On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity

By L. Tischendorf, L. Fahrig. 2000

1,230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/004a6fa76f28ccb5376863e721b9f5a632aa2a4c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. (2011, background): “Route-specific flux depends on the source strength of donor habitat patches, the attraction strength of recipient habitat patches, and the probability of dispersal through the matrix (Hanski 1999b, Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000).”
Patch‐ and landscape‐scale effects on howler monkey distribution and abundance in rainforest fragments (2007, methodology): “…(number of riparian corridors or live fences shared with other fragments), corridor length (minimum distance to adjacent fragments along such corridors; m) and road abundance (total length of secondary roads; m) were used as factors describing landscape connectivity (Tischendorf & Fahrig, 2000).”
An index-based framework for assessing patterns and trends in river fragmentation and flow regulation by global dams at multiple scales (2017, background): “River fragmentation diminishes the natural connectivity within and among river systems (Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000,Moilanen andHanski 2001).”
Review of the Methods Frequently Used to Estimate the Abundance of Orthoptera in Grassland Ecosystems (2005, background): “…and were relevant to the priorities of the research (site selection conservation;Metzger and Decamps 1997; Cabeza and Moilanen, 2001), butmay have suffered from a lack of precisionwhen calculating connectivity within the metapopulation (Fahrig andMerriam 1985; Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000a, 2000b).”
Assisted colonization: Integrating conservation strategies in the face of climate change (2011, background): “the intervening landscape surrounding patches and corridors of habitat) and on characteristics of the corridor and matrix themselves (Debinski and Holt, 2000; Tischendorf and Fahrig, 2000).”
Does matrix resistance influence Red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris L. 1758) distribution in an urban landscape? (2003, background): “…occurrence of a species in a habitat patch may depend on many different factors, like patch size, patch quality e.g., food, shelter and patch isolation Andrén 1994; Hanski 1994; Harrison and Bruna 1999; Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000; Vos et al. 2001b; Tscharntke et al. 2002; Verbeylen et al. 2003 .”
Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species (2005, methodology): “Interest in how species use different landscape elements to disperse is increasing (Tischendorf and Fahrig, 2000; Graham, 2001; Bélisle and Desrochers, 2002; Adriaensen et al., 2003) as it is linked with the probability of an individual finding patches of habitat that are spread across the landscape”
Analyzing the effect of stepping stones on target patch colonisation in structured landscapes for Eurasian lynx (2011, background): “Connectivity of a landscape is important because it may allow exchange of individuals among habitat patches and can counteract stochastic local extinction and has therefore important consequences at the population level (Hanski 1994; Wiegand et al. 1999; Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000b ).”
Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence (2010, background): “Despite the difficulties in measuring dispersal (Gustafson and Gardner 1996; Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000), it is one of the primary mechanisms driving population- and community-level processes (Goheen et al.”
Young flying squirrels (Pteromys volans) dispersing in fragmented forests (2004, background): “These results demonstrate that a random walk is not a suitable model for animal movement (see Tischendorf and Fahrig, 2000 ).”
Behavioral barriers to non-migratory movements of birds (2002, background): “Models of landscape connectivity (e.g., Metzger & Decamps 1997, With et al. 1997, With & King 1999, reviewed by Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000) would be improved by incorporating behavioral inhibitions to movement to accurately assess potential dispersal.”
Ecological connectivity research in urban areas (2015, background): “Promoting landscape connectivity, the degree to which a landscape facilitates the movement of individuals or gametes (Taylor et al. 1993; Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000b), has become a global conservation priority to mitigate the widespread anthropogenic landscape modifications and their impacts on…”
Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data (2008, background): “ Moilanen and Hanski (2001) argued that what Tischendorf and Fahrig (2000a) described is a patchwise connectivity measure, which evaluates how well the focal patch happens to be connected to the rest of a suitable habitat, where connectivity is primarily a measure of a habitat patch (i.e., patch co”
A Framework for Evaluating Land Use Planning Alternatives: Protecting Biodiversity on Private Land (2002, background): “However, in practice, it is difficult to develop a single indicator because we must deal with broad assemblages of species and communities in private land use planning (Theobald 2000), yet fragmentation is species- and landscape-specific (Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000).”
MEASURING LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY: THE CHALLENGE OF BEHAVIORAL LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY (2005, background): “This is partly reflected by the lack of consensus on how to measure landscape connectivity (Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000a, b, Moilanen and Hanski 2001, Goodwin 2003).”