The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation
Abstract
We report estimates of declines of natural ecosystems in the United States, provide a rationale for ecosystem-level conservation, discuss decline and threat as criteria for conservation, and relate ecosystem losses to endangerment at species and population levels. Ecosystems are defined generally and at various spatial scales and include vegetation types, plant associations, natural communities, and habitats defined by floristics, structure, age, geography, condition, and other ecologically relevant factors. The methodology for this report consisted of a literature review and a survey of conservation agencies and professionals. The results of this preliminary study indicated significant losses of biodiversity at the ecosystem level in the United States. The most substantial losses were summarized by listing ecosystems as critically endangered (>98% decline), endangered (85-98% decline), and threatened (70-84% decline). We identified more than 30 critically endangered, 58 endangered, and more than 38 threatened ecosystems. Losses of all kinds of ecosystems have been most pronounced in the South, Northeast, and Midwest, and in California. We suggest that integrated conservation plans for all ecosystems be developed in each ecoregion of the United States, starting with types and regions that sustained the greatest losses and are at greatest risk of further loss. Conservation plans could be based on detailed studies of ecosystem status and trends and include quantitative analyses of ecosystem decline, ecological consequences of loss and degradation, and current and potential threats to each ecosystem. Ecosystem conservation need not be restricted to pristine sites, which are now almost nonexistent. Rather, management and, where possible, restoration plans for native biodiversity in partially disturbed sites should be considered.
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
Cited by
Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A. M., Brown, J. H., Carpenter, S., D'Antonio, C., Francis, R., Franklin, J. F., MacMahon, J. A., Noss, R. F., Parsons, D. J., et al. (1996) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.2307/2269460 · Cited by 1,516
Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations
Prugh, L. R., Hodges, K. E., Sinclair, A. R. E., & Brashares, J. S. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0806080105 · Cited by 785
Range Contractions of North American Carnivores and Ungulates
LALIBERTE, A. S., & RIPPLE, W. J. (2004) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0123:rconac]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 528
Knick, S. T., Dobkin, D. S., Rotenberry, J. T., Schroeder, M. A., Vander Haegen, W. M., & van Riper, C. (2003) · The Condor · doi:10.1093/condor/105.4.611 · Cited by 455
Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas
PARRISH, J. D., BRAUN, D. P., & UNNASCH, R. S. (2003) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0851:awcwws]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Venue
- Ecological Restoration
- Publisher
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95.1-95
- ISSN
- 1522-4740 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-4060
- 1543-4079
- OpenAlex
- W138108888
- Cited by
- 899
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.50
- 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: Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3368/er.14.1.95
- The paper
- Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. (1996). Ecological Restoration. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.14.1.95
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.