Viability analyses with habitat-based metapopulation models

By H. Resit Akçakaya. Population Ecology, 2000

111 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5036cd2309ec51e78c6dd144202d89448e0ab680

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecological Modeling

1. G. L. Lay
2. Janet Franklin
3. A. Hirzel
4. J. Fieberg
5. G. Aarts
6. Jason Matthiopoulos
7. K. Norris
8. Volker C. Radeloff

In Ecology

1. Janet Franklin
2. Jason Matthiopoulos
3. J. Fieberg
4. G. L. Lay
5. A. Hirzel
6. Daniel T. Haydon
7. H. Beyer
8. P. Trenham

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Janet Franklin
2. G. L. Lay
3. A. Hirzel
4. Jason Matthiopoulos
5. H. Beyer
6. J. Fieberg
7. T. Hatfield
8. K. Norris

Citations in the corpus

• Habitat suitability modelling and niche theory (2008, methodology): “(Akçakaya 2000; Hirzel et al. 2004), Habitat/Species Distribution Models (Guisan et al.”
• REGIONAL DYNAMICS OF WETLAND‐BREEDING FROGS AND TOADS: TURNOVER AND SYNCHRONY (2003, background): “Synchronized subpopulation dynamics make meta- populations more vulnerable to system-wide extinction, especially when patch extinction probabilities are relatively high (Harrison and Quinn 1989, Akçakaya 2000).”
• Integrating Landscape and Metapopulation Modeling Approaches: Viability of the Sharp‐Tailed Grouse in a Dynamic Landscape (2004, methodology): “These include occupancy models (reviewed by SjögrenGulve & Hanski 2000), age- or stage-structured models (reviewed by Akçakaya 2000a), and individual-based models (reviewed by DeAngelis & Gross 1992; Lacy 2000).”
• Information needs for assessing critical habitat of freshwater fish (2006, background): “Habitat-explicit population models may be a more practical alternative for identifying limiting habitat, potential impacts of habitat change, and leverage points for recovery actions (Akcakaya 2000; Bradbury et al. 2001; Haight et al. 2002).”
• Moving beyond static species distribution models in support of conservation biogeography (2010, methodology): “One model structure frequently used in PVA has been metapopulation modelling, where subpopulations occupy discrete patches of habitat, may move between them, and the spatial arrangement of the patches is defined (Akçakaya, 2000).”
• A habitat-based population viability analysis for ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the United States (2006, methodology): “Akcakaya (2000) stated that unlike a single population model, the dynamics of a spatial metapopulation model includes spatial variation and interaction among populations, geographic configuration of habitat patches, dispersal, and spatial correlation.”
• Establishing the link between habitat selection and animal population dynamics (2015, background): “The interaction between population dynamics and spatial heterogeneity has been recognized both theoretically and experimentally (Rosenzweig 1981, Morris 1989, 2003, Akçakaya 2000, Keith et al. 2008), yet it remains a mostly unaddressed issue for species distribution models.”
• Managing threatened species: the ecological toolbox, evolutionary theory and declining-population paradigm (2004, background): “The simplest models describe the dynamics of single closed populations (Griffiths & Williams 2000; Oli, Holler & Wooten 2001; Larson, Ryan & Murphy 2002; Todd, Jenkins & Bearlin 2002) but increasingly more complex spatially explicit models are being used to address problems of habitat loss and fragm”
• The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region (2009, background): “, 2001), and the status of vertebrate populations in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Beissinger & Westphal, 1998; Akcakaya, 2000; SoaresFilho et al. 2006; Goodwin et al., 2007).”