SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Literature Cited

  • Albert, R., and A. L. Barabasi. 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74:4797.
  • Albert, R., H. Jeong, and A. Barabasi. 2000. Error and attach tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406:378383.
  • Alderson, D., L. Li, W. Willinger, and J. C. Doyle. 2005. Understanding internet topology: principles, models, and validation. IEEE-ACM Transactions on Networking 13:12051218.
  • Barabasi, A. L., and E. Bonabeau. 2003. Scale-free networks. Scientific American 288:6069.
  • Belisle, M. 2005. Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:19881995.
  • Briers, R. A. 2002. Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biological Conservation 103:7783.
  • Bunn, A. G., D. L. Urban, and T. H. Keitt. 2000. Landscape connectivity: a conservation application of graph theory. Journal of Environmental Management 59:265278.
  • Calabrese, J. M., and W. F. Fagan. 2004. A comparison-shopper's guide to connectivity metrics. Frontiers in Ecology and The Environment 2:529536.
  • Clergeau, P., and F. Burel. 1997. The role of spatio-temporal patch connectivity at the landscape level: an example in a bird distribution. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:37.
  • Colizza, V., A. Flammini, A. Maritan, and A. Vespignani. 2005. Characterization and modeling of protein-protein interaction networks. Physica A-Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 352:127.
  • Condeso, T. E., and R. K. Meentemeyer. 2007. Effects of landscape heterogeneity on the emerging forest disease sudden oak death. Journal of Ecology 95:364375.
  • Dunne, J. A., R. J. Williams, and N. D. Martinez. 2002. Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecological Letters 5: 558567.
  • Ferreras, P. 2001. Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biological Conservation 100:125136.
  • Flather, C. H., and M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. The American Naturalist 159:4056.
  • Gastner, M. T., and M. E. J. Newman. 2006. The spatial structure of networks. European Physical Journal B 49:247252.
  • Hanski, I., and M. Gilpin. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics—brief-history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42:316.
  • Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:755758.
  • Hof, J., and C. H. Flather. 1996. Accounting for connectivity and spatial correlation in the optimal placement of wildlife habitat. Ecological Modelling 88:143155.
  • Hutchinson, T. F., and J. L. Vankat. 1998. Landscape structure and spread of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) in southwestern Ohio forests. American Midland Naturalist 139:383390.
  • Jordan, F., A. Baldi, K. M. Orci, I. Racz, and Z. Varga. 2003. Characterizing the importance of habitat patches and corridors in maintaining the landscape connectivity of a Pholidoptera transsylvanica (Orthoptera) metapopulation. Landscape Ecology 18:8392.
  • Jules, E. S., M. J. Kauffman, W. D. Ritts, and A. L. Carroll. 2002. Spread of an invasive pathogen over a variable landscape: a nonnative root rot on Port Orford cedar. Ecology 83:31673181.
  • Keitt, T. H., D. L. Urban, and B. T. Milne. 1997. Detecting critical scales in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Ecology 1: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art4/.
  • King, A. W., and K. A. With. 2002. Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter? Ecological Modelling 147:2339.
  • Kossinets, G., and D. J. Watts. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311:8890.
  • Maslov, S., and K. Sneppen. 2002. Specificity and stability in topology of protein networks. Science 296:910913.
  • Melian, C. J., and J. Bascompte. 2002. Complex networks: two ways to be robust? Ecology Letters 5:705708.
  • Minor, E. S., and D. Urban. 2007. Graph theory as a proxy for spatially explicit population models in conservation planning. Ecological Applications 17:17711782.
  • Moilanen, A., and I. Hanski. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147151.
  • Moilanen, A., and M. Nieminen. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:11311145.
  • Moilanen, A., and B. A. Wintle. 2007. The boundary-quality penalty: a quantitative method for approximating species responses to fragmentation in reserve selection. Conservation Biology 21:355364.
  • Nikolakaki, P. 2004. A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches. Landscape and Urban Planning 68:7794.
  • Opdam, P., and D. Wascher. 2004. Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biological Conservation 117:285297.
  • Opdam, P., J. Verboom, and R. Pouwels. 2003. Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18:113126.
  • Opdam, P., E. Steingrover, and S. Van Rooij. 2006. Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:322332.
  • Ovaskainen, O. 2004. Habitat-specific movement parameters estimated using mark-recapture data and a diffusion model. Ecology 85:242257.
  • Pascual-Hortal, L., and S. Saura. 2006. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. Landscape Ecology 21:959967.
  • Pennock, D. M., G. W. Flake, S. Lawrence, E. J. Glover, and C. L. Giles. 2002. Winners don't take all: characterizing the competition for links on the Web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99:52075211.
  • Peterson, G. D. 2002. Estimating resilience across landscapes. Conservation Ecology 6: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art17/.
  • Rhodes, M., G. W. Wardell-Johnson, M. P. Rhodes, and B. Raymond. 2006. Applying network analysis to the conservation of habitat trees in urban environments: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Conservation Biology 20:861870.
  • Sole, R. V., and J. M. Montoya. 2001. Complexity and fragility in ecological networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 268:20392045.
  • Sutherland, G. D., A. S. Harestad, K. Price, and K. P. Lertzman. 2000. Scaling of natal dispersal distances in terrestrial birds and mammals. Conservation Ecology 4:http://www.consecol.org/vol14/iss11/art16.
  • Tischendorf, L., and L. Fahrig. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:719.
  • Tischendorf, L., and L. Fahrig. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. A reply. Oikos 95:152155.
  • Uezu, A., J. P. Metzger, and J. M. E. Vielliard. 2005. Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic Forest bird species. Biological Conservation 123:507519.
  • Urban, D., and T. Keitt. 2001. Landscape connectivity: a graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology 82:12051218.
  • Van Dorp, D., and P. F. M. Opdam. 1987. Effects of patch size, isolation and regional abundance on forest bird communities. Landscape Ecology 1:5973.
  • Watts, D. J., and S. H. Strogatz. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:440442.
  • Winfree, R., J. Dushoff, E. E. Crone, C. B. Schultz, R. V. Budny, N. M. Williams, and C. Kremen. 2005. Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. The American Naturalist 165:707717.