The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: Habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators
Open accessAbstract
Understanding the ecological mechanisms that underlie extinction is fundamental to conservation. It is well established that not all taxa are equally vulnerable to extinction, but the reasons for these differences are poorly understood. This may be, in part, because different taxa are threatened by different mechanisms. Theoretically, sources of extinction risk that perturb the balance between fecundity and longevity, such as human persecution and introduced predators, should be particularly hazardous for taxa that have slow rates of population growth. In contrast, sources of extinction risk that reduce niche availability, such as habitat loss, should represent a particular threat to taxa that are ecologically specialized. Here we test these predictions by using a phylogenetic comparative method and a database on 95 families of birds. As theory predicts, extinction risk incurred through persecution and introduced predators is associated with large body size and long generation time but is not associated with degree of specialization, whereas extinction risk incurred through habitat loss is associated with habitat specialization and small body size but not with generation time. These results demonstrate the importance of considering separately the multiple mechanisms that underlie contemporary patterns of extinction. They also reveal why it has previously proven so difficult to identify simple ecological correlates of overall extinction risk.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Predicting extinction risk in declining species
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G., & Mace, G. M. (2000) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1234 · Cited by 1,768
Cited by
Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation
Ewers, R. M., & Didham, R. K. (2005) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1017/s1464793105006949 · Cited by 2,218
A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances
Mouillot, D., Graham, N. A. J., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H., & Bellwood, D. R. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.004 · Cited by 2,117
Global biodiversity change: The bad, the good, and the unknown
Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M., & Martins, I. S. (2012) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511 · Cited by 777
Brains, Innovations and Evolution in Birds and Primates
Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M., & Sol, D. (2004) · Brain, Behavior and Evolution · doi:10.1159/000076784 · Cited by 666
Metadata
- Authors
- Owens, I. P. F., & Bennett, P. M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2000-09-26
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 12144-12148
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2104774563
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 24.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: Habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.200223397
- The paper
- Owens, I. P. F., & Bennett, P. M. (2000). Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: Habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.200223397
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.