The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY 1. There is little information on the impacts of deforestation on the fish fauna in neotropical streams, and on parameters influencing species diversity and community structure of fish. We analysed these aspects in 12 stream sites in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The stream sites represented a large gradient in canopy cover and were located in an area of fragmented forest. While some streams had been deforested, they had not suffered gross degradation of the habitat. 2. The species richness of stream fish was not related to deforestation. Local fish diversity (Fisher's Alpha) was positively related to the surface area of stream pools (m 2). Beta diversity was higher among forested than deforested sites, indicating greater heterogeneity in species composition among forested than deforested sites. The percentage of rare species was positively correlated with canopy cover. 3. Total fish density increased with deforestation, and the fish community changed from dominance by omnivorous and insectivorous Characiformes at forested sites to dominance of periphyton‐feeding loricariids at deforested sites. 4. Multidimensional statistical analysis of fish community structure showed that six environmental variables (the area of stream bottom covered by leaves, relative pool area, particulate organic matter, mean depth, conductivity and suspended solids) were related to the ordination axes. The presence of leaves, which was strongly correlated to canopy cover, was the variable most closely related to fish community structure, while relative pool area was the second strongest variable. Thus, fish community structure was strongly affected by deforestation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In 12 Ecuadorian Amazon stream sites spanning a canopy-cover gradient, deforestation did not reduce fish species richness but increased total fish density and shifted biomass dominance toward periphyton-feeding loricariids. Fish community structure was most strongly related to leaf cover on the stream bottom, followed by relative pool area.
Key findings
- Species richness was not related to deforestation: 42 species were caught in deforested sites versus 35 in forested sites, with mean species richness 20 versus 15 and mean Fisher’s Alpha 3.34 versus 2.92, neither significantly different.
- Beta diversity was higher among forested than deforested sites (Whittaker’s Beta 1.31 versus 1.12; Routledge’s Beta 0.52 versus 0.22), and the percentage of rare species was positively correlated with canopy cover (r = 0.62*).
- Total fish density increased with deforestation, while total biomass was not significantly related to canopy cover (P = 0.08); Loricariidae made up 29% of biomass in deforested sites versus 5% in forested sites.
- Correspondence analysis linked fish community structure most strongly to leaf cover on the stream bottom (axis 1 correlation 0.90*), with relative pool area, mean depth, conductivity, and suspended solids also related to axis 2.
Methods
- The study sampled 12 sites in nine headwater streams (orders 1–3) in the upper Rio Napo catchment, Ecuadorian Amazon; six sites were forested (canopy cover >50%) and six deforested (canopy cover <50%), with canopy cover ranging from 6 to 82%.
- Fish were sampled in 1999 during wet and dry seasons using push seine, gill net, and minnow traps; density and biomass estimates included active and gill-net fishing, while trap catches were excluded from quantitative estimates and used only for species richness.
- Analyses included Fisher’s Alpha diversity, beta diversity indices, PCA on 27 environmental variables, DCA/CA ordination of fish assemblage data, and Spearman/Pearson correlations with habitat variables.
Limitations
- The paper states that fish abundance data are semiquantitative because none of the sampling techniques used are truly quantitative, and trap catches were excluded from density and biomass estimates.
- The authors note that distinguishing stream-size effects from deforestation effects is difficult, and that their study area involved small-scale forest fragmentation rather than clear cutting with gross habitat degradation.
