↓ Skip to main content

Analyses of least cost paths for determining effects of habitat types on landscape permeability: wolves in Poland

Overview of attention for article published in Mammal Research, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Analyses of least cost paths for determining effects of habitat types on landscape permeability: wolves in Poland
Published in
Mammal Research, November 2010
DOI 10.1007/s13364-010-0006-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maren Huck, Włodzimierz Jędrzejewski, Tomasz Borowik, Bogumiła Jędrzejewska, Sabina Nowak, Robert W. Mysłajek

Abstract

Determining ecological corridors is crucial for conservation efforts in fragmented habitats. Commonly employed least cost path (LCP) analysis relies on the underlying cost matrix. By using Ecological Niche Factor Analysis, we minimized the problems connected with subjective cost assessment or the use of presence/absence data. We used data on the wolf presence/absence in Poland to identify LCPs connecting patches of suitable wolf habitat, factors that influence patch occupancy, and compare LCPs between different genetic subpopulations. We found that a lower proportion of cities and roads surrounds the most densely populated patches. Least cost paths between areas where little dispersal takes place (i.e., leading to unpopulated patches or between different genetic subpopulations) ran through a higher proportion of roads and human settlements. They also crossed larger maximal distances over deforested areas. We propose that, apart from supplying the basis for direct conservation efforts, LCPs can be used to determine what factors might facilitate or hinder dispersal by comparing different subsets of LCPs. The methods employed can be widely applicable to gain more in-depth information on potential dispersal barriers for large carnivores.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
France 2 1%
Poland 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 155 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 27 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 77 46%
Environmental Science 36 22%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 6%
Computer Science 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 30 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Mammal Research
#866
of 875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,114
of 109,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mammal Research
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 109,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.