Analysis of landscape sources and sinks: the effect of spatial pattern on avian demography

By Kimberly A. With, A. King. 2001

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5c67b647ed47b989a08b07598643debe543ae3d1

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

Landscape patterns from mathematical morphology on maps with contagion (2009, methodology): “Neutral maps exhibiting a range of contagion have been used, for example, as test-beds for comparing landscape pattern metrics (Gustafson and Parker 1992; Neel et al. 2004; Ferrari et al. 2007), and as habitat maps for models of organism movement ( With and King 2001; King and With 2002).”
Assessing Habitat Fragmentation Effects on Primates: The Importance of Evaluating Questions at the Correct Scale (2013, background): “Actually, the effects of fragmentation per se are thought to be relatively more important below certain thresholds of habitat amount remaining in the landscape (Andrén 1994; Fahrig 1997, 1998; With and King 2001).”
Expanding northward: influence of climate change, forest connectivity, and population processes on a threatened species' range shift (2011, background): “As resources are reduced due to habitat loss, populations get smaller and dispersal between spatially isolated patches is diminished or blocked (With & King, 2001; Fahrig, 2003; With et al., 2006).”
Multi-scale models of grassland passerine abundance in a fragmented system in Wisconsin (2008, background): “For edge-sensitive forest birds, models developed by With and King (2001) suggest that lifetime reproductive output was affected by habitat clumping.”
Increasing the Accuracy of Productivity and Survival Estimates in Assessing Landbird Population Status (2005, background): “…& Bakke 2000), demographic simulation models (e.g., Stacey & Taper 1992), dynamic stochastic models (e.g., Powell et al. 1999), spatially explicit models (e.g., Pulliam et al. 1992; With & King 2001), and population source/sink models (e.g., Trine 1998; Porneluzi & Faaborg 1999; Fauth 2001).”
LINKING DEMOGRAPHIC EFFECTS OF HABITAT FRAGMENTATION ACROSS LANDSCAPES TO CONTINENTAL SOURCE-SINK DYNAMICS (2005, methodology): “Further, assessment of the net consequences of fragmentation for population growth potential has been limited to modeling studies with hypothetical inputs (e.g., Donovan et al. 1995, Donovan and Lamberson 2001, With and King 2001).”
Evaluating the effectiveness of neutral landscape models to represent a real landscape (2004, background): “With the development of software packages such as FRAGSTATS (http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/ fragstats.html) and (http://www.innovativegis.com/ products/fragstatsarc/index.html) (McGarigal and Marks, 1995), and APACK (http://landscape.forest. wisc.edu/projects/APACK/apack.html) (Mla”
Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area (2004, background): “…as null models for a wide array of landscape ecological investigations Gardner et al. 1987 , including developing spatially explicit meta- population and source-sink models With et al. 1997; Haydon and Pianka 1999; With and King 2001 and identifying fragmentation thresholds With et al. 1997 .”