<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.rcin.org.pl/style/common/xsl/oai-style.xsl"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" 
         xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
         xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/
         http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
	<responseDate>2026-06-03T12:29:30Z</responseDate>
	<request identifier="oai:rcin.org.pl:231904" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">
	https://rcin.org.pl/oai-pmh-repository.xml</request>
	<GetRecord>
	
  <record>
	<header>
		<identifier>oai:rcin.org.pl:231904</identifier>
	    <datestamp>2021-11-18T13:07:38Z</datestamp>
		  <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:partnerCollections:igipz:libr</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:partnerCollections:igipz:igpaspubl</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:literature:journalArticles</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:partnerCollections:igipz</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:literature</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:partnerCollections</setSpec> 	      <setSpec>rcin.org.pl:partnerCollections:igipz:libr:serial</setSpec> 	    </header>
		<metadata>
	<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
<dc:title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Przegląd Geograficzny T. 93 z. 3 (2021)]]></dc:title>
<dc:title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Porównawcza ocena programów analizy żywotności populacji (PVA) w rankingu scenariuszy przekształceń krajobrazu = A comparative assessment of PVA software packages applied to rank the landscape management scenarios]]></dc:title>
<dc:title xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[Przegląd Geograficzny T. 93 z. 3 (2021)]]></dc:title>
<dc:title xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[Porównawcza ocena programów analizy żywotności populacji (PVA) w rankingu scenariuszy przekształceń krajobrazu = A comparative assessment of PVA software packages applied to rank the landscape management scenarios]]></dc:title>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Franz, Kamila W. Autor]]></dc:creator>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Romanowski, Jerzy. Autor]]></dc:creator>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Johst, Karin. Autor]]></dc:creator>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Grimm, Volker. Autor]]></dc:creator>
<dc:subject xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[population viability analysis]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Vistula valley]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[landscape management scenarios]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[metapopulation models]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[habitat models]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[natterjack toad]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[analiza żywotności populacji]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[dolina Wisły]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[scenariusze przekształceń krajobrazu]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[modele metapopulacyjne]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[modele siedliskowe]]></dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[ropucha paskówka]]></dc:subject>
<dc:description xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[24 cm]]></dc:description>
<dc:description xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Because of the scale and speed of species extinctions conservationists require methods that facilitate decision making. Therefore, a wide range of habitat and population viability analysis (PVA) software has been developed. Given the diversity of available programs it is currently challenging to decide which program is the most appropriate for a particular problem and what has to be considered when interpreting and comparing results from different approaches. Previous comparisons of PVA software addressed more generic questions such as data requirements, assumptions and predictive accuracy. In contract, we focus on a more applied problem that is still unresolved: how do simple habitat models and PVA software packages affect the ranking of alternative management scenarios? We addressed this problem by comparing different packages (LARCH, META-X, VORTEX and RAMAS GIS). As a test case, we studied the impact of alternative landscape development scenarios (river regulation, grassland restoration, reforestation and renaturalisation) for the Vistula valley, Poland, on the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita). In this context we also aimed to assess whether the use of at least two different PVA packages can enable users to better understand the differences in model predictions, which would imply a greater awareness and critical use of the packages. Our model selection represents different approaches to population viability analysis, including habitat, local population and stochastic patch occupancy models. The models can be evaluated in regard to the complexity of parameters and to the way the landscape is handled. We used RAMAS GIS to create a habitat model (RAMASh) and a detailed spatially explicit stochastic metapopulation model (RAMASp) which combined served as a complete “virtual” dataset for parameterisation of other programs. As an example of a stochastic patch occupancy model, we selected the META-X software. For a more