Ecological connectivity is increasingly acknowledged as crucial for biodiversity conservation. Iverson et al. suggest that increasing stewardship to ensure permeability is a better approach than protecting linkages between protected areas. We argue that the optimal approach depends on the landscape context, conservation goals, and species involved and suggest that linkage plans can prioritize specific places for protection and improved management. However, when using connectivity models as predictive tools, model validation is vital. We commend Iverson et al. for assessing whether modeled linkages were important predictors of species presence. We disagree, though, with the authors’ conclusion that their findings challenge the theory and practice of modeling linkages and explain that the reason may be the misalignment of the validation assumptions with model objectives. We offer our perspective on best practices for conducting validation studies and note factors to consider with respect to data used for model validation and model expectations.

中文翻译：

---

评论 功能性景观连通性 为少数人：联系并不能始终如一地预测野生动物的运动或占用。Autumn R. Iverson、David Waetjen、Fraser Shilling


生态连通性越来越被认为是生物多样性保护的关键。Iverson 等人认为，加强管理以确保渗透性是比保护保护区之间的联系更好的方法。我们认为，最佳方法取决于景观环境、保护目标和所涉及的物种，并建议联系计划可以优先考虑保护和改善管理的特定地点。但是，当使用连通性模型作为预测工具时，模型验证至关重要。我们赞扬 Iverson 等人评估建模的连锁是否是物种存在的重要预测因子。然而，我们不同意作者的结论，即他们的发现挑战了建模联系的理论和实践，并解释说原因可能是验证假设与模型目标不一致。我们提供了对进行验证研究的最佳实践的看法，并指出了用于模型验证和模型期望的数据需要考虑的因素。