Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers

By L. Tischendorf, D. Bender, L. Fahrig. Landscape Ecology, 2004

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/182997de84171a079801fd9f182094e3d83bb3cf

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 Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Targeting and evaluating biodiversity conservation action within fragmented landscapes: an approach based on generic focal species and least-cost networks (2010, background): “A particular issue is that species will respond differently to changes in landscape composition (Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000); some may be adversely affected, some may benefit, while others remain unaffected (Jonsen and Fahrig 1997; Tischendorf et al. 2003).”
Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence (2010, background): “2006), corridor use (Beier and Noss 1998), and perceptual range (Zollner 2000), and is probably the rule in landscape-level phenomena because different organisms perceive the same landscape in different ways (Gustafson and Gardner 1996; Andrén et al. 1997; Pither and Taylor 1998; Tischendorf et al. ”
Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? (2005, background): “If the matrix properties are not considered in metapopulation modelling, for example, the projections of the survival probability may be incorrect, as these values may not necessarily predict the immigration rates into patches (Tischendorf et al., 2003).”
Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis (2013, background): “…highly correlated with it) best predicts patch immigration rate and related ecological responses (Moilanen & Nieminen, 2002; Bender et al., 2003; Tischendorf et al., 2003; Prugh, 2009; Ranius et al., 2010; Figure 2 in Thornton et al., 2011; Martin & Fahrig, 2012), including species richness…”
Ecological correlates of dispersal distance in terrestrial mammals (2013, background): “Habitat specialist species seem to travel shorter distances than generalist species, the formers in fact have a stronger habitat boundary response and consequently a lower probability to cross the matrix (Tischendorf et al., 2003).”
Ecological Responses to Habitat Fragmentation Per Se (2017, background): “…less isolated than Patch B precisely because there is more habitat in the local landscape around Patch A than in the local landscape around Patch B. & Nieminen 2002, Bender et al. 2003, Tischendorf et al. 2003, Prugh 2009, Ranius et al. 2010, Thornton et al. 2011, Martin & Fahrig 2012; Figure 3).”
Anthropogenic modulators of species–area relationships in Neotropical primates: a continental‐scale analysis of fragmented forest landscapes (2013, background): “Suitable habitat cover within the matrix is widely recognized as robust indicators of landscape connectivity (Tischendorf et al., 2003).”
A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics (2004, background): “Such " area-informed " metrics generally perform better than those that lack area considerations (Moilanen and Nieminen 2002; Bender et al. 2003; Tischendorf et al. 2003).”
Conceptualization and Measurement of Habitat Fragmentation from the Primates’ Perspective (2009, background): “Bender et al. (2003) and Tischendorf et al. (2003) demonstrated that area-based isolation metrics such as the amount of available habitat within a given radius of a fragment are the most reliable measure of fragment isolation (Fig.”
The importance of functional connectivity in the conservation of a ground-dwelling mammal in an urban Australian landscape (2007, background): “Patch isolation is a measure of the lack of habitat in the landscape surrounding a fragment (Fahrig 2003), often quantified using buffer measures (Bender et al. 2003; Tischendorf et al. 2003).”
The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies (2010, background): “Simulated animal movement patterns are more highly correlated with buffer-based measures of isolation than Euclidean distance or connectivity measures (Bender et al. 2003; Tischendorf et al. 2003).”
Testing the habitat amount hypothesis for South American small mammals (2017, background): “Area-weighted isolation metrics are generally better predictors of isolation than simple distance-based measures (Bender et al., 2003; Tischendorf et al., 2003).”
MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION (2005, background): “Several studies have suggested that interpatch movement of organisms can be affected by the types and pattern of land cover in the matrix (Ricketts 2001, Cooper et al. 2002, Gobeil and Villard 2002, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002a, Tischendorf et al. 2003).”