You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.
You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.
ReferencesAlexander, S. M., & Waters, N. M. (2000). The effects of highway transportation corridors on wildlife: A case study of Banff National Park. Transportation Research Part C, 8, 307–320.Alexander, S. M., Waters, N. M., & Paquet, P. C. (2005). Traffic volume and highway permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Canadian Geographer, 49, 321–331.Ament, R., McGowen, P., McClure, M., Rutherford, A., Ellis, C., & Grebenc, J. (2014). Highway mitigation for wildlife in Northwest Montana. Bozeman, MT: Sonoran Institute.Anderson, M. G., Clark, M., & Olivero, S. (2012). Resilient sites for terrestrial conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. Arlington, Virginia: The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.Anderson, C. J., & Lindzey, F. (2003). Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 67, 307–316.Arizona Department of Transportation (2015). 2013 AADTs and 2030 Forecast AADTs. Phoenix, AZ: Dataset.Beier, P. (1995). Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 59, 228–237.Beier, P., & Barrett, R. H. (1993). The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range California. Orange County Mountain Lion Study. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.Burdett, C. L., Crooks, K. R., Theobald, D. M., Wilson, K. R., Boydston, E. E., Lyren, L. M., … Boyce, W. M. (2010). Interfacing models of wildlife habitat and human development to predict the future distribution of puma habitat. Ecosphere, 1, 1–21.Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. New York, New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Cade, B. S. (2015). Model averaging and muddled multimodel inferences. Ecology, 96, 2370–2382.Calenge, C. (2006). The package adehabitat for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecological Modelling, 197, 516–519.Clevenger, A. P., & Waltho, N. (2005). Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation, 121, 453–464.Crooks, K. R. (2002). Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology, 16, 488–502.Crooks, K. R., Burdett, C. L., Theobald, D. M., Rondinini, C., & Boitani, L. (2011). Global patterns of fragmentation and connectivity of mammalian carnivore habitat. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 366, 2642–2651.D'Eon, R. G., & Delparte, D. (2005). Effects of radio-collar position and orientation on GPS radio-collar performance, and the implications of PDOP in data screening. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 383–388.Dickson, B., Jenness, J., & Beier, P. (2005). Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 264–276.Dickson, B., Roemer, G., McRae, B., & Rundall, J. (2013). Models of regional habitat quality and connectivity for pumas (Puma concolor) in the southwestern United States. PLoS One, 8, e81898.Dickson, B. G., Sesnie, S. E., Fleishman, E., & Dobkin, D. S. (2013). Identification of habitat and assessment of habitat quality for conservation of terrestrial animals. In L.Craighead & C. L.Convis (Eds.), Conservation planning: Shaping the future (pp. 149–173). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.Dormann, C. F., McPherson, M. J., Araújo, B. M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., … Wilson, R. (2007). Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review. Ecography, 30, 609–628.Epps, C., Palsboll, P., & Wehausen, J. (2005). Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecology Letters, 8, 1029–1038.Gibbs, J., & Steen, D. (2005). Trends in sex ratios of turtles in the United States: Implications of road mortality. Conservation Biology, 19, 552–556.Gloyne, C. C., & Clevenger, A. P. (2001). Cougar Puma concolor use of wildlife crossing structures on the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology, 7, 117–124.Goad, E. H., Pejchar, L., Reed, S. E., & Knight, R. L. (2014). Habitat use by mammals varies along an exurban development gradient in northern Colorado. Biological Conservation, 176, 172–182.Gunther, K. A., Haroldson, M. A., Frey, K., Cain, S. L., Copeland, J., & Schwartz, C. C. (2004). Grizzly bear–human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992–2000. Ursus, 15, 10–22.Hansen, A. J., Knight, R. L., Marzluff, J. M., Powell, S., Brown, K., Gude, P. H., & Jones, K. (2005). Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications, 15, 1893–1905.Horne, J. S., Garton, E. O., Krone, S. M., & Lewis, J. S. (2007). Analyzing animal movements using brownian bridges. Ecology, 88, 2354–2363.Kellert, S. R., Black, M., Rush, C. R., & Bath, A. J. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology, 10, 977–990.Kertson, B. N., Spencer, R. D., & Grue, C. E. (2013). Demographic influences on cougar residential use and interactions with people in western Washington. Journal of Mammalogy, 94, 269–281.Knopff, K. H., Knopff, A. A., Warren, M., & Boyce, M. S. (2009). Evaluating global positioning system telemetry techniques for estimating cougar predation parameters. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73, 586–597.Koen, E. L., Garroway, C. J., Wilson, P. J., & Bowman, J. (2010). The effect of map boundary on estimates of landscape resistance to animal movement. PLoS One, 5(7), e11785.Kretser, H. E., Sullivan, P. J., & Knuth, B. A. (2008). Housing density as an indicator of spatial patterns of reported human–wildlife interactions in Northern New York. