A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics

By Justin M. Calabrese, William F. Fagan. 2004

670 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/770f3bbddcb7948945a71888c49edb82e672c107

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

1. Santiago Saura
2. Marie-Josée Fortin
3. J. Heino
4. Andrew Fall
5. B. Rayfield
6. Ö. Bodin
7. H. Van Dyck
8. L. Rubio

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Santiago Saura
2. Marie-Josée Fortin
3. Ö. Bodin
4. J. Heino
5. K. Wilson
6. L. Rubio
7. M. Baguette
8. J. Soininen

Citations in the corpus

• Integrating landscape connectivity in broad-scale forest planning through a new graph-based habitat availability methodology: application to capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Catalonia (NE Spain) (2006, background): “…indices in the literature (Hanski 1994; Bunn et al. 2000; Ricotta et al. 2000; Urban and Keitt 2001; Moilanen and Nieminen 2002; Jordan et al. 2003; Calabrese and Fagan 2004), many of them have been found to present serious limitations that make them inadequate for effectively integrating…”
• Meta‐analysis reveals the importance of matrix composition for animals in fragmented habitat (2011, background): “Many of the most widely-used connectivity metrics (Calabrese & Fagan, 2004) take a binary view of landscapes in which characteristics of the patch habitat (e.g. inter-patch distance, habitat amount) describe organism distribution and abundance, and characteristics of the intervening matrix are not…”
• Integrating dispersal proxies in ecological and environmental research in the freshwater realm (2017, methodology): “…Reviews Draft 13 which nodes represent the elements of the system (e.g. habitat patches, individuals, 257 populations or communities) and links specify the connectivity relationships between the 258 elements (Calabrese and Fagan 2004; Urban et al. 2009).”
• Graph models of habitat mosaics. (2009, background): “…Letters (2009) 12: 260–273 I N T R O D U C T I O N Ecology and conservation biology are much invested in habitat connectivity and its implications for populations (Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000; Fahrig 2003; Calabrese & Fagan 2004; Chetkiewicz et al. 2006; Crooks & Sanjayan 2006; Beier et al. 2008).”
• Ranking individual habitat patches as connectivity providers: Integrating network analysis and patch removal experiments (2010, background): “In general, network-based models and metrics have been suggested to possess a convenient benefit to effort ratio for conservation problems that require characterization of connectivity at relatively large scales (Calabrese and Fagan, 2004).”
• Reef fish and habitat relationships in a Caribbean seascape: the importance of reef context (2007, background): “Since, our measures combine physical aspects of the seascape with limited information on the overall dispersal ability of coral reef Wshes, they fall under the category “potential connectivity” in the classiWcation of connectivity proposed by Calabrese and Fagan (2004).”
• A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape (2010, background): “As stated by Calabrese and Fagan (2004), graph metrics may possess the greatest benefit-to-effort ratio for conservation problems that require the characterisation of connectivity at large scales, due to their ability to provide a detailed picture of connectivity with relatively modest data requirem”
• Large frugivorous birds facilitate functional connectivity of fragmented landscapes (2014, methodology): “We mapped all these possible connections and generated a spatially explicit, binary, non-directed graph network (Calabrese & Fagan 2004).”
• Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go? (2010, methodology): “Thereby the use of radio telemetry or radio tracking offers a significant advantage in that the entire dispersal event is monitored, individuals being tracked throughout; being considered a measure of actual (realized) connectivity (Calabrese and Fagan 2004).”
• A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA (2008, background): “…connectivity, the simple physical configuration of habitat patches; ‘‘potential’’ connectivity, by incorporating basic or indirect information about animal movement; or ‘‘functional’’ connectivity, actual movement of organisms among patches (Calabrese and Fagan 2004; Fagan and Calabrese 2006).”
• Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal (2007, positive): “Landscape connectivity is increasingly used in decision making for fragmented landscape management (e.g., Jongman and Pungetti 2004), particularly in natural reserve design (Calabrese and Fagan 2004).”
• Connectivity for conservation: a framework to classify network measures. (2011, background): “Quantifying the degree to which a landscape promotes or hinders movements among patches of habitat for a given species (hereafter, habitat connectivity; Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007), is therefore essential to inform conservation management decisions (Calabrese and Fagan 2004).”
• Connectivity of the global network of protected areas (2016, background): “…the potential connectivity given some species characteristics and assumptions, and algorithms that integrate connectivity in planning conservation at the landscape level (e.g. Onal & Briers, 2003; Calabrese & Fagan, 2004; Fuller et al., 2006; Moilanen & Wintle, 2006; Andrello et al., 2014).”
• Testing the habitat amount hypothesis for South American small mammals (2017, background): “Measuring patch isolation is evenmore problematic thanmeasuring patch size because there are numerous ways to calculate it (see Calabrese and Fagan, 2004 for a review).”