ArticleLandscape ecology2026
Designing nature networks for cities: combining multi-species modelling approaches.
Article in Landscape ecology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Urban wildlife habitats are often fragmented and of poor quality, yet cities hold potential to support biodiversity, particularly for small-bodied species like insect pollinators. Enhancing habitat connectivity is essential for improving biodiversity and increasingly prioritised in planning frameworks. Combining diverse approaches to assess habitat connectivity may yield the greatest overall success. Objectives: We compare two multi-species modelling approaches for assessing urban ecological corridors. The first species-specific approach uses combined habitat suitability maps of four insect pollinators and assesses connectivity using resistance modelling (circuit theory). The second landscape-level approach has been developed by urban environmental planners ("Green Network Development officers") and identifies core areas as species-rich habitat patches using spatial data, species records (of plant and pollinator indicator species), and local expertise, then models connectivity between these using least-cost paths. By comparing these two approaches, we aim to identify gaps and priority areas for habitat creation or management. Methods: Using biological records, we mapped habitat suitability for pollinators and applied circuit theory to assess connectivity and identify "pinch points"-bottlenecks to movement that can be targeted for corridor enhancement. Results: While both approaches showed 39 km Conclusions: Our species-specific modelling approach identified 31 pinch points outside of planner-defined corridors, highlighting important areas of movement constraint not captured by the current planning framework. Incorporating species-specific modelling into urban planning also helps identify key habitat variables impeding movement, enhancing the biological understanding of the system. We recommend urban planners adopt multiple, complementary approaches for corridor delineation and collaborate with researchers, ecologists, and citizen scientists. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-026-02315-0.
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.