The relative importance of habitat complexity and surface area in assessing biodiversity: Fractal application on rocky shores

By V. Kostylev, J. Erlandsson, M. Ming, Gray A. Williams. 2005

222 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.

Habitat complexity: approaches and future directions (2011, methodology): “Rocky habitats have been assessed using chainand-tape techniques and fractal dimensions (Beck, 1998; Kostylev et al., 2005).”
Invasive mussels induce community changes by increasing habitat complexity (2012, background): “…species richness with increasing habitat complexity, a uniform index describing both area and structural complexity (e.g., refuge space, fractural dimension, Kostylev et al., 2005; Warfe et al., 2008) will be very useful for further studies that involve comparing habitats very different in nature.”
The distribution of deep-sea sponge aggregations in the North Atlantic and implications for their effective spatial management (2016, methodology): “Further information on the specifics of using topographic variables as surrogates is available in existing literature (Kostylev et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2007; Guinan et al., 2009; ; Ross and Howell 2013).”
Ecology of freshwater shore zones (2010, background): “Structural complexity or high spatial heterogeneity is typically correlated with high densities (Lewin et al. 2004; Kostylev et al. 2005) or species richness (Moon 1934; Le Hir and Hily 2005; Kostylev et al. 2005; Moschella et al. 2005; Brauns et al. 2007) of aquatic invertebrates.”