The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong Is the Evidence?
Abstract
Wildlife biologists historically considered the edge between adjacent habitat types highly productive and beneficial to wildlife. A current dogma is that edges adversely affect a wide range of avian species by increasing depredation and parasitism rates of nests. I critically evaluated existing empirical evidence to test whether there was a gradation in nest success as a function of distance from an edge. Researchers investigating this question have been inconsistent in their experimental designs, making generalizations about edge‐effect patterns difficult. The majority of studies I examined found nest success varied near edges, with both depredation rates (10 of 14 artificial nest studies, and 4 of 7 natural nest studies) and parasitism rates (3 of 5 studies) increasing near edges. In addition, there was apositive relationship between nest success and patch size (8 of 8 studies). The most conclusive studies suggest that edge effects usually occur within 50 m of an edge, whereas studies proposing that increased depredation rates extend farther than 50 m from an edge are less convincing. Prior research has probably focused on distances too far from an edge to detect threshold values, and future research should emphasize smaller scales. 100–200 m from an edge at 20–25 m increments. Researchers often use relatively arbitrary habitat characteristics to define an edge. Therefore, I propose that only openings in the forest canopy with a diameter three times or more the height of the adjacent trees should be included in edge analyses. This review suggests that fragmentation of eastern North American temperate forests could lead to increased nest predation and parasitism, and there is need to determine if similar processes occur in other forested regions of North America.
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
Agresti, A. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471249688 · Cited by 6,746
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review
SAUNDERS, D. A., HOBBS, R. J., & MARGULES, C. R. (1991) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x · Cited by 4,110
Cited by
Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of Migratory Birds
Robinson, S. K., Thompson, F. R., Donovan, T. M., Whitehead, D. R., & Faaborg, J. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.267.5206.1987 · Cited by 1,442
Disappearance of insectivorous birds from tropical forest fragments
Şekercioḡlu, Ç. H., Ehrlich, P. R., Daily, G. C., Aygen, D., Goehring, D., & Sandí, R. F. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.012616199 · Cited by 598
Kunkel, K. E., & Pletscher, D. H. (2000) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z99-181 · Cited by 164
Kupfer, J. A., & Franklin, S. B. (2009) · Geography Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00245.x · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Paton, P. W. C.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-26
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2117425143
- Cited by
- 820
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 30.94
- 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: The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong Is the Evidence? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010017.x
- The paper
- Paton, P. W. C. (1994). The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong Is the Evidence? Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010017.x
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.