independent comparison we added VORTEX – another package that includes explicit population dynamics, similar to RAMAS. Additionally, we included the habitat model LARCH because this type of model is often used by policy makers. We compared the metapopulation structure produced by RAMASh and LARCH. Scenario ranking according to the predicted carrying capacity in both programs was exactly the same, because the quantitative results for each scenario were almost identical in both programs. However, the metapopulation structure showed big differences between the programs, especially in the number of small populations. The analyses of results of different PVA programs (RAMASp, VORTEX and META-X) showed that absolute values of viability measures partly differed among these programs. Slight differences in population growth rate in RAMASp and VORTEX were amplified by stochasticity and resulted in visibly lower values of final abundance in VORTEX than in RAMASp. Also the absolute values of intrinsic mean time to extinction showed some discrepancies in VORTEX and META-X. These results are in agreement with findings of previous PVA comparisons, which emphasizes that absolute values of viability measures produced by any single model should be treated with caution. Nevertheless, despite these differences the rankings of the scenarios were the same in all three programs. However the order of the scenarios was different than in habitat models. In addition, these rankings were robust to the choice of viability measure. Taken together, these results emphasize that scenario ranking delivered by PVA software is robust and thus very useful for conservation management. Furthermore, we recommend using at least two PVA software packages in parallel, as this forces user to scrutinize the simplifying assumptions of the underlying models and of the viability metrics used.]]></dc:description>
<dc:description xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[24 cm]]></dc:description>
<dc:description xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[Jednym z głównych narzędzi stosowanych przy podejmowaniu decyzji w ochronie przyrody jest analiza żywotności populacji (Population Viability Analysis, PVA). Dostępne programy PVA znacznie różnią się liczbą wymaganych szczegółowych danych demograficznych i siedliskowych oraz założeniami dotyczącymi dynamiki populacji. Dlatego przeprowadziliśmy analizę porównawczą różnych programów PVA opierającą się na rankingu scenariuszy zagospodarowania krajobrazu i ich wpływu na populacje ropuchy paskówki Bufo calamita w centralnej Polsce. Wykorzystaliśmy alternatywne scenariusze zagospodarowania doliny Wisły i programy reprezentujące różne podejścia do analizy żywotności populacji: modele siedliskowe i modele dynamiki metapopulacji (RAMAS GIS, VORTEX, META-X i LARCH). Rankingi scenariuszy, uzyskane w modelach siedliskowych na podstawie pojemności siedliska były jednakowe, różniły się jednak oceną struktury badanej metapopulacji paskówki. Analiza wyników wykazała różnice w wartościach różnych miar żywotności metapopulacji paskówki, potwierdzając, że absolutne wartości generowane przez pojedynczy model powinny być traktowane ze szczególną ostrożnością. Pomimo tych różnic, kolejność scenariuszy w rankingu była jednakowa we wszystkich modelach dynamiki metapopulacji i nie wykazywała wrażliwości na błędy wartości poszczególnych parametrów. Ocena wyników wszystkich modeli pozwala stwierdzić, iż ranking scenariuszy jest metodą wysoce skuteczną. Przyszli użytkownicy PVA powinni świadomie decydować o użyciu co najmniej dwóch programów, a wnioski oparte na wynikach więcej niż jednego modelu powinny mieć większą wartość przy podejmowaniu decyzji.]]></dc:description>
<dc:publisher><![CDATA[IGiPZ PAN]]></dc:publisher>
<dc:date><![CDATA[2021]]></dc:date>
<dc:type xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Text]]></dc:type>
<dc:type xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[Tekst]]></dc:type>
<dc:format xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[application/octet-stream]]></dc:format>
<dc:format xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[application/octet-stream]]></dc:format>
<dc:identifier><![CDATA[0033-2143 (print)]]></dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier><![CDATA[2300-8466 (on-line)]]></dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier><![CDATA[10.7163/PrzG.2021.3.3]]></dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier><![CDATA[https://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/publication/268700/edition/231904/content]]></dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier><![CDATA[oai:rcin.org.pl:231904]]></dc:identifier>
<dc:source xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, sygn.: Cz.181, Cz.3136, Cz.4187]]></dc:source>
<dc:source xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[https://catalog.cbgios.pan.pl/search?idx=control-number&q=gg96601183]]></dc:source>
<dc:source xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[CBGiOŚ. IGiPZ PAN, sygn.: Cz.181, Cz.3136, Cz.4187]]></dc:source>
<dc:source xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[https://catalog.cbgios.pan.pl/search?idx=control-number&q=gg96601183]]></dc:source>
