The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Importance of Reserve Size and Landscape Context to Urban Bird Conservation
Abstract
Abstract: We tested whether reserve size, landscape surrounding the reserve, and their interaction affect forest songbirds in the metropolitan area of Seattle, Washington (U.S.A.), by studying 29 reserves of varying size (small, medium, large) and surrounding urbanization intensity (urban, suburban, exurban). Larger reserves contained richer and less even bird communities than smaller reserves. These size effects disappeared when we removed the positive correlation of shrub diversity with reserve size, suggesting that greater habitat diversity in large reserves supported additional species, some of which were rare. Standardizing the number of individuals detected among all reserve size classes reversed the effect of size on richness in exurban landscapes and reduced the magnitude of the effect in suburban or urban landscapes. The latter change suggested that richness increased with reserve size in most landscapes because larger areas also supported larger samples from the regional bird species pool. Most bird species associated with native forest habitat (native forest species) and with human activity (synanthropic species) were present in reserves larger than 42 ha and surrounded by >40% urban land cover, respectively. Thus, we recommend these thresholds as means for conserving the composition of native bird communities in this mostly forested region. Native forest species were least abundant and synanthropic species most abundant in urban landscapes, where exotic ground and shrub vegetation was most common. Therefore, control of exotic vegetation may benefit native songbird populations. Bird nests in shrubs were most dense in medium (suburban) and large reserves (urban) and tended to be most successful in medium (suburban) and large reserves (exurban), potentially supplying another mechanism by which reserve size increased retention of native forest species.
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
A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity
Huston, M. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283366 · Cited by 3,390
Cited by
Beninde, J., Veith, M., & Hochkirch, A. (2015) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12427 · Cited by 1,249
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
THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IN THE WEST: A LARGE‐SCALE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS
Leu, M., Hanser, S. E., & Knick, S. T. (2008) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-0480.1 · Cited by 334
The role of ‘nativeness’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity
Berthon, K., Thomas, F., & Bekessy, S. (2021) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959 · Cited by 202
Using a bird community index to evaluate national parks in the urbanized national capital region
Goodwin, S. E., & Shriver, W. G. (2014) · Urban Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0363-2 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- DONNELLY, R., & MARZLUFF, J. M.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-05-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 733-745
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2107678201
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.24
- 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: Importance of Reserve Size and Landscape Context to Urban Bird Conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00032.x
- The paper
- DONNELLY, R., & MARZLUFF, J. M. (2004). Importance of Reserve Size and Landscape Context to Urban Bird Conservation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00032.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.