The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biodiversity across a Rural Land‐Use Gradient
Abstract
Abstract: Private lands in the American West are undergoing a land‐use conversion from agriculture to exurban development, although little is known about the ecological consequences of this change. Some nongovernmental organizations are working with ranchers to keep their lands out of development and in ranching, ostensibly because they believe biodiversity is better protected on ranches than on exurban developments. However, there are several assumptions underlying this approach that have not been tested. To better inform conservation efforts, we compared avian, mesopredator, and plant communities across the gradient of intensifying human uses from nature reserves to cattle ranches to exurban developments. We conducted surveys at randomly selected points on each type of land use in one Colorado watershed between May and August of 2000 and 2001. Seven bird species, characterized as human commensals or tree nesters, reached higher densities ( all p < 0.02 ) on exurban developments than on either ranches or reserves. Six bird species, characterized as ground and shrub nesters, reached greater densities ( all p < 0.015 ) on ranches, reserves, or both of these types of land use than on exurban developments. Domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ) and house cats ( Felis catus ) were encountered almost exclusively on exurban developments, whereas coyotes ( Canis latrans ) were detected more frequently ( p = 0.047 ) on ranchlands than exurban developments. Ranches had plant communities with higher native species richness and lower non‐native species richness and cover than did the other types of land use ( all p < 0.10 ). Our results support the notion that ranches are important for protecting biodiversity and suggest that future conservation efforts may require less reliance on reserves and a greater focus on private lands.
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
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2917-7 · Cited by 3,387
Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system
Crooks, K. R., & Soulé, M. E. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/23028 · Cited by 1,721
Cited by
Saving the sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities
Davies, K. W., Boyd, C. S., Beck, J. L., Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T. J., & Gregg, M. A. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.016 · Cited by 484
Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P., & Reid, R. S. (2009) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003 · Cited by 444
Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States
Havstad, K. M., Peters, D. P. C., Skaggs, R., Brown, J., Bestelmeyer, B., Fredrickson, E., Herrick, J., & Wright, J. (2007) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.005 · Cited by 375
RADELOFF, V. C., HAMMER, R. B., & STEWART, S. I. (2005) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00387.x · Cited by 342
THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IN THE WEST: A LARGE‐SCALE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS
Leu, M., Hanser, S. E., & Knick, S. T. (2008) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-0480.1 · Cited by 334
Metadata
- Authors
- Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., & Gilgert, W. C.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-09-26
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1425-1434
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2028073337
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.75
- 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: Biodiversity across a Rural Land‐Use Gradient. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02371.x
- The paper
- Maestas, J. D., Knight, R. L., & Gilgert, W. C. (2003). Biodiversity across a Rural Land‐Use Gradient. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02371.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.