The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relationships between Human Disturbance and Wildlife Land Use in Urban Habitat Fragments
Abstract
Abstract: Habitat remnants in urbanized areas typically conserve biodiversity and serve the recreation and urban open‐space needs of human populations. Nevertheless, these goals can be in conflict if human activity negatively affects wildlife. Hence, when considering habitat remnants as conservation refuges it is crucial to understand how human activities and land uses affect wildlife use of those and adjacent areas. We used tracking data (animal tracks and den or bed sites) on 10 animal species and information on human activity and environmental factors associated with anthropogenic disturbance in 12 habitat fragments across San Diego County, California, to examine the relationships among habitat fragment characteristics, human activity, and wildlife presence. There were no significant correlations of species presence and abundance with percent plant cover for all species or with different land‐use intensities for all species, except the opossum (Didelphis virginiana), which preferred areas with intensive development. Woodrats (Neotoma spp.) and cougars (Puma concolor) were associated significantly and positively and significantly and negatively, respectively, with the presence and prominence of utilities. Woodrats were also negatively associated with the presence of horses. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) and coyotes (Canis latrans) were associated significantly and negatively and significantly and positively, respectively, with plant bulk and permanence. Cougars and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) were negatively associated with the presence of roads. Roadrunners (Geococcyx californianus) were positively associated with litter. The only species that had no significant correlations with any of the environmental variables were black‐tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Bobcat tracks were observed more often than gray foxes in the study area and bobcats correlated significantly only with water availability, contrasting with results from other studies. Our results appear to indicate that maintenance of habitat fragments in urban areas is of conservation benefit to some animal species, despite human activity and disturbance, as long as the fragments are large.
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
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review
SAUNDERS, D. A., HOBBS, R. J., & MARGULES, C. R. (1991) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x · Cited by 4,110
Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation
Crooks, K. R. (2002) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00386.x · Cited by 943
Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores
Fedriani, J. M., Fuller, T. K., Sauvajot, R. M., & York, E. C. (2000) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420000448 · Cited by 463
Human disturbance: people as predation‐free predators?
Beale, C. M., & Monaghan, P. (2004) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00900.x · Cited by 449
Hobbs, R. J., & Mooney, H. A. (1998) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96233.x · Cited by 185
Farias, V., Fuller, T. K., Wayne, R. K., & Sauvajot, R. M. (2005) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1017/s0952836905006850 · Cited by 74
Cited by
Big City Life: Carnivores in Urban Environments
Bateman, P. W., & Fleming, P. A. (2012) · Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x · Cited by 832
Sensitivity of bats to urbanization: a review
Russo, D., & Ancillotto, L. (2015) · Mammalian Biology · doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2014.10.003 · Cited by 440
Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife
Samia, D. S. M., Nakagawa, S., Nomura, F., Rangel, T. F., & Blumstein, D. T. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms9877 · Cited by 357
Biodiversity and disease: a synthesis of ecological perspectives on Lyme disease transmission
Wood, C. L., & Lafferty, K. D. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.011 · Cited by 306
Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness
Ordeñana, M. A., Crooks, K. R., Boydston, E. E., Fisher, R. N., Lyren, L. M., Siudyla, S., Haas, C. D., Harris, S., Hathaway, S. A., Turschak, G. M., et al. (2010) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1644/09-mamm-a-312.1 · Cited by 306
Metadata
- Authors
- MARKOVCHICK‐NICHOLLS, L., REGAN, H. M., DEUTSCHMAN, D. H., WIDYANATA, A., MARTIN, B., NOREKE, L., & ANN HUNT, T.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-12-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-109
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2117842481
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 4.27
- 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: Relationships between Human Disturbance and Wildlife Land Use in Urban Habitat Fragments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00846.x
- The paper
- MARKOVCHICK‐NICHOLLS, L., REGAN, H. M., DEUTSCHMAN, D. H., WIDYANATA, A., MARTIN, B., NOREKE, L., & ANN HUNT, T. (2008). Relationships between Human Disturbance and Wildlife Land Use in Urban Habitat Fragments. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00846.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.