Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource Management: Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: Optimizing sampling effort across scales

By Julie M. Brennan, D. Bender, Thomas A. Contreras, L. Fahrig. 2002

94 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Optimizing landscape selection for estimating relative effects of landscape variables on ecological responses (2013, background): “This reduction in variability across landscapes greatly reduces the chance of detecting an effect of a landscape variable on the ecological response (e.g., biodiversity in our study) (Brennan et al. 2002; Eigenbrod et al. 2011).”
Testing the habitat amount hypothesis for South American small mammals (2017, methodology): “We opted for the second strategy taking into account that the predictors (patch size, patch isolation and habitat amount) were logistical easier and financial cheaper to measure than the response variable (Brennan et al., 2002).”
MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION (2005, background): “We trapped small mammals in a focal patch (Brennan et al. 2002) in the center of each landscape (Fig.”
Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. (2011, background): “The final set of selected landscapes should also be chosen to avoid, to the extent possible, any spatial trends or 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS contagion of sites with similar heterogeneity values (Brennan et al. 2002; e.g. Carr & Fahrig 2001).”
Determining the Spatial Scale of Species' Response to Habitat (2004, background): “Each patch (and its associated landscape) becomes a single data point in the data analysis (Brennan et al.2002).”