ReviewCurrent landscape ecology reports2025
Systematic Map of Urban Connectivity Research Reveals a Dearth of Validation of Connectivity Estimates.
Review in Current landscape ecology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of Review: Increasing ecological connectivity among urban greenspaces is a global conservation priority to protect urban wildlife. However, effective monitoring remains a challenge, as connectivity models are rarely validated against biological data despite the need for these models to represent real wildlife movement. Here, we systematically reviewed the urban connectivity literature to assess (i) the extent of connectivity model validation; (ii) how validation varies by study objectives; (iii) where urban connectivity research is conducted; and (iv) what types of connectivity metrics, taxa, and biological data are used. Recent Findings: Of the 430 studies reviewed, nearly half validated their connectivity models using biological data, but few used movement data. Structural connectivity metrics dominated, although use of functional metrics has increased in recent years. A clear taxonomic bias was also evident, with a disproportionate focus on birds. When validation was conducted, most relied on species richness or other biodiversity metrics. Such approaches offer ambiguous evidence for actual connectivity, as biodiversity patterns are often influenced by confounding factors like greenspace size and the speciesarea relationship. As such, direct empirical support for connectivity models capturing wildlife movement remains limited. Summary: Urban connectivity models are often applied without clear evidence that they represent actual ecological processes. To address this, future studies should incorporate a broader range of taxa and test multiple model types to disentangle how movement patterns align with different connectivity frameworks. Integrating biological validation, particularly movement data, into connectivity modelling is essential to tracking progress toward global goals for ecologically resilient cities. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40823-025-00106-y.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.