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 accessAbstract
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.
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
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Kronfeld-Schor (2013) · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2821 · Cited by 174
Cited by
Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009
Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., et al. (2016) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.67 · Cited by 837
Lepczyk, C. A., Aronson, M. F. J., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B., & MacIvor, J. S. (2017) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/bix079 · Cited by 766
Gilbert, N. I., Correia, R. A., Silva, J. P., Pacheco, C., Catry, I., Atkinson, P. W., Gill, J. A., & Franco, A. M. A. (2016) · Movement Ecology · doi:10.1186/s40462-016-0070-0 · Cited by 217
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.