Jonathon - I think that would be great if we could work with your suggestion but I am wondering if you know of some big data sets/papers out there that I'm not familiar with.  As far as I know there aren't too many studies that have recorded all of this information but I'd be up for looking further into this if it is possible. 

I also just wanted to point out that a lot of us are using the term corridor but most of the time strip habitats are not technically corridors.  A corridor should be connecting 2 pieces of natural habitat and this is often not the case for strip habitats.  In Iowa (and in many other places) the strip habitats are often all there is in the middle of a corn or soybean field - sometimes there are lands in CRP as well but things are not set up so that the strips act as corridors between protected lands.

I'm glad you pointed out the need to look for possible negative impacts of corridors - another that I have often thought about and that is pointed out in one of the readings is that strip habitats can sometimes act as a sink for wildlife.  Most of the work has been done on birds - showing really low nest success in linear ("edge") habitats, especially when they are really narrow. 

We can measure how
surrounding habitats and land use type can influence on live fences species richness
and functional diversity.

In Mexico
and Central America live fences are used not only to delimit areas but to
function as source of a variety of maderable and non-maderable resources (wood,
medicines, pastures, etc) to humans. The question would be if live fences provide
substantial ecosystem services to humans and at the same time they contribute
to biodiversity conservation? Are these opposing ideas?