Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 270

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Greater Sage‐Grouse Population Response to Energy Development and Habitat Loss

Open access
WALKER, BRETT L., NAUGLE, DAVID E., DOHERTY, KEVIN E.·2007·The Journal of Wildlife Management

Abstract

ABSTRACT Modification of landscapes due to energy development may alter both habitat use and vital rates of sensitive wildlife species. Greater sage‐grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of Wyoming and Montana, USA, have experienced rapid, widespread changes to their habitat due to recent coal‐bed natural gas (CBNG) development. We analyzed lek‐count, habitat, and infrastructure data to assess how CBNG development and other landscape features influenced trends in the numbers of male sage‐grouse observed and persistence of leks in the PRB. From 2001 to 2005, the number of males observed on leks in CBNG fields declined more rapidly than leks outside of CBNG. Of leks active in 1997 or later, only 38% of 26 leks in CBNG fields remained active by 2004–2005, compared to 84% of 250 leks outside CBNG fields. By 2005, leks in CBNG fields had 46% fewer males per active lek than leks outside of CBNG. Persistence of 110 leks was positively influenced by the proportion of sagebrush habitat within 6.4 km of the lek. After controlling for habitat, we found support for negative effects of CBNG development within 0.8 km and 3.2 km of the lek and for a time lag between CBNG development and lek disappearance. Current lease stipulations that prohibit development within 0.4 km of sage‐grouse leks on federal lands are inadequate to ensure lek persistence and may result in impacts to breeding populations over larger areas. Seasonal restrictions on drilling and construction do not address impacts caused by loss of sagebrush and incursion of infrastructure that can affect populations over long periods of time. Regulatory agencies may need to increase spatial restrictions on development, industry may need to rapidly implement more effective mitigation measures, or both, to reduce impacts of CBNG development on sage‐grouse populations in the PRB.

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 · 10.2193/2006-529

Cites

32 of 32 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 32 references

Cited by

See all 270

Metadata

Authors
WALKER, B. L., NAUGLE, D. E., & DOHERTY, K. E.
Venue
The Journal of Wildlife Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-11
Volume
71
Issue
8
Pages
2644-2654
ISSN
  • 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-2817
OpenAlex
W2006116307
Cited by
270
References
32
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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: Greater Sage‐Grouse Population Response to Energy Development and Habitat Loss. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2193/2006-529
The paper
WALKER, B. L., NAUGLE, D. E., & DOHERTY, K. E. (2007). Greater Sage‐Grouse Population Response to Energy Development and Habitat Loss. The Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.2193/2006-529

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.