Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 582

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta‐analysis

Open access
CHAMBERLAIN, D. E., CANNON, A. R., TOMS, M. P., LEECH, D. I., HATCHWELL, B. J., GASTON, K. J.·2009·Ibis

Abstract

There is an urgent need to thoroughly review and comprehend the effects of urbanization on wildlife in order to understand both the ecological implications of increasing urbanization and how to mitigate its threat to biodiversity globally. We examined patterns in comparative productivity of urban and non‐urban passerine birds, using published estimates from paired comparisons, and by reviewing and developing explanations in terms of resources, competitors, predators and other specifically urban environmental factors. The most consistent patterns were for earlier lay dates, lower clutch size, lower nestling weight and lower productivity per nesting attempt in urban landscapes; these were supported by a formal meta‐analysis. Nest failure rates did not show consistent patterns across the species considered. We suggest that food availability is a key driver of differences in passerine demography between landscapes. In urban habitats, human‐provided food may improve adult condition over winter, leading to earlier lay dates and, in some species, to higher survival and higher breeding densities, but paucity of natural food may lead to lower productivity per nesting attempt. We demonstrate that additional comparative research is needed on a wider range of species, on the effects of natural and human‐provided food availability, and on the differences in survival and dispersal between urban and non‐urban populations. Importantly, better‐targeted research and monitoring is needed in areas that are at greatest threat from urbanization, especially in the developing world.

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 · 10.1111/j.1474-919x.2008.00899.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 582

Metadata

Authors
CHAMBERLAIN, D. E., CANNON, A. R., TOMS, M. P., LEECH, D. I., HATCHWELL, B. J., & GASTON, K. J.
Venue
Ibis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-12-18
Volume
151
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
  • 0019-1019 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-919X
OpenAlex
W1969198547
Cited by
582
References
2
FWCI
11.30
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: Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2008.00899.x
The paper
CHAMBERLAIN, D. E., CANNON, A. R., TOMS, M. P., LEECH, D. I., HATCHWELL, B. J., & GASTON, K. J. (2009). Avian productivity in urban landscapes: a review and meta‐analysis. Ibis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2008.00899.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.