Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IN THE WEST: A LARGE‐SCALE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS

Leu, Matthias, Hanser, Steven E., Knick, Steven T.·2008·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Anthropogenic features such as urbanization, roads, and power lines, are increasing in western United States landscapes in response to rapidly growing human populations. However, their spatial effects have not been evaluated. Our goal was to model the human footprint across the western United States. We first delineated the actual area occupied by anthropogenic features, the physical effect area. Next, we developed the human footprint model based on the ecological effect area, the zone influenced by features beyond their physical presence, by combining seven input models: three models quantified top‐down anthropogenic influences of synanthropic predators (avian predators, domestic dog and cat presence risk), and four models quantified bottom‐up anthropogenic influences on habitat (invasion of exotic plants, human‐caused fires, energy extraction, and anthropogenic wildland fragmentation). Using independent bird population data, we found bird abundance of four synanthropic species to correlate positively with human footprint intensity and negatively for three of the six species influenced by habitat fragmentation. We then evaluated the extent of the human footprint in relation to terrestrial (ecoregions) and aquatic systems (major rivers and lakes), regional management and conservation status, physical environment, and temporal changes in human actions. The physical effect area of anthropogenic features covered 13% of the western United States with agricultural land (9.8%) being most dominant. High‐intensity human footprint areas (class 8–10) overlapped highly productive low‐elevation private landholdings and covered 7% of the western United States compared to 48% for low‐intensity areas (class 1–3), which were confined to low‐productivity high‐elevation federal landholdings. Areas within 1 km of rivers were more affected by the human footprint compared to lakes. Percentage human population growth was higher in low‐intensity human footprint areas. The disproportional regional effects of the human footprint on landscapes in the western United States create a challenge to management of ecosystems and wildlife populations. Using footprint models, managers can plan land use actions, develop restoration scenarios, and identify areas of high conservation value at local landscapes within a regional context. Moreover, human footprint models serve as a tool to stratify landscapes for studies investigating floral and faunal response to human disturbance intensity gradients.

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 · 10.1890/07-0480.1

Cites

108 of 108 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 108 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Leu, M., Hanser, S. E., & Knick, S. T.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-07
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
1119-1139
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W2136208313
Cited by
334
References
108
FWCI
13.84
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: THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IN THE WEST: A LARGE‐SCALE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/07-0480.1
The paper
Leu, M., Hanser, S. E., & Knick, S. T. (2008). THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT IN THE WEST: A LARGE‐SCALE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-0480.1

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.