2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.11.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the performance of common landscape connectivity metrics using a virtual ecologist approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The least-cost path is the path of least resistance between two patches (Zeller et al, 2012). It represents the shortest functional connection between habitat patches (Adriaensen et al, 2003) and is currently the method most commonly used to produce connectivity estimates (Simpkins et al, 2018). Six resistance values were attributed to the different landscape classes according to species' ability to cross into and survive within them, regardless of habitat suitability (Appendix S4): highly suitable, suitable, neutral, unfavorable, highly unfavorable or barrier to animal movement (Mimet et al, 2016).…”
Section: Connectivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The least-cost path is the path of least resistance between two patches (Zeller et al, 2012). It represents the shortest functional connection between habitat patches (Adriaensen et al, 2003) and is currently the method most commonly used to produce connectivity estimates (Simpkins et al, 2018). Six resistance values were attributed to the different landscape classes according to species' ability to cross into and survive within them, regardless of habitat suitability (Appendix S4): highly suitable, suitable, neutral, unfavorable, highly unfavorable or barrier to animal movement (Mimet et al, 2016).…”
Section: Connectivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The least-cost path is the path of least resistance between two patches from the edge of one patch to the nearest edge of another patch through the matrix (Zeller et al, 2012). It represents the shortest functional connection between habitat patches (Adriaensen et al, 2003), which produces the most accurate connectivity estimates (Simpkins et al, 2018). Six resistance values were attributed to the different landscape classes depending on the ability of the species to cross into and survive within them, regardless of habitat suitability (Appendix S3): favorable, suitable, neutral, unfavorable, highly unfavorable or barrier to animal movement.…”
Section: Step 2: Connectivity Analysis and Assessment Of Node And Linmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the LCPs did not exactly represent where the species is likely to move through the landscape. Kool et al (2013) and Simpkins et al (2018) suggested testing models with empirical field data, but this analysis shows that it is not easy to observe the corresponding paths in the field. This is because the LCP is only one of many possible paths (actually the shortest one), unlike least-cost corridors (LCC), which represent all viable paths (Avon and Bergès, 2016).…”
Section: Habitat Patch Identification and Connectivity Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…; Simpkins et al. ). This information has been useful in formalizing the incorporation of landscape structure and complexity into conservation plans for many species and ecosystems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%