The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
City sicker? A meta‐analysis of wildlife health and urbanization
Abstract
Urban development can alter resource availability, land use, and community composition, which, in turn, influences wildlife health. Generalizable relationships between wildlife health and urbanization have yet to be quantified and could vary across different measures of health and among species. We present a phylogenetic meta‐analysis of 516 comparisons of the toxicant loads, parasitism, body condition, or stress of urban and non‐urban wildlife populations reported in 106 studies spanning 81 species in 30 countries. We found a small but significant negative relationship between urbanization and wildlife health, driven by considerably higher toxicant loads and greater parasite abundance, greater parasite diversity, and/or greater likelihood of infection by parasites transmitted through close contact. Invertebrates and amphibians were particularly affected, with urban populations having higher toxicant loads and greater physiological stress than their non‐urban counterparts. We also found strong geographic and taxonomic bias in research effort, highlighting future research needs. Our results suggest that some types of health risks are more pronounced for wildlife in urban areas, which could have important implications for conservation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools
Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211658109 · Cited by 5,086
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Regression Methods to Detect Publication and Other Bias in Meta‐Analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2005) · Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch6 · Cited by 826
Wolf, F. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412984980 · Cited by 784
Cited by
Negative effects of urbanization on terrestrial arthropod communities: A meta‐analysis
Fenoglio, M. S., Rossetti, M. R., & Videla, M. (2020) · Global Ecology and Biogeography · doi:10.1111/geb.13107 · Cited by 363
So overt it's covert: Wildlife coloration in the city
Kreling, S. E. S. (2023) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biad021 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Murray, M. H., Sánchez, C. A., Becker, D. J., Byers, K. A., Worsley‐Tonks, K. E., & Craft, M. E.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-11-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 575-583
- ISSN
- 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-9309
- OpenAlex
- W2984105312
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: City sicker? A meta‐analysis of wildlife health and urbanization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/fee.2126
- The paper
- Murray, M. H., Sánchez, C. A., Becker, D. J., Byers, K. A., Worsley‐Tonks, K. E., & Craft, M. E. (2019). City sicker? A meta‐analysis of wildlife health and urbanization. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2126
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.