Cited by 528Species Distribution and Climate ChangeWildlife Ecology and ConservationRangeland and Wildlife Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Range Contractions of North American Carnivores and Ungulates

Abstract

We compared the historic and current geographical ranges of 43 North American carnivores and ungulates to identify large-scale patterns in range contractions and expansions. Seventeen of the species had experienced range contractions over more than 20% of their historic range. In areas of higher human influence, species were more likely to contract and less likely to persist. Species richness had also declined considerably since historic times. The temperate grasslands and temperate broadleaf–mixed forest biomes lost the highest average number of species, while the boreal forest and tundra showed fewer numbers of species lost. Species contractions were a result of Euro-American settlement and postsettlement development in North America. These effects have been widespread and indicate a rapid collapse of species distributions over the course of only 1 to 2 centuries. The results of this study can be used to improve scientists' knowledge of historical reference conditions and to provide input for wildlife reintroductions and for the creation of wildlife reserves.

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 · 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0123:rconac]2.0.co;2

Cites

48 of 48 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ehrlich, 1993, Ambio, 22, 64
  2. Hannah, 1994, Ambio, 23, 246
  3. Sutton, 1997, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 63, 1303

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 528

Metadata

Authors
LALIBERTE, A. S., & RIPPLE, W. J.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Service (US)
Venue
BioScience
Published
2004
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
123
ISSN
0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2175629742
Cited by
528
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 24
FWCI
8.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BioScience (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
range contraction, carnivores, ungulates, range shifts, anthropogenic impacts, Euro-American settlement, species richness decline, temperate grassland, boreal forest, tundra, wildlife reintroduction, wildlife reserves, North America

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