Forest Canopies, Animal Diversity
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Comparative analysis suggests that organisms morphologically similar to acoels likely occurred below the last common protostome-deuterostome ancestor (LCPDA).
“comparative analysis suggests that organisms morphologically similar to acoels likely occurred below the LCPDA [18].”
From Early metazoan life: divergence, environment and ecology (2015) · cites this paper as [18]
Macroevolutionary lags between the origin of the morphologic novelty and innovation have been well documented in the fossil record.
“Macroevolutionary lags between the origin of the morphologic novelty and innovation have been well documented in the fossil record [18,62,63].”
From Early metazoan life: divergence, environment and ecology (2015) · cites this paper as [18]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Erwin, T. L.
- Corresponding author
- Erwin, Terry L.
- ORCID
- Erwin, Terry L.
- Venue
- Encyclopedia of Biodiversity
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Published
- 2013
- Pages
- 327-332
- OpenAlex
- W4388177178
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2012: 1
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Elsevier eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
- Keywords
- forest canopy, animal biodiversity, biodiversity, canopy fauna
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
