MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION

By D. Bender, L. Fahrig. 2005

232 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/188ab052d8a4b6489d02859245a53cfdb4585006

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 Transportation

Taku Kadoya

Citations in the corpus

Do small mammals avoid roads because of the traffic (2007, unknown): “We included distance between capture and release sites as a covariate in the analysis to control for the negative effect of translocation distance on small mammal return rates (Bender & Fahrig 2005).”
Global dung beetle response to tropical forest modification and fragmentation: A quantitative literature review and meta-analysis (2007, result): “As in other recent studies, we also found the effects of fragment isolation shifted according to matrix characteristics (Bender and Fahrig, 2005 and Ewers and Didham, 2005).”
Matrix is important for mammals in landscapes with small amounts of native forest habitat (2011, background): “The matrix can be important for both its influence on animal movement through the landscape (Ricketts 2001; Hein et al. 2003; Revilla et al. 2004; Bender and Fahrig 2005) as well as for the potential resources it can provide (Tubelis et al.”
Corridors for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process (2006, background): “Moreover, the matrix can affect interpatch movements, particularly for species that respond to boundaries between habitat types (Bender & Fahrig 2005), and determine the use of embedded corridors and stepping stones (Baum et al. 2004).”
Relative effects of fragment size and connectivity on bird community in the Atlantic Rain Forest: Implications for conservation (2008, background): “It has also been hypothesized that connectivity can modulate speciesarea relationships (Bender and Fahrig, 2005; Ewers and Didham, 2006; Metzger, 2006).”
Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data (2008, background): “Bender and Fahrig (2005) hypothesized that the predictive power of models that relate patch immigration rate to patch size and isolation (or connectivity) will be reduced when spatial structure in the landscape matrix (the nonhabitat portion of the landscape) affects organism movement through the l”
Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world (2012, background): “Network susceptibility will thus depend on species composition, interaction types and landscape properties (Bender and Fahrig, 2005): one could argue that large fragments have a higher conservation value”
Species-specific barrier effects of a motorway on the habitat use of two threatened forest-living bat species (2009, background): “Predicting how anthropogenic habitat fragmentation affects different animal species is therefore of major importance in conservation biology (Laurance et al., 2004; Bender and Fahrig, 2005).”
Occupancy dynamics in a tropical bird community: unexpectedly high forest use by birds classified as non‐forest species (2010, background): “…and empirical evidence suggesting that a signiﬁcant number of species in heterogeneous landscapes might occupy, opportunistically use and even persist in the inter-patch habitat matrix (Vandermeer & Carvajal 2001; Bender & Fahrig 2005; Driscoll 2005; Debinski 2006; Revilla & Wiegand 2008).”
Landscape and patch attributes impacting medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals in a fragmented rain forest (2013, methodology): “Nevertheless, these effects depend on the landscape spatial context (e.g. percentage of remaining forest cover: Arroyo-Rodrı́guez et al. 2009, Bender & Fahrig 2005, Pardini et al. 2010; matrix quality: Fahrig et al. 2011, Prugh et al. 2008; landscape connectivity: Taylor et al. 1993).”
Importance of estimating matrix quality for modeling species distribution in complex tropical landscapes: a test with Atlantic forest small mammals (2008, background): “Simulation models in Bender and Fahrig (2005) showed that for a generalist species, inter-patch movements are difficult to predict, probably because generalist species interact with a large number of cover types and exhibit different responses to them, when moving among patches.”
Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go? (2010, background): “…the target with the least cost, or the cumulative cost of a particular path is used to assess the connectivity (Broquet et al. 2006), increased values equating with decreased probability (Bender and Fahrig 2005; Driezen et al. 2007; see references and O’Brien et al. 2006 for detailed outline).”
Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence (2010, background): “Nowadays, it appears to be common sense that the ‘‘matrix matters’’ (Ricketts 2001), and affects both within- and between-patch processes in heterogeneous landscapes (Stouffer and Bierregaard 1995b; Tworek 2004; Bender and Fahrig 2005; Fischer et al. 2005; Haynes et al. 2007a).”
Analyzing the effect of stepping stones on target patch colonisation in structured landscapes for Eurasian lynx (2011, background): “These advantages are counteracted by two negative effects: an increase of the effective contagion also of the avoided habitat as well as an emerging shading effect ( Bender and Fahrig 2005; Fahrig 2007).”