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 282–292.Kunkel, K. E., Atwood, T. C., Ruth, T. K., Pletscher, D. H., & Hornocker, M. G. (2013). Assessing wolves and cougars as conservation surrogates. Animal Conservation, 16, 32–40.van Langevelde, F., & Jaarsma, C. F. (2004). Using traffic flow theory to model traffic mortality in mammals. Landscape Ecology, 19(8), 895–907.Logan, K. A., & Sweanor, L. L. (2001). Desert Puma: Evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Washington, DC: Island Press.Lukacs, P. M., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2006). Model selection bias and Freedman's paradox. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 62, 117–125.Mateo-Sanchez, M. C., Balkenhol, N., Cushman, S., Perez, T., Dominguez, A., & Saura, S. (2015). Estimating effective landscape distances and movement corridors: Comparison of habitat and genetic data. Ecosphere, 6, 59.McRae, B. H., Beier, P., Dewald, L. E., Huynh, L. Y., & Keim, P. (2005). Habitat barriers limit gene flow and illuminate historical events in a wide-ranging carnivore, the American puma. Molecular Ecology, 14, 1965–1977.McRae, B., Dickson, B., Keitt, T., & Shah, V. (2008). Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. Ecology, 89, 2712–2724.McRae, B. H., Hall, S. A., Beier, P., & Theobald, D. M. (2012). Where to restore ecological connectivity? Detecting barriers and quantifying restoration benefits. PLoS One, 7(12), e52604.McRae, B. H., Shah, V. B., & Mohapatra, T. K. (2013). Circuitscape 4 user guide. Retrieved from http://docs.circuitscape.org/circuitscape_4_0_user_guide.htmlMillspaugh, J., & Nielson, R. (2006). Analysis of resource selection using utilization distributions. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70, 384–395.Morrison, C. D., Boyce, M. S., Nielsen, S. E., & Bacon, M. M. (2014). Habitat selection of a re-colonized cougar population in response to seasonal fluctuations of human activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78, 1394–1403.Mumme, R. L., Schoech, S. J., Woolfenden, G. W., & Fitzpatrick, J. W. (2000). Life and death in the fast lane: Demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida Scrub-Jay. Conservation Biology, 14, 501.NatureServe. (2015). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Retrieved from http://explorer.natureserve.orgNicholson, K. L. (2009). Spatial movements and ecology of mountain lions in Southern Arizona. Dissertation. Phoenix, AZ: University of Arizona.Nielson, R., Sawyer, H., & McDonald, T. (2013). BBMM: Brownian bridge movement model. R package version 3.0. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BBMM/BBMM.pdfNordhaugen, S. E., Erlandsen, E., Beier, P., Eilerts, B. D., Schweinsburg, R., Brennan, T., … Wells, S. (2006). Arizona's wildlife linkages assessment. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Transportation.Northrup, J. M., Pitt, J., Muhly, T. B., Stenhouse, G. B., Musiani, M., & Boyce, M. S. (2012). Vehicle traffic shapes grizzly bear behaviour on a multiple-use landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1159–1167.Parmenter, A. W., Hansen, A., Kennedy, R. E., Cohen, W., Langner, U., Lawrence, R., … Aspinall, R. (2003). Land use and land cover change in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: 1975–1995. Ecological Applications, 13, 687–703.Pelletier, D., Clark, M., Anderson, M. G., Rayfield, B., Wulder, M. A., & Cardille, J. A. (2014). Applying circuit theory for corridor expansion and management at regional scales: Tiling, pinch points, and omnidirectional connectivity. PLoS One, 9, e84135.Poor, E. E., Loucks, C., Jakes, A., & Urban, D. L. (2012). Comparing habitat suitability and connectivity modeling methods for conserving pronghorn migrations. PLoS One, 7, e49390.Preston, B. J. (2013). Arizona border quiets after gains in security. New York, New York: The New York Times.R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.orgRiley, S. P., Sauvajot, R. M., Fuller, T. K., York, E. C., Kamradt, D. A., Bromley, C., & Wayne, R. K. (2003). Effects of urbanization and habitat fragmentation on bobcats and coyotes in southern California. Conservation Biology, 17, 566–576.Sawaya, M. A., Clevenger, A. P., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2013). Demographic connectivity for ursid populations at wildlife crossing structures in Banff National Park. Conservation Biology, 27, 721–730.Sawaya, M. A., Kalinowski, S. T., & Clevenger, A. P. (2014). Genetic connectivity for two bear species at wildlife crossing structures in Banff National Park. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281(1780), 20131705.Sawyer, H., Kauffman, M. J., Middleton, A. D., Morrison, T. A., Nielson, R. M., & Wyckoff, T. B. (2013). A framework for understanding semi-permeable barrier effects on migratory ungulates (ed N Pettorelli). Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 68–78.Schwab, A. C., & Zandbergen, P. A. (2011). Vehicle-related mortality and road crossing behavior of the Florida panther. Applied Geography, 31, 859–870.Seager, R., Ting, M., Held, I., Kushnir, Y., Lu, J., Vecchi, G., … Naik, N. (2007). Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America. Science, 316, 1181–1184.Sweanor, L. L., Logan, K. A., & Hornocker, M. G. (2000). Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 14, 798–808.Taylor, S. K., Buergelt, C. D., Roelke-Parker, M. E., Homer, B. L., & Rotstein, D. S. (2002). Causes of mortality of free-ranging Florida panthers. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 38, 107–114.Theobald, D. M. (2010). Estimating natural landscape changes from 1992 to 2030 in the conterminous US. Landscape Ecology, 25, 999–1011.Theobald, D. M., Harrison-Atlas, D., Monahan, W. B., & Albano, C. M. (2015). Ecologically-relevant maps of landforms and physiographic diversity for climate adaptation planning. PLoS One, 10, e0143619.U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Estimates of resident population change and rankings: July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.htmlU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). ICLUS Tools and Datasets (Version 1.3). Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=205305USGS. (2012). LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE 1.3.0 Existing Vegetation Type layer. Retrieved from http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/USGS. (2014). National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Retrieved from http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.govUSGS National Gap Analysis Program. (2004). Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the Southwestern United States (Version 1.0). Retrieved from http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/landcover.htmlUSGS National Gap Analysis Program. (2007). Digital Land Stewardship Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. Retrieved from https://gis1.usgs.gov/csas/gap/viewer/land_cover/Map.aspxWhite, M. D., & Penrod, K. (2012). The tehachapi connection: A case study of linkage design, conservation, and restoration. Ecological Restoration, 30, 279–282.Willems, E. P., & Hill, R. A. (2009). Predator-specific landscapes of fear and resource distribution: Effects on spatial range use. Ecology, 90, 546–555.Wilmers, C. C., Wang, Y., Nickel, B., Houghtaling, P., Shakeri, Y., Allen, M. L., … Williams, T. (2013). Scale dependent behavioral responses to human development by a large predator, the puma. PLoS One, 8, e60590.Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach, 4th ed.Chula Vista, CA: Southwestern College.Zeller, K. A., McGarigal, K., & Whiteley, A. R. (2012). Estimating landscape resistance to movement: A review. Landscape Ecology, 27, 777–797.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Longer documents can take a while to translate. Rather than keep you waiting, we have only translated the first few paragraphs. Click the button below if you want to translate the rest of the document.
This study sought to identify critical areas for puma (Puma concolor) movement across the state of Arizona in the American Southwest and to identify those most likely to be impacted by current and future human land uses, particularly expanding urban development and associated increases in traffic volume. Human populations in this region are expanding rapidly, with the potential for urban centers and busy roads to increasingly act as barriers to demographic and genetic connectivity of large-bodied, wide-ranging carnivores such as pumas, whose long-distance movements are likely to bring them into contact with human land uses and whose low tolerance both for and from humans may put them at risk unless opportunities for safe passage through or around human-modified landscapes are present. Brownian bridge movement models based on global positioning system collar data collected during bouts of active movement and linear mixed models were used to model habitat quality for puma movement; then, a wall-to-wall application of circuit theory models was used to produce a continuous statewide estimate of connectivity for puma movement and to identify pinch points, or bottlenecks, that may be most at risk of impacts from current and future traffic volume and expanding development. Rugged, shrub- and scrub-dominated regions were highlighted as those offering high quality movement habitat for pumas, and pinch points with the greatest potential impacts from expanding development and traffic, although widely distributed, were particularly prominent to the north and east of the city of Phoenix and along interstate highways in the western portion of the state. These pinch points likely constitute important conservation opportunities, where barriers to movement may cause disproportionate loss of connectivity, but also where actions such as placement of wildlife crossing structures or conservation easements could enhance connectivity and prevent detrimental impacts before they occur.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Longer documents can take a while to translate. Rather than keep you waiting, we have only translated the first few paragraphs. Click the button below if you want to translate the rest of the document.
Details
Title
Modeling connectivity to identify current and future anthropogenic barriers to movement of large carnivores: A case study in the American Southwest
Author
McClure, Meredith L 1
; Dickson, Brett G 1 ; Nicholson, Kerry L 2
1 Conservation Science Partners, Truckee, CA, USA
2 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona