The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Amphibian Movements in Response to Forest Edges, Roads, and Streambeds in Southern New England
Abstract
If management of landscape linkages is to be promoted as a means of conserving amphibian populations, it must be demonstrated that amphibian dispersal does not occur independently of ecosystem edges and other salient landscape features. I used drift fences and pitfall traps to intercept dispersing amphibians and examine amphibian movements relative to roads, forest edges, and streambeds in a forest tract in southern Connecticut. Capture rates of 3 species (marbled salamander, Ambystoma opacum; red-spotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens; pickerel frog, Rana palustris) were influenced by forest borders and streambeds, whereas captures of 3 other species (spotted salamander, Ambystoma maculatum; redback salamander, Pleth-odon cinereus; wood frog, R. sylvatica) were not. Across all species, the relative permeability of forest-road edges was much reduced in comparison to the forest interior and to edges between forest and open land. The data suggest that landscape-level conservation strategies aimed at amphibians should account for such filters and conduits to amphibian movement.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Autocorrelation, spatial scale of movement, and mortality risk have well-established and fundamental importance in shaping movement patterns.
“For example, these models do not account for autocorrelation, spatial scale of movement, or mortality risk, despite the well-established and fundamental importance these factors have in shaping movement patterns5,35–37.”
From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
These models do not account for autocorrelation, spatial scale of movement, or mortality risk.
“For example, these models do not account for autocorrelation, spatial scale of movement, or mortality risk, despite the well-established and fundamental importance these factors have in shaping movement patterns5,35–37.”
From Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Connectivity modelling in conservation science: a comparative evaluation
Unnithan Kumar, S., & Cushman, S. A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20370-w · Cited by 83
Drainage Ditches Facilitate Frog Movements in a Hostile Landscape
Mazerolle, M. J. (2005) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-004-3977-6 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibbs, J. P.
- Venue
- The Journal of Wildlife Management
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 584
- ISSN
- 0022-541X
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 0
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