- The paper states it did not demonstrate increased periphyton productivity with declining canopy cover, only higher periphyton biomass and likely light availability; evident limitations include the small sample of six sites per category and the correlational, single-timeframe design.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
70 Own result · 39 Own interpretation · 16 No full text of the sources · 13 No basis given · 6 Own method · 5 Sources not found · 4 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The species richness of stream fish was not related to deforestation.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ordination by DCA for the fish species data resulted in an axis 1 gradient length of 3.4 SD, indicating that species turnover was at a range where non-linear methods are appropriate (results not shown) (ter Braak & Prentice, 1988).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Multidimensional statistical analysis.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multidimensional statistical analysis of fish community structure showed that six environmental variables (the area of stream bottom covered by leaves, relative pool area, particulate organic matter, mean depth, conductivity and suspended solids) were related to the ordination axes.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the total number of species in the forested and deforested sites, Characiformes accounted for 44 and 50%, and Siluriformes for 20 and 26%, respectively.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Taxonomic composition of fish fauna
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 2405 individuals, representing 48 species and 16 families, were collected in the 12 stream reaches (Table 2).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Taxonomic composition of fish fauna
plainn = 2,405- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cichlidae were represented by six species in the forested sites and five species in the deforested sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Taxonomic composition of fish fauna
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the fish community changed from dominance by omnivorous and insectivorous Characiformes at forested sites to dominance of periphyton-feeding loricariids at deforested sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Total fish density increased with deforestation”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of leaves, which was strongly correlated to canopy cover”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The presence of leaves, which was strongly correlated to canopy cover, was the variable most closely related to fish community structure”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of Characidae, all 15 species occurred in deforested sites but only 11 in forested sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Taxonomic composition of fish fauna
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some deforested sites the loricariid species made up more than 50% of the total biomass, while the relative abundance of omnivorous and insectivorous Characiformes declined.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Leaf cover was closely correlated with canopy cover (Table 1) and reflected the degree of deforestation.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patterns in fish species diversity, overall density and biomass, and community structure were mainly related to leaf cover on the stream bottom, canopy cover at the stream reach scale, and to absolute and relative pool areas.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, one site with low canopy cover had high leaf cover and high conductivity.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Multidimensional statistical analysis
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lower heterogeneity of the fish fauna in the deforested sites was not due to a decline in the absolute number of rare species, but rather to a greater abundance of certain species in the deforested sites.”
- Also stated in: § Species diversity · plain
“In other words, some species changed from being rare in the forested sites to being common in the deforested sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Species diversity · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the deforested sites, Beta diversity (i.e.species heterogeneity) and the relative presence of rare species was lower than in forested sites.”
- Also stated in: § Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation? · plain
“Deforestation influenced the fish fauna by leading to (1) a lower heterogeneity in species composition between sites”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation? · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This forested site had the lowest canopy cover (68%) among the forested sites and was shallow with high current velocity.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Multidimensional statistical analysis
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, one site with high canopy cover had low leaf cover.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Multidimensional statistical analysis
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results showed, however, that total fish density and biomass were positively affected by deforestation, while species richness was unaffected.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study emphasises the importance of pool size for species richness, species composition and abundance”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although total fish biomass was positively related to relative pool area, but not to absolute pool area, we assume that this relationship reflects space limitation.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“For temperate streams, riparian canopy cover is a very important parameter structuring the fish fauna in relation to longitudinal distribution and to deforestation (e.g.Schlosser, 1991;Hughes & Noss, 1992;Lenat & Crawford, 1994;Collares-Pereira et al., 1995;Wang et al., 1997;Harding et al., 1998;Jones et al., 1999;Marsh-Matthews & Matthews, 2000).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“in Mexico, Lyons et al. (1995) found more individuals in deforested streams.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lyons et al., 1995 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Costa Rica, Burcham (1988) found species richness in pasture streams to be higher than in forest streams.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Burcham, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, most studies have been conducted in areas affected by clear cutting, leading to a profound degradation of stream habitats.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Half of the sites were forested (undisturbed by clear cutting at the study site; canopy cover >50%) while the other half were deforested (disturbed by clear cutting at the study site; canopy cover <50%), resulting in a gradient of canopy cover from 6 to 82% among the 12 study sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Study area and sampling sites
