The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the US Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have quantified the indirect effect of hydrocarbon-based economies on climate change and biodiversity, concluding that a significant proportion of species will be threatened with extinction. However, few studies have measured the direct effect of new energy production infrastructure on species persistence. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We propose a systematic way to forecast patterns of future energy development and calculate impacts to species using spatially-explicit predictive modeling techniques to estimate oil and gas potential and create development build-out scenarios by seeding the landscape with oil and gas wells based on underlying potential. We illustrate our approach for the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the western US and translate the build-out scenarios into estimated impacts on sage-grouse. We project that future oil and gas development will cause a 7-19 percent decline from 2007 sage-grouse lek population counts and impact 3.7 million ha of sagebrush shrublands and 1.1 million ha of grasslands in the study area. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Maps of where oil and gas development is anticipated in the US Intermountain West can be used by decision-makers intent on minimizing impacts to sage-grouse. This analysis also provides a general framework for using predictive models and build-out scenarios to anticipate impacts to species. These predictive models and build-out scenarios allow tradeoffs to be considered between species conservation and energy development prior to implementation.
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
Random forests for classification in ecology
Cutler, D. R., Edwards, T. C., Beard, K. H., Cutler, A., Hess, K. T., Gibson, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0539.1 · Cited by 4,950
Consequences of changing biodiversity
Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., Hooper, D. U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O. E., Hobbie, S. E., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35012241 · Cited by 4,282
Cited by
The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management
McLane, A. J., Semeniuk, C., McDermid, G. J., & Marceau, D. J. (2011) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.01.020 · Cited by 255
Shafer, M., Ojima, D., Antle, J. M., Kluck, D., McPherson, R. A., Petersen, S., Scanlon, B., & Sherman, K. (2014) · doi:10.7930/j0d798bc · Cited by 81
Single-species conservation in a multiple-use landscape: current protection of the tiger range
Forrest, J. L., Bomhard, B., Budiman, A., Coad, L., Cox, N., Dinerstein, E., Hammer, D., Huang, C., Huy, K., Kraft, R., et al. (2011) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00428.x · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Copeland, H. E., Doherty, K. E., Naugle, D. E., Pocewicz, A., & Kiesecker, J. M.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2009-10-14
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e7400
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986233118
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the US Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0007400
- The paper
- Copeland, H. E., Doherty, K. E., Naugle, D. E., Pocewicz, A., & Kiesecker, J. M. (2009). Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the US Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007400
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.