The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA)

By C. Thompson, K. McGarigal. Landscape Ecology, 2002

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6272392f69721712967f51e0696ac2cd1b6ba417

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

Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics (2010, unknown): “Less work has focused on how apparent pattern– process relationships change with scale of observation (e.g. Tischendor 2001; Thompson and McGarigal 2002; Cushman 2006; Corry and Nassauer 2005; Cushman et al. 2008b).”
Multi‐scale habitat modelling identifies spatial conservation priorities for mainland clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa) (2019, unknown): “…of habitat use and provide valuable information for conservation management planning and reserve design; therefore, it is critical to incorporate multi‐scale approaches into the statisti‐ cal modelling framework when describing species–environment re‐ lationships (Thompson & McGarigal, 2002).”
Roles of Raptors in a Changing World: From Flagships to Providers of Key Ecosystem Services (2016, background): “…and dynamic nature of animal distributions and abundances, some studies have dealt with this topic at multiple temporal and spatial scales or at different activityspecific environments for nesting, roosting or feeding (e.g. Thompson and McGarigal, 2002; Martínez et al., 2003; D’Elia et al., 2015).”
Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges (2010, background): “A mismatch of the scale at which data are analyzed and the scale at which patternprocess relationships function can readily lead to incorrect inferences (Wiens 1989; Dungan et al. 2002; Thompson and McGarigal 2002).”
Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho (2010, background): “Mismatches in scale may result in failure to observe a relationship between pattern and process when one exists, the observation of a spurious or distorted relationship, or error in evaluation of the significance or effects size of a patternprocess relationship (e.g. Thompson and McGarigal 2002).”
How much and at what scale? Multiscale analyses as decision support for conservation of saproxylic oak beetles (2012, methodology): “, 2007) while a multi-scale approach using numerous scales has been used in a few recent studies (Thompson and McGarigal, 2002; Holland et al., 2005; Paltto et al., 2010).”
Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review (2012, methodology): “…scale are typically based on expert opinion and/or previous autecological studies (Cushman et al. 2010), but objective methods can be used to determine the optimum grain size—at least above the lower limit set by the source data—when biological data are available (Thompson and McGarigal 2002).”
Movement behavior explains genetic differentiation in American black bears (2010, methodology): “First we conducted a univariate scaling analysis (e.g. Thompson and McGarigal 2002) to identify which of the several alternative forms of each landscape variable had the strongest relationship with selected bear paths.”
The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies (2010, background): “However, the overall strength of the response could be quite different (Thompson and McGarigal 2002).”
Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure (2009, background): “More often than not, the choice of resolution(s) is arbitrary, as only rarely are there ecological data to inform the choice of optimal resolution(s) (Thompson and McGarigal 2002).”