Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 631

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Lyme Disease Risk

Allan, Brian F., Keesing, Felicia, Ostfeld, Richard S.·2003·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Forest destruction and fragmentation in the United States recently have been shown to reduce mammalian species diversity and to elevate population densities of white‐footed mice ( Peromyscus leucopus ). One potential consequence of reduced species diversity and high mouse density in small fragments is an increase in human exposure to Lyme disease. Increased risk of exposure to this disease is expected because of the role of the white‐footed mouse as the principal natural reservoir of the Lyme bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi . Blacklegged ticks ( Ixodes scapularis ) feeding on mice have a higher probability of becoming infected with the bacterium than do ticks feeding on any other host species. We hypothesized that small forest patches ( <2 ha ) have a higher density of infected nymphal blacklegged ticks, which is the primary risk factor for Lyme disease, than larger patches ( 2–8 ha ). In the summer of 2000, we sampled tick density and B. burgdorferi infection prevalence in 14 maple‐dominated forest patches, ranging in size from 0.7 to 7.6 ha, in Dutchess County of southeastern New York state. We found a significant linear decline in nymphal infection prevalence with increasing patch area and a significant exponential decline in nymphal density with increasing patch area. The consequence was a dramatic increase in the density of infected nymphs, and therefore in Lyme disease risk, with decreasing forest patch size. We did not observe a similar relationship between the density of larval ticks and patch size. These results suggest that by influencing the community composition of vertebrate hosts for disease‐bearing vectors, habitat fragmentation can influence human health.

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 · 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01260.x

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Cited by

See all 631

Metadata

Authors
Allan, B. F., Keesing, F., & Ostfeld, R. S.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
267-272
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2105196831
Cited by
631
References
23
FWCI
8.70
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: Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Lyme Disease Risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01260.x
The paper
Allan, B. F., Keesing, F., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2003). Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Lyme Disease Risk. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01260.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.