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conclusions are often confounded by differences in physical characteristics.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The stream sites represented a large gradient in canopy cover and were located in an area of fragmented forest.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A basic difficulty in stream studies is to distinguish between the effects of stream size (longitudinal effects) and that of deforestation.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the extensive ongoing deforestation in tropical areas little information exists concerning its impact on fish assemblages in streams, or even on the processes structuring fish communities in tropical streams.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The opposite conclusion was reached for Mexican (Lyons et al., 1995) and African streams (Kamdem Toham & Teugels, 1999).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some authors have proposed that a greater proportion of the fish community is supported by autochthonous sources of food in deforested catchments (Angermeier & Karr, 1983;Burcham, 1988).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Angermeier & Karr, 1983 source
- Not matchedcites Burcham, 1988
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research on fish community structure, species richness and density in temperate and tropical regions shows equivocal results on the effects of deforestation.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some studies on the longitudinal succession of tropical stream fish, and on the relationship between the tropical riverine environment and the fish fauna, have suggested an impact of deforestation (e.g.Angermeier & Karr, 1983;Castro & Casatti, 1997;Kamdem Toham & Teugels, 1998)”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In Africa, Kamdem Toham & Teugels (1999) found fewer individuals per sample in deforested streams”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kamdem Toham & Teugels, 1999 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was conduc-ted in an area of fragmented forest with streams that had not suffered dramatic changes in habitat characteristics.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Power (1984) also found a significant increase in the density of the periphyton-feeding catfishes (Loricariidae) in Panamanian streams with decreasing canopy cover.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Power, 1984 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In contrast, Jones et al. (1999) found that total fish abundance decreased with deforestation upstream of their sampling sites in the little Tennessee River drainage in North Carolina and Georgia”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jones et al. (1999) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These parameters have been related to stream fish community patterns in many studies (Pusey, Arthington & Read, 1993;Taylor, Winston & Matthews, 1993;Kamdem Toham & Teugels, 1998)”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those species positioned at the centre of the diagram are unrelated to the ordinations axis, and are ubiquitous species”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Multidimensional statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These species are either omnivorous or insectivorous and probably became more abundance because of the increase in macroinvertebrate density at the deforested sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and Jones et al. (1999) found the abundance of fine sediment to increase with the length of deforested reaches upstream of the sampling sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jones et al. (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Density might therefore not reflect the use of space as well as biomass, and this could explain why total density was not related to relative pool area.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The positive relationship between total fish biomass and relative pool area reflects space limitation.
- Rests on an assumption: There are large differences in the body size of tropical stream fish and small individuals often dominate the fauna.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Leaf cover might have been a better predictor of fish community structure than canopy cover, because other parameters such as current velocity, water depth and substratum type also influenced the retention of leaves on the stream bottom.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that periphyton biomass was not only important for community structure overall, but also for the size structure of periphyton-feeding fish.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation?
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Previous studies have demonstrated a positive effect of deforestation on total fish abundance (Lenat & Crawford, 1994;Agostinho & Penczak, 1995;Lyons et al., 1995;Harding et al., 1998).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and they may also have influenced our results.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Also, fish such as loricariids may be less at risk of predation by birds and mammals when in pools (Power, 1984).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Power, 1984 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Many species are associated with large pools (Angermeier & Karr, 1983).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Angermeier & Karr, 1983 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This relationship might depend on the size of the pools.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This parameter is correlated with pool morphology, and may reflect the influence of current velocity, substratum type and food availability.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Patterns in fish community structure and environmental variables
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Pools are a heterogeneous habitat, with low current velocity and often rich in allochthonous food resources, which are favoured by many fish species.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results may depend on the fact that stream habitat quality was not substantially affected by deforestation at our sites, while fish density and biomass appeared to benefit from the larger amount of food (periphyton and macroinvertebrates) available in the deforested sites.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The positive relationship between species richness and habitat size is not only associated with sampling effort, but is also due to increasing habitat heterogeneity, as suggested by Williams (1964).”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Williams (1964)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The species positioned at the edge of the diagram are rare species.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Multidimensional statistical analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Burcham (1988) found that periphyton-feeding fish dominated a Costa Rican stream surrounded by pasture while they made up only a small proportion of the fish fauna in a forested stream.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Burcham (1988)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Fish faunas in neotropical streams are often dominated by benthic species (Covich, 1988)”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Covich, 1988 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Because the forested stream had a clay ⁄ silt substratum, and the pasture stream had a cobble ⁄ gravel substratum”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Burcham (1988)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and it is likely that siltation has a strong negative impact.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Species diversity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Periphyton-feeding fish are common in Neotropical streams.
