Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative evidence for the effects of multiple drivers on continental-scale amphibian declines

Open access
Grant, Evan H. Campbell, Miller, David A. W., Schmidt, Benedikt R., Adams, Michael J., Amburgey, Staci M., Chambert, Thierry, Cruickshank, Sam S., Fisher, Robert N., Green, David M., Hossack, Blake R., Johnson, Pieter T. J., Joseph, Maxwell B., Rittenhouse, Tracy A. G., Ryan, Maureen E., Waddle, J. Hardin, Walls, Susan C., Bailey, Larissa L., Fellers, Gary M., Gorman, Thomas A., Ray, Andrew M., Pilliod, David S., Price, Steven J., Saenz, Daniel, Sadinski, Walt, Muths, Erin·2016·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Since amphibian declines were first proposed as a global phenomenon over a quarter century ago, the conservation community has made little progress in halting or reversing these trends. The early search for a “smoking gun” was replaced with the expectation that declines are caused by multiple drivers. While field observations and experiments have identified factors leading to increased local extinction risk, evidence for effects of these drivers is lacking at large spatial scales. Here, we use observations of 389 time-series of 83 species and complexes from 61 study areas across North America to test the effects of 4 of the major hypothesized drivers of declines. While we find that local amphibian populations are being lost from metapopulations at an average rate of 3.79% per year, these declines are not related to any particular threat at the continental scale; likewise the effect of each stressor is variable at regional scales. This result - that exposure to threats varies spatially, and populations vary in their response - provides little generality in the development of conservation strategies. Greater emphasis on local solutions to this globally shared phenomenon is needed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/srep25625

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Grant, E. H. C., Miller, D. A. W., Schmidt, B. R., Adams, M. J., Amburgey, S. M., Chambert, T., Cruickshank, S. S., Fisher, R. N., Green, D. M., Hossack, B. R., Johnson, P. T. J., Joseph, M. B., Rittenhouse, T. A. G., Ryan, M. E., Waddle, J. H., Walls, S. C., Bailey, L. L., Fellers, G. M., Gorman, T. A., Ray, A. M., Pilliod, D. S., Price, S. J., Saenz, D., Sadinski, W., & Muths, E.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2016-05-23
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
25625-25625
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2395417685
Cited by
283
References
42
FWCI
22.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Quantitative evidence for the effects of multiple drivers on continental-scale amphibian declines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/srep25625
The paper
Grant, E. H. C., Miller, D. A. W., Schmidt, B. R., Adams, M. J., Amburgey, S. M., Chambert, T., Cruickshank, S. S., Fisher, R. N., Green, D. M., Hossack, B. R., Johnson, P. T. J., Joseph, M. B., Rittenhouse, T. A. G., Ryan, M. E., Waddle, J. H., Walls, S. C., Bailey, L. L., Fellers, G. M., Gorman, T. A., . . . Muths, E. (2016). Quantitative evidence for the effects of multiple drivers on continental-scale amphibian declines. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25625

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.