SIMPLE CONNECTIVITY MEASURES IN SPATIAL ECOLOGY

By Atte Moilanen, M. Nieminen. 2002

853 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f7f4633f8276ba765e1dfe4e3ffbe05d70ea9767

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Relative importance of resource quantity, isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly (2005, background): “Therefore the relative importance of habitat isolation on species occurrence is difficult to measure and many different calculations of isolation indices are suggested (see review in Moilanen and Nieminen 2002).”
Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review (2013, background): “…is likely that landscape effects, if present, cannot be detected at all scales but only at some scales that are relevant given the organism biology (Moilanen and Nieminen, 2002), we kept the results of the scale where the correlation between the studied variable and landscape composition took its…”
How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? (2003, methodology): “Evidence of habitat isolation (or connectivity) may also depend on the indices used (Moilanen & Nieminen, 2002).”
Connectivity, Probabilities and Persistence: Comparing Reserve Selection Strategies (2006, background): “See Moilanen and Nieminen (2002) for discussion on connectivity measures used in metapopulation models.”
Incorporating consumer–resource spatial interactions in reserve design (2009, neutral): “cation of species-specific dispersal kernels, which is an approach structurally identical to that commonly used in the context of metapopulation modelling (Moilanen and Nieminen, 2002; Moilanen et al., 2005).”
A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study (2007, background): “This binary approach may e considered oversimplified; see for example the drawbacks of onsidering all patches within a given distance equally weighted n buffer connectivity measures in Moilanen and Nieminen 2002).”
Cost distance modelling of landscape connectivity and gap‐crossing ability using radio‐tracking data (2010, methodology): “…measure than Euclidean distance as it takes into account the landscape configuration and structure from a species’ point of view, and can readily replace Euclidean distances in patch isolation metrics already used (e.g. Moilanen & Nieminen 2002; Castellón & Sieving 2006b; Yamanaka et al. 2009).”
Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems (2005, background): “The connectivity (see Moilanen & Nieminen 2002) for species j in grid cell i was calculated as I ij Z P k expðKa j d ik ÞA kj ; where d ik is the distance between cells i and k, and A kj is the size of the source population k.”
Influence of habitat quantity, quality and isolation on the distribution and abundance of two epiphytic lichens (2003, background): “…that connectivity measures should also be scaled by a parameter b that takes into account the fact that the relationship between the number of propagules leaving a patch and patch size is not linear, and also that measures should include the area of the focal patch (Moilanen & Nieminen 2002).”