Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes

Marzluff, John M., Ewing, Kern·2001·Restoration Ecology

Abstract

Humans fragment landscapes to the detriment of wildlife. We review why fragmentation is detrimental to wildlife (especially birds), review the effects of urbanization on birds inhabiting nearby native habitats, suggest how restoration ecologists can minimize these effects, and discuss future research needs. We emphasize the importance of individual fitness to determining community composition. This means that reproduction, survivorship, and dispersal (not simply community composition) must be maintained, restored, and monitored. We suggest that the severity of the effects of fragmentation are determined by (1) the natural disturbance regime, (2) the similarity of the anthropogenic matrix to the natural matrix, and (3) the persistence of the anthropogenic change. As a result, urbanization is likely to produce greater effects of fragmentation than either agriculture or timber harvest. Restoration ecologists, land managers, and urban planners can help maintain native birds in fragmented landscapes by a combination of short‐ and long‐term actions designed to restore ecological function (not just shape and structure) to fragments, including: (1) maintaining native vegetation, deadwood, and other nesting structures in the fragment, (2) managing the landscape surrounding the fragment (matrix), not just the fragment, (3) making the matrix more like the native habitat fragments, (4) increasing the foliage height diversity within fragments, (5) designing buffers that reduce penetration of undesirable agents from the matrix, (6) recognizing that human activity is not compatible with interior conditions, (7) actively managing mammal populations in fragments, (8) discouraging open lawn on public and private property, (9) providing statutory recognition of the value of complexes of small wetlands, (10) integrating urban parks into the native habitat system, (11) anticipating urbanization and seeking creative ways to increase native habitat and manage it collectively, (12) reducing the growing effects of urbanization on once remote natural areas, (13) realizing that fragments may be best suited to conserve only a few species, (14) developing monitoring programs that measure fitness, and (15) developing a new educational paradigm.

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.1526-100x.2001.009003280.x

Cites

71 of 71 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 71 references

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
Marzluff, J. M., & Ewing, K.
Venue
Restoration Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
280-292
ISSN
  • 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-100X
OpenAlex
W2100214855
Cited by
498
References
71
FWCI
10.82
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: Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009003280.x
The paper
Marzluff, J. M., & Ewing, K. (2001). Restoration of Fragmented Landscapes for the Conservation of Birds: A General Framework and Specific Recommendations for Urbanizing Landscapes. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009003280.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.