Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis

By B. Goodwin, L. Fahrig. 2002

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e693559e3a35aea82bd0100e73ec37a8301cb00d

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. L. Fahrig
2. M. Baguette
3. Kyle J. Haynes
4. N. Schtickzelle
5. J. Cronin
6. D. Bender
7. B. Goodwin
8. T. Benton

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. L. Fahrig
2. M. Baguette
3. Kyle J. Haynes
4. N. Schtickzelle
5. J. Cronin
6. B. Goodwin
7. D. Bender
8. T. Benton

Citations in the corpus

• Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: does the matrix matter? (2004, background): “Goodwin and Fahrig (2002) cogently showed that dispersal success is not only a function of an organism’s dispersal ability but also”
• MATRIX STRUCTURE OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERPATCH MOVEMENT AND PATCH SIZE AND ISOLATION (2005, background): “This will ultimately influence the rate of interpatch movement (Jonsen et al. 2001, Ricketts 2001, Cooper et al. 2002, Gobeil and Villard 2002, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002a, Schooley and Wiens 2003).”
• How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity (2002, methodology): “…(Baars 1979, Crist et al. 1992, Johnson et al. 1992, Matthysen et al. 1995, Charrier et al. 1997, Pither and Taylor 1998, Jonsen and Taylor 2000, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002) and influence movement risk (Krohne and Burgin 1987, Fahrig et al. 1995, Schippers et al. 1996, Taylor and Merriam 1996,…”
• Behavioral tradeoffs when dispersing across a patchy landscape (2005, background): “Other researchers have documented both strong (Wennergren et al. 1995, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002a) and weak (Gustafson and Gardner 1996, Morales and Ellner 2002) behavioral effects of differences in patch arrangement in simulated landscapes.”
• Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal (2007, unknown): “On the other hand, some experimental studies reported full permeability of habitat boundaries in their study systems (Goodwin and Fahrig 2002; Schooley and Wiens 2004).”
• MATRIX COMPOSITION AFFECTS THE SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF A PRAIRIE PLANTHOPPER (2003, background): “…different habitat types (K. J. Haynes and J. T. Cronin, unpublished data), we found that movement paths were meandering through nonhost grasses (complex matrix) and more linear through mudflats (simple matrix) (see also Zalucki and Kitching 1982, Jonsen and Taylor 2000, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002).”
• Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics (2005, background): “…(fungus) at 40 cm (Bengtsson et al., 1994) and the gatekeeper butterfly at 85 m (Conradt et al., 2001) but a lack of orientation towards host plants was reported for goldenrod beetles, Trihabda borealis (Goodwin & Fahrig, 2002a) and the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae (Fahrig & Paloheimo, 1987).”
• Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? (2003, unknown): “Modeling work has found similar complex interactions between landscape structure and some landscape connectivity metrics Tischendorf 2001; Goodwin and Fahrig 2002b .”
• Movements of cactus bugs: Patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability (2004, background): “Recently, increasing attention has been given to how the composition and arrangement of matrix habitats affect animal movements Pither and Taylor 1998; Roland et al. 2000; Jonsen et al. 2001; Ricketts 2001; Goodwin and Fahrig 2002b, but the empirical foundation is still limited.”
• Patch density determines movement patterns and foraging efficiency of large herbivores (2007, result): “The goats did not exhibit a preference for either right or left turning, which corresponds with research on Angora goats (Ganskopp 1995), goldenrod beetle (Goodwin and Fahrig 2002), and reindeer (Mårell et al. 2002).”
• Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix (2006, methodology): “In addition to its effect on animal responses to the patch edge, the composition of the matrix can also affect patterns of movement while in transit between patches (Jonsen and Taylor 2000, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002b).”
• Pitfall trap efficiency: do trap size, collecting fluid and vegetation structure matter? (2003, background): “As was shown for two Pterostichus species (Baars 1979) and for the chrysomelid beetle Trirhabda borealis (Goodwin & Fahrig 2002), beetles may be more active and use directed movements in unfavourable conditions (lack of food, poor habitat, etc.), increasing the likelihood of capturing individuals…”
• Quantifying functional connectivity: Experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) (2004, background): “The ability of an individual to cross a landscape, referred to as ‘functional connectivity’ With et al. 1999, is determined by the interaction between its movement behaviour and the landscape structure With et al. 1999; Goodwin and Fahrig 2002 .”