Cited by 64Fire effects on ecosystemsAustralian Indigenous Culture and HistoryRangeland and Wildlife Management

Fire mosaics and habitat choice in nomadic foragers

Open access
Bliege Bird, Rebecca, McGuire, Chloe, Bird, Douglas W., Price, Michael H., Zeanah, David, Nimmo, Dale G.·2020·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Models of human habitat choice and landscape use assume that people have negative effects on resource availability, which causes them to avoid regions that are already occupied or that show signs of extensive past use in favor of regions of higher quality. We show that when people engage in activities that increase resource productivity, like burning, there is the potential for these improvements to change habitat preferences in favor of places that have been previously modified and occupied by people. This process changes the way we think about intensification (and the origins of broad-spectrum economies), which may arise not from the negative effects of people on resources, but from the positive (and often unintentional) feedbacks between people and their environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1921709117

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Burning that promoted wild resources and forage for preferred game allowed persistent places to remain productive in spite of moderate levels of resource use, likely due to Allee effects created by cultural burning.

    “Burning that promoted wild resources and forage for preferred game allowed these persistent places to remain productive in spite of moderate levels of resource use (60), likely due to Allee effects created by cultural burning (29).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bliege Bird, R., McGuire, C., Bird, D. W., Price, M. H., Zeanah, D., & Nimmo, D. G.
Affiliations
  • Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801;
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • California State University, Sacramento (US)
  • Charles Sturt University (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2020-05-27
Volume
117
Issue
23
Pages
12904-12914
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W3029620858
Cited by
64
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SBR#1459880)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Australian Indigenous Culture and History
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
fire mosaics, habitat selection, ideal free distribution, water access, food availability, settlement patterns, sedentism, population density, indigenous land rights, human mobility
MeSH terms
Australia, Conservation of Natural Resources, Fires, Humans, Population Density, Territoriality, Ecosystem

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