MATRIX COMPOSITION AFFECTS THE SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF A PRAIRIE PLANTHOPPER

By Kyle J. Haynes, J. Cronin. 2003

108 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c873bda36034f497a85becad0d5287618506917f

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. Taku Kadoya
2. M. Vieira
3. J. Prevedello
4. Kyle J. Haynes
5. Forrest P. Dillemuth
6. J. Cronin

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Kyle J. Haynes
2. Taku Kadoya
3. J. Prevedello
4. M. Vieira
5. Forrest P. Dillemuth
6. K. A. Baum
7. J. Cronin
8. L. Fahrig

Citations in the corpus

• Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence (2010, background): “…Sieving et al. 1996; Renjifo 2001; Castellon and Sieving 2006), mammals (Goheen et al. 2003; Pardini 2004; Revilla et al. 2004; Selonen and Hanski 2004; Anderson et al. 2007), insects (Haynes and Cronin 2003; Baum et al. 2004; Schtickzelle and Baguette 2003), and plants (Mesquita et al. 1999).”
• THE MATRIX ENHANCES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRIDORS AND STEPPING STONES (2004, background): “, and expansive monocultures of exotic smooth brome (Bromus inermis Leyss) (Cronin 2003a, Haynes and Cronin 2003).”
• Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix (2006, unknown): “Males were not used because population spread occurs primarily through the dispersal of mated females (Cronin 2003b, Haynes and Cronin 2003).”
• Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data (2008, background): “…significantly to patch connectivity in non-trivial ways, indicating the need to incorporate a behavioral component of matrix use of the organisms into models of patch connectivity (Ricketts 2001; Haynes and Cronin 2003; Revilla et al. 2004; Schooley and Wiens 2005; Haynes and Cronin 2006).”