CONNECTIVITY, FRAGMENTATION, AND EXTINCTION RISK IN DENDRITIC METAPOPULATIONS

By William F. Fagan. 2002

807 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/76806e5656525e1261dbf6cd15a55ee3aca8c6ff

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

Biological Diversity in Headwater Streams (2019, background): “However, forests can regenerate, but we know little about the rates and mechanisms by which the rarer and less mobile species recover from harvesting [14], particularly in plantation forests that are common in many parts of the world.”
Using landscape ecology to understand and manage freshwater mussel populations (2008, background): “However, empirical data suggest that not all required resources are contained within a given patch (Fagan 2002), and this factor necessitates movement among patches for resources.”
Tributary control of physical heterogeneity and biological diversity at river confluences (2006, background): “2004), which emphasises that rivers are spatially distributed, heterogeneous systems in which the shape and topology of the drainage network and the connections between tributaries and recipient channel segments are key controls of ecological functions and the distribution of lotic organisms (Osborn”
A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study (2007, background): “However, the indices considered by Pascual-Hortal and Saura (2006) were all based on a binary connections model, in which each two habitat patches are either connected or not, with no intermediate modulation of the connection strength or dispersal feasibility (Cantwell and Forman, 1993; Fagan, 2002”
Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions (2017, background): “Many populations or communities are spatially fragmented, and are linked solely by dispersal of early life-history stages (i.e. meta-populationsor communities; Fagan,2002; Shimaet al.,2010).”
The Stream Biome Gradient Concept: factors controlling lotic systems across broad biogeographic scales (2014, background): “Fragmentation by dams and road crossings blocks movement of animals, reduces the resilience of these dynamic communities (Fagan 2002, Perkin and Gido 2011), and may lead to extirpation of native species.”
Natural fragmentation in river networks as a driver of speciation for freshwater fishes (2013, background): “However, this fragmenting process also reduces the amount of available habitat, producing in fine smaller populations that may be subject to higher extinction rates (Fagan 2002, Morita and Yamamoto 2002, Hugueny et al. 2011).”
Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisation of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates (2014, background): “other systems due to their unidirectional and dendritic nature (Fagan, 2002).”
Dispersal strength determines meta‐community structure in a dendritic riverine network (2015, background): “These features may include the dendritic structure of stream networks (Fausch et al., 2002; Benda et al., 2004), the spatial arrangement of suitable habitat patches across the landscape (Campbell Grant et al., 2007; Er}os et al., 2012; Phillipsen & Lytle, 2013), and the simple Euclidean distance…”
Living in the branches: population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks. (2007, background): “In this way, the architecture of the DEN impedes recolonization of the branch tips by inducing a mismatch between the dispersal ecology of a species (which is restricted to movements along the network branches) and the spatial pattern of disturbance in the network (Fagan 2002).”