Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 123 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors

Hilty, Jodi, Worboys, Graeme L., Keeley, Annika, Woodley, Stephen, Lausche, Barbara J., Locke, Harvey, Carr, Mark, Pulsford, Ian, Pittock, Jamie, White, J. Wilson, Theobald, David M., Levine, Jessica, Reuling, Melly, Watson, James E.M., Ament, Rob, Tabor, Gary M.·2020

Abstract

Connectivity conservation is essential for managing healthy ecosystems, conserving biodiversity and adapting to climate change across all biomes and spatial scales. Well-connected ecosystems support a diversity of ecological functions such as migration, hydrology, nutrient cycling, pollination, seed dispersal, food security, climate resilience and disease resistance. These Guidelines are based on the best available science and practice for maintaining, enhancing and restoring ecological connectivity among and between protected areas, other effective areas based conservation measures (OECMs) and other intact ecosystems. For the first time, this publication introduces a common definition and recommends formal recognition of ecological corridors to serve as critical building blocks of ecological networks in conjunction with protected areas and OECMs. Furthermore, these Guidelines also include 25 case studies that demonstrate current approaches to conserving ecological connectivity and ecological networks for different ecosystems and species, and at different spatial and temporal scales.

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 · 10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.pag.30.en

Cites

123 of 123 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 123 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Ankersen, T.T. (1994). 'Mesoamerican Biological Corridor: The Legal Framework for an Integrated, Regional System of Protected Areas'. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 9:-499.
  2. Bastian O., Grunewald K., Khoroshev A.V. (2015). 'The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified on a case study in Russia'. Landscape Ecology 30: 1145-1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x · doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x
  3. Bennett, G. and Mulongoy, K.J. (2006). Review of Experience with Ecological Networks, Corridors and Buffer Zones, CBD Technical Series 23. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
  4. Boere, G. C. and Stroud, D.A. (2006). 'The flyway concept: what it is and what it isn't'. In: Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A, and Stroud, D.A. (eds.), Waterbirds around the World, pp. 40-47. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
  5. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A. and Oviedo, G. (2004). Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. Best Practice Protected Areas Guideline Series, No. 11. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/8549
  6. Farrier, D., Harvey, M., Teles Da Silva, S., Diegues Leuzinger, M., Verschuuren, J., Gromilova, M., Trouwborst, A., and Paterson, A.R. (2013). The Legal Aspects of Connectivity Conservation (Vol. 2) -- Case Studies. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 78 pp. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/EPLP-085-002.pdf. (Accessed: 15 November 2019).
  7. Forman, T.T., and Godron, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. Indiana: Wiley.
  8. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2016). A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Available at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46259
  9. Jongepierová, I., Pešout, P., Jongepier, J.W., and Prach, K. (eds.) (2012). Ecological restoration in the Czech. Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, Prague, Page 147. Available at http://www.ochranaprirody.cz/en/what-we-do/territorial-system-of-ecological-stability (Accessed: 25 March 2019).
  10. Lindenmayer, D.B., and Burgman, M. (2005). Practical Conservation Biology. Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1071/9780643093102 · doi:10.1071/9780643093102
  11. Miklos L, Diviakova, A and Izakovičová, Z. (2019). Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of Ecological Stability. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94018-2_1 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94018-2_1
  12. Neugarten, R.A., Langhammer, P.F., Osipova, E., Bagstad, K.J., Bhagabati, N., Butchart, S.H.M., Dudley, N., Elliott, V., Gerber, L.R., Gutierrez Arrellano, C., Ivanić, K.-Z., Kettunen, M., Mandle, L., Merriman, J.C., Mulligan, M., Peh, K.S.-H., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Semmens, D.J., Stolton, S., and Willcock, S. (2018). Tools for measuring, modelling, and valuing ecosystem services: Guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, natural World Heritage Sites, and protected areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 28. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PAG.28.en · DOI
  13. Pittman, S.J. (ed.) (2017). Seascape Ecology. Indiana: Wiley.
  14. Saura, S., and de la Fuente, B. (2017). 'Connectivity as the amount of reachable habitat: Conservation priorities and the roles of habitat patches in landscape networks'. In Learning Landscape Ecology, pp. 229-254. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_14 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-6374-4_14
  15. Sobolev (ed.). (1999). Criteria for Ecological Network Development, Biodiversity Conservation Center (BCC), Moscow, Russia.
  16. Tabor, G. (2019).'Ecological Connectivity: A Bridge to Preserving Biodiversity'. In Frontiers 2018/19 Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern, pp. 24-37. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
  17. Tyler, N., Stokkan, K.A., Hogg, C., Nellemann, C., Vistnes, A.I., Jeffrey, G. (2014). 'Ultraviolet Vision and Avoidance of Power Lines in Birds and Mammals'. Conservation Biology 28: 630-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12262 · doi:10.1111/cobi.12262
  18. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), IUCN, and National Geographic Society (NGS) (2018). Protected Planet Report 2018. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; and Washington, DC: NGS. Available at: https://livereport.protectedplanet.net/pdf/Protected_Planet_Report_2018.pdf. (Accessed: 15 November 2019).
  19. White, J.W., Scholz, A.J., Rassweiler, A., Steinback, C., Botsford, L.W., Kruse, S., Costello, C., Mitarai, S., Siegal, D.A., Drake, P.T., and Edwards, C.A. (2013). 'A comparison of approaches used for economic analysis in marine protected area network planning in California'. Ocean & Coastal Management 74: 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.06.006 · doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.06.006
  20. Wu, J. (2008). 'Landscape Ecology'. In: Jorgensen, S.E. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Ecology, pp. 2103-2108. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00864-8 · doi:10.1016/b978-008045405-4.00864-8

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B. J., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, J. W., Theobald, D. M., Levine, J., Reuling, M., Watson, J. E. M., Ament, R., & Tabor, G. M.
Published
2020-07-07
OpenAlex
W3040304437
Cited by
466
References
123
FWCI
64.94
Type
book
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: Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.pag.30.en
The paper
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B. J., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, J. W., Theobald, D. M., Levine, J., Reuling, M., Watson, J. E. M., Ament, R., & Tabor, G. M. (2020). Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.pag.30.en

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.