<dc:language><![CDATA[pol]]></dc:language>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Przegląd Geograficzny]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Akçakaya, H.R. (2000). Viability Analyses with Habitat-Based Metapopulation Models. Population Ecology, 42(1), 45‑53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101440050043]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Akçakaya, H.R. (2005). RAMAS GIS: linking spatial data with population viability analysis Version 5 (Software manual). Setauket, New York: Appl. Biomath.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Akçakaya, H.R., McCarthy, M.A., & Pearce, J.L. (1995). Linking Landscape Data with Population Viability Analysis: Management Options for the Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus Melanops Cassidix. Biological Conservation, 73(2), 169‑176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006‑3207(95)90045‑4]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Akçakaya, H.R., Radeloff, V.C., Mlandenoff, D. J., & He, H.S. (2004a). Integrating landscape and metapopulation modeling approaches: viability of the sharp-tailed grouse in a dynamic landscape. Conservation. Biology, 18, 526‑537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523‑1739.2004.00520.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Akçakaya, H.R., Burgman, M.A., Kindvall, O., Wood, C.C., Sjögren-Gulve, P., Hatfield, J.S., & McCarthy, M.A. (2004b). Species conservation and management: case studies. New York: Oxford University Press.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Akçakaya, H.R., & Sjögren-Gulve, P. (2000). Population viability analyses in conservation planning: an overview. Ecological Bulletins, 48, 9‑21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.03.001]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Andrzejewski, R., (2003). Płazy i gady w KPN. Kampinoski Park Narodowy, tom 1, 617‑620.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Baguette, M. (2004). The Classical Metapopulation Theory and the Real, Natural World: A Critical Appraisal. Basic and Applied Ecology, 5(3), 213‑224. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2004.03.001]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Beissinger, S., & McCullough, D. (red.). (2002). Population viability analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Blicharski, M. (2002). Bogate stanowisko ropuchy paskówki Bufo calamita pod Warszawą. Kulon, 7(1‑2), 113‑115.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Boyce, M.S. (1992). Population viability analysis. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 23, 481‑506.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Brainerd, S., Kastdalen, L., & Seiler, A. (red.). (2007). Habitat modelling − a tool for managing landscape. Sunnerstra: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Brans, J.P., & Vincke, Ph. (1985). A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management Science, 31(6), 647‑656. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Brook, B.W., Burgman, M.A., Akcakaya, H.R., O'Grady, J.J., & Frankham, R. (2002). Critiques of PVA Ask the Wrong Questions: Throwing the Heuristic Baby out with the Numerical Bath Water. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 262‑263. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.2002.01426.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Brook, B.W., Cannon, J.R., Lacy, R.C., Mirande, C., & Frankham, R. (1999). Comparison of the Population Viability Analysis Packages GAPPS, INMAT, RAMAS and VORTEX for the Whooping Crane (Grus americana). Animal Conservation, 2(1), 23‑31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‑1795.1999.tb00045.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Brook, B.W., O'Grady, J.J., Chapman, A.P., Burgman, M.A., Akcakaya, H.R., & Frankham, R. (2000). Predictive Accuracy of Population Viability Analysis in Conservation Biology. Nature, 404(6776), 385‑387. https://doi.org/10.1038/35006050]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Bruinderink, G.G., van der Sluis, T., Lammertsma, D., Opdam, P., & Pouwels, R. (2003). Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in northwestern Europe. Conservation Biology, 17, 549‑557. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.2003.01137.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Burgman, M.A., Ferson, S., & Akçakaya, H.R. (1993). Risk assessment in conservation biology. London: Chapman & Hall.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Cabeza, M. (2003). Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecology Letters, 6, 665‑672. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461‑0248.2003.00475.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Chardon, J.P., Foppen, R.P.B., & Geilen, N. (2000). LARCH-RIVER: A Method to Assess the Functioning of Rivers as Ecological Networks. European Water Management, 3(6), 35‑43.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Clark, T.W., Backhouse, G.N., & Lacy, R.C. (1991). Report of a workshop on population viability assessment as a tool for the threatened species management and conservation. Australian Zoologist, 27, 28‑35. https://doi.org/10.7882/az.1991.004]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Cushman, S. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128(2), 231‑240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Dobson, A.P., Bradshaw, A.D., & Baker, A.J.M. (1997). Hopes for the future: restoration ecology]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Drechsler, M., Frank, K., Hanski, I., O'Hara, R.B., & Wissel, C. (2003). Ranking Metapopulation Extinction Risk: From Patterns in Data to Conservation Management Decisions. Ecological Appl]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Elith, J., & Leathwick, J.R. (2009). Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 40, 677‑697. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Ellner, S.P., Fieberg, J., Ludwig, D., & Wilcox, C. (2002). Precision of Population Viability Analysis. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 258‑261. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.2002.00553.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Elżanowski, A., Ciesiołkiewicz, J., Kaczor, M., Radwańska, J., & Urban, R., (2008). Amphibian road mortality in Europe: a meta-analysis with new data from Poland. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 55(1), 33‑43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344‑008‑0211-x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Frank, K., Lorek, H., Sonnenschein, M., Wissel, C., & Grimm, V. (2003). META-X - Software for Metapopulation Viability Analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‑3-642‑55723‑1]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Franz, K.W. (2011). Metapopulation viability analysis of the Natterjack Toad (Bufo calamita): a comparative assessment of PVA software packages and management scenarios. Rozprawa doktorska. Uniwersytet Warszawski.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Franz, K.W., Romanowski, J., & Grimm, V. (2011). Modele siedliskowe i analiza żywotności populacji. Wiadomości Ekologiczne, 57, 97‑108.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Franz, K.W., Romanowski, J., Johst, K., & Grimm, V. (2013). Ranking Landscape Development Scenarios Affecting Natterjack Toad (Bufo Calamita) Population Dynamics in Central Poland. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064852]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Fulton, E.A., Boschetti, F., Sporcic, M., Jones, T., Little, L.R., Dambacher, J.M., Gray, R., Scott, R., &Gorton, R. (2015). A Multi-Model Approach to Engaging Stakeholder and Modellers in Complex Environmental Problems. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 44‑56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.006]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Grimm, V., & Wissel, C. (2004). The Intrinsic Mean Time to Extinction: A Unifying Approach to Analysing Persistence and Viability of Populations. Oikos, 105(3), 501‑511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030‑1299.2004.12606.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Hanski, I. (1994). A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology, 63(1), 151‑162. https://doi.org/10.2307/5591]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Harris, R.B., Metzgar, L.H., & Bevins, C.D. (1986). GAPPS - Generalized Animal Population Projection System - User's Manual. Missoula, MT: Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Publ.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Hijmans, R.J., & Graham, C.H. (2006). The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions. Global change biology, 12(12), 2272‑2281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‑2486.2006.01256.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Hokit, D.G., Stith, B.M., & Branch, L.C. (2001). Comparison of Two Types of Metapopulation Models in Real and Artificial Landscapes. Conservation Biology, 15(4), 1102‑1113. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.2001.0150041102.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Kindvall, O. (2000). Comparative Precision of Three Spatially Realistic Simulation Models of Metapopulation Dynamics. Ecological Bulletins, 48, 101‑110.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Lacy, R.C. (1993). VORTEX: A Computer Simulation Model for Population Viability Analysis. Wildlife Research, 20, 45‑65. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9930045]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Lindenmayer, D.B., Burgman, M.A., Akcakaya, H.R., Lacy, R.C., & Possingham, H.P. (1995). A Review of the Generic Computer-Programs Alex, Ramas/Space and Vortex for Modeling the Viability of Wildlife Metapopulations. Ecological Modelling, 82(2), 161‑174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304‑3800(94)00085-V]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Lindenmayer, D.B., Clark, T.W., Lacy, R.C., & Thomas, V.C. (1993). Population viability analysis as a tool in wildlife conservation policy: with reference to Australia. Environmental Management, 17(6), 745‑758. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393895]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Lindenmayer, D.B., Possingham, H.P., Lacy, R.C., McCarthy, M.A., & Pope, M.L. (2003). How Accurate Are Population Models? Lessons from Landscape-Scale Tests in a Fragmented System. Ecology Letters, 6(1), 41‑47. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461‑0248.2003.00391.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Mace, G.M., & Lande, R. (1991). Assessing extinction threats: towards a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened species categories. Conservation Biology, 5, 148‑157. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1523‑1739.1991.TB00119.X]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[McCarthy, M.A., Andelman, S.J., & Possingham, H.P. (2003). Reliability of relative predictions in population viability analysis. Conservation Biology, 17, 982‑989. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.2003.01570.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[McCarthy, M.A., & Thompson, C. (2001). Expected Minimum Population Size as a Measure of Threat. Animal Conservation, 4(4), 351‑355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136794300100141X]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Mills, L.S., Hayes, S.G., Baldwin, C., Wisdom, M.J., Citta, J., Mattson, D.J., & Murphy, K. (1996). Factors Leading to Different Viability Predictions for a Grizzly Bear Data Set. