The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of forest fragmentation on dung beetle communities and functional consequences for plant regeneration
Abstract
I compared dung beetle communities and assessed some of their functional effects (dung removal, seed burial, seedling establishment) in continuous forest with those in 1‐ha and 10‐ha forest fragments in Central Amazonia. I followed the fate of seeds until seedling establishment for three native tree species, using clean seeds and seeds surrounded by dung. The 1‐ha fragments had half the number of dung beetle species captured in continuous forest and in 10‐ha fragments. The continuous forest sites and the 1‐ha fragments had similar number of individuals, but in the 10‐ha fragments dung beetles were twice as abundant. Mean beetle size increased with increasing forest area. Dung removal and seed burial rates were higher in continuous forest than in forest fragments. Seed predation rates were higher in the forest fragments. In all sites, the proportion of seedlings established from seeds surrounded by dung vs clean seeds was the same, and it was the same in continuous forest vs fragments. When comparing seeds that remained on the forest floor with seeds buried by dung beetles, a higher percentage of seedlings established from the latter. Conservation programs that aim to maintain the regeneration ability of forest fragments must incorporate all the important components involved in seedling establishment; in Central Amazonia these include dung beetles as secondary dispersers. It is important that studies start measuring directly not only the first‐order effects of forest fragmentation on species, but also the higher‐order functional effects.
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
Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning
Larsen, T. H., Williams, N. M., & Kremen, C. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00749.x · Cited by 695
Nichols, E., Larsen, T., Spector, S., Davis, A. L., Escobar, F., Favila, M., & Vulinec, K. (2007) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.023 · Cited by 631
P LANT-I NSECT I NTERACTIONS IN F RAGMENTED L ANDSCAPES
Tscharntke, T., & Brandl, R. (2004) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123339 · Cited by 559
Diplochory: are two seed dispersers better than one?
Vander Wall, S. B., & Longland, W. S. (2004) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.12.004 · Cited by 330
SLADE, E. M., MANN, D. J., VILLANUEVA, J. F., & LEWIS, O. T. (2007) · Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01296.x · Cited by 327
Metadata
- Authors
- Andresen, E.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-97
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W1989575065
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.36
- 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: Effect of forest fragmentation on dung beetle communities and functional consequences for plant regeneration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03362.x
- The paper
- Andresen, E. (2003). Effect of forest fragmentation on dung beetle communities and functional consequences for plant regeneration. Ecography. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03362.x
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.