Finding habitat patches and directional connectivity

By R. Schooley, John J. Wiens. 2003

153 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1cee38eb156717e2204f1f5b2601f6d99ae74c4

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. H. Van Dyck
3. Santiago Saura
4. M. Baguette
5. D. Bonte
6. William F. Fagan
7. L. Rubio
8. D. Bender

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. L. Fahrig
2. M. Baguette
3. H. Van Dyck
4. D. Bonte
5. Santiago Saura
6. William F. Fagan
7. D. Bender
8. T. Benton

Citations in the corpus

• Search and navigation in dynamic environments – from individual behaviors to population distributions (2008, background): “A few empirical studies have explored perceptual ranges of individuals of different taxa, such as insects (Schooley and Wiens 2003), small mammals (Zollner and Lima 1999), pigs (Croney et al.”
• Landscape resistance to frog movements (2005, background): “Schooley and Wiens (2003) also recently reported directional movements of an arthropod in an unsuitable matrix.”
• Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: Routine or special movements? (2005, background): “In spite of being mainly visually cued ourselves, other sensory systems can play additional or key roles in other species (e.g. acoustic signals in birds (Nelson & Stoddard, 1998) or olfactory cues in insects (Schooley & Wiens, 2003).”
• Behavioral tradeoffs when dispersing across a patchy landscape (2005, background): “An animal’s perceptual range might be limited by its relevant senses such as vision (Yeomans 1995) or olfaction (Schooley and Wiens 2003) and it also may be a function of its body size (Mech and Zollner 2002) and Table 3.”
• Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics (2005, background): “The ability to detect environmental cues, by for example olfaction (e.g. Schooley & Wiens, 2003) or vision (e.g. Compton, 2002) amongst other sensory abilities, will undoubtedly vary among species, and also the type of information that is being sampled.”
• Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix (2006, unknown): “This represents one of very few studies to examine the behavioral underpinnings of matrix effects on the distribution and dispersal of a spatially structured population (but see Jonsen and Taylor 2000, Collinge and Palmer 2002, Goodwin and Fahrig 2002a, Schooley and Wiens 2003, Revilla et al. 2004”
• Geographical variation in wolf spider dispersal behaviour is related to landscape structure (2006, background): “Active dispersers generally have well-developed locomotor and sensory systems enabling them to control movement trajectories and to settle in suitable habitat (e.g. Schooley & Wiens 2003; Van Dyck & Baguette 2005).”
• 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).”
• Movements of cactus bugs: Patch transfers, matrix resistance, and edge permeability (2004, background): “Higher matrix structure also makes it more difficult for cactus bugs to find patches of suitable habitat Schooley and Wiens 2003 .”
• A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape (2010, background): “The approach also may be helpful in cases involving asymmetric dispersal (directed graphs), such as topography or wind-driven connectivity (Schooley and Wiens 2003), or fish population dynamics in river networks, for which graph theory and directed network metrics have been recommended as an attract”