Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 180

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

MARKOVCHICK‐NICHOLLS, LISA, REGAN, HELEN M., DEUTSCHMAN, DOUGLAS H., WIDYANATA, ASTRID, MARTIN, BARRY, NOREKE, LANI, ANN HUNT, TIMOTHY·2008·Conservation Biology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00846.x

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 180

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.