., & Rubio, L. (2010) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05760.x · Cited by 558
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
Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits
McRae, B. H., Hall, S. A., Beier, P., & Theobald, D. M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052604 · Cited by 361
Galpern, P., Manseau, M., & Fall, A. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.002 · Cited by 318
Dale, M. R. T., & Fortin, M.-J. (2010) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144718 · Cited by 265
Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps
BEIER, P., SPENCER, W., BALDWIN, R. F., & McRAE, B. H. (2011) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01716.x · Cited by 229
Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design
Zetterberg, A., Mörtberg, U. M., & Balfors, B. (2010) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.01.002 · Cited by 189
On the limitations of graph-theoretic connectivity in spatial ecology and conservation
Moilanen, A. (2011) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02062.x · Cited by 139
Cusser, S., & Goodell, K. (2013) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12003 · Cited by 76
Ecosystem multifunctionality in metacommunities
Thompson, P. L., & Gonzalez, A. (2016) · Ecology · doi:10.1002/ecy.1502 · Cited by 64
Bishop-Taylor, R., Tulbure, M. G., & Broich, M. (2018) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-018-0624-1 · Cited by 64
The application of metacommunity theory to the management of riverine ecosystems
Patrick, C. J., Anderson, K. E., Brown, B. L., Hawkins, C. P., Metcalfe, A., Saffarinia, P., Siqueira, T., Swan, C. M., Tonkin, J. D., & Yuan, L. L. (2021) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1557 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Estrada, E., & Bodin, Ö.
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1810-1825
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-5582
- OpenAlex
- W2029841497
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.