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 863‑873. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.1996.10030863.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Mills, L.S., & Smouse, P.E. (1994). Demographic Consequences of Inbreeding in Remnant Populations. The American Naturalist, 144(3), 412‑431. https://doi.org/10.1086/285684]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Murphy, J.M., Sexton, D.M., Barnett, D.N., Jones, G.S., Webb, M.J., Collins, M., & Stainforth, D.A. (2004). Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature, 430(7001), 768‑772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02771]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[O'Grady, J.J., Reed, D.H., Brook, B.W., & Frankham, R. (2004). What Are the Best Correlates of Predicted Extinction Risk? Biological Conservation, 118(4), 513‑520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.002]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Opdam, P., Verboom, J., & Pouwels, R. (2003). Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology, 18, 113‑126. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1024429715253]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Pe'er, G., Matsinos, Y., Johst, K., Franz, K.W., Turlure, C., Radchuk, V., Malinowska, A., Curtis, J.M.R., Naujokaitis-Lewis, I., Wintle, B.A., & Henle, K. (2013). A Protocol for Better Design, Application, and Communication of Population Viability Analyses. Conservation Biology, 27, 644‑656. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12076]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Pellet, J., Maze, G., & Perrin, N. (2006). The Contribution of Patch Topology and Demographic Parameters to Population Viability Analysis Predictions: The Case of the European Tree Frog. Population Ecology, 48(4), 353‑361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144‑006‑0003‑7]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Possingham, H.P., & Davies, I. (1995). ALEX: A Model for the Viability Analysis of Spatially Structured Populations. Biological Conservation, 73(2), 143‑150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006‑3207(95)90039-X]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Radchuk, V., Johst, K., Groeneveld, J., Turlure, C., Grimm, V., & Schtickzelle, N. (2014). Appropriate Resolution in Time and Model Structure for Population Viability Analysis: Insights from a Butterfly Metapopulation. Biological Conservation, 169, 345‑354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.004]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Rannap, R., Lõhmus, A. & Jakobson, K. (2007). Consequences of coastal meadow degradation: The case of the natterjack toad (Bufo Calamita) in Estonia. Wetlands, 27, 390.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Reed, J.M., Mills, L.S., Dunning, J.B., Menges, E.S., Mckelvey, K.S., Frye, R., Beissinger, S.R., Anstett, M.C., & Miller, P. (2002). Emerging Issues in Population Viability Analysis. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 7‑19. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523‑1739.2002.99419.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Romanowski, J. (2007). Vistula River Valley as the Ecological Corridor for Mammals. Polish Journal of Ecology, 55(4), 805‑819.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Romanowski, J., Kowalczyk, K., & Rau, K. (2008). Population Viability Modelling and Potential Threats to the Beaver in the Vistula River Valley, Poland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 45(4), 323‑328. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.045.0413]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E. et al. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, 287(5459), 1770‑1774. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Shea, K., Runge, M.C., Pannell, D., Probert, W. J., Li, S.L., Tildesley, M., & Ferrari, M. (2020). Harnessing multiple models for outbreak management. Science, 368(6491), 577‑579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb9934]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Sjögren-Gulve, P., & Hanski, I. (2000). Metapopulation Viability Analysis Using Occupancy Models. Ecological Bulletins, 48, 53‑71. https://doi.org/10.2307/20113248]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Van der Sluis, T., Romanowski, J., Bouwma, I.M., & Matuszkiewicz, J. (2007). Comparison of Scenarios for the Vistula River, Poland. W: S.-K. Hong, N. Nakagoshi, B. Fu, & Y. Morimoto (red.), Landscape Ecological Applications in Man-Influenced Areas Linking Man and Nature Systems (s. 417‑433). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[Zurell, D., Jeltsch, F., Dormann, C.F., & Schroder, B. (2009). Static Species Distribution Models in Dynamically Changing Systems: How Good Can Predictions Really Be? Ecography, 32(5), 733‑744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600‑0587.2009.05810.x]]></dc:relation>
<dc:relation><![CDATA[oai:rcin.org.pl:publication:268700]]></dc:relation>
<dc:rights xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license]]></dc:rights>
<dc:rights xml:lang="pl"><![CDATA[Licencja Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0]]></dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>

</metadata>
	  </record>	</GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