“Because periphyton-feeding fish are common in Neotropical streams, we hypothesised that the increased dominance of periphyton-feeding fishes would be a consequence of deforestation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Little information is available on the influence of small-scale deforestation (fragmentation of forest by subsistence farmers) on stream fish communities in the Amazon and elsewhere.
“Little information is available on the influence of small-scale deforestation (fragmentation of forest by subsistence farmers) on stream fish communities in the Amazon and elsewhere.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The deforested streams had not suffered gross degradation of the habitat.
“While some streams had been deforested, they had not suffered gross degradation of the habitat.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is possible to identify four major pool habitats (edge, bottom, surface and middle), while riffles have only the bottom and edge habitat.
“It is possible to identify four major pool habitats (edge, bottom, surface and middle), while riffles have only the bottom and edge habitat.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The positive relationship between total fish biomass and relative pool area reflects space limitation.
“Although total fish biomass was positively related to relative pool area, but not to absolute pool area, we assume that this relationship reflects space limitation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are large differences in the body size of tropical stream fish and small individuals often dominate the fauna.
“There are large differences in the body size of tropical stream fish and small individuals often dominate the fauna.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Several fish species use fallen leaves for feeding and shelter.
“Finally, several species use fallen leaves for feeding and shelter, making them an important structural and functional parameter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Opposing patterns (positive and negative effects of deforestation) have been found for species richness.
“The same opposing patterns were found for species richness.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Pools are a heterogeneous habitat, with low current velocity and often rich in allochthonous food resources, which are favoured by many fish species.
“As already discussed, pools are a heterogeneous habitat, with low current velocity and often rich in allochthonous food resources, which are favoured by many fish species.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Data analysis
“Fisher's Alpha index was regressed against total stream reach area.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Overall species diversity
“The residual values from the simple linear regression between Fishers Alpha and pool area were used as area-independent estimate of fish species richness”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Environmental variables
“Mean current velocity was calculated as the time elapsed for half of the salt to pass the stream reach divided by the length of the reach.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Additional information
“Mean current velocity (m s )1 ) 0.15 (0.05-0.29)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Additional information
“Pebble (%) 22”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Additional information
“(10-20)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Do periphyton-feeders dominate as a result of deforestation?
“Line was fitted by simple linear regression: y ¼ 0.03x + 3.79.”
§ Effects of deforestation on fish community structure in Ecuadorian Amazon streams > Overall fish biomass and density
“The relative biomass of Loricariidae was inversely related to canopy cover (Fig. 5).”
Citations
Cites
ter Braak, C. J. F., & Prentice, I. C. (2004) · Advances in ecological research/Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/s0065-2504(03)34003-6 · Cited by 1,975
Ter Braak, C. J. F., & Prentice, I. C. (1988) · Advances in Ecological Research · doi:10.1016/s0065-2504(08)60183-x · Cited by 1,963
Habitat Structure and Stream Fish Communities
Gorman, O. T., & Karr, J. R. (1978) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1936581 · Cited by 1,125
Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past
Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S., & Jones, E. B. D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 · Cited by 1,040
Stream Fish Ecology: A Landscape Perspective
Schlosser, I. J. (1991) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1311765 · Cited by 844
Patterns in the Balance of Nature
Urquhart, N. S., & Williams, C. B. (1966) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528236 · Cited by 781
Competition in Tropical Stream Fishes: Support for the Competitive Exclusion Principle
Zaret, T. M., & Rand, A. S. (1971) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1934593 · Cited by 762
Fish Community Structure and Function along Two Habitat Gradients in a Headwater Stream
Schlosser, I. J. (1982) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/2937352 · Cited by 702
Measuring Beta Diversity with Presence-Absence Data
Wilson, M. V., & Shmida, A. (1984) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.2307/2259551 · Cited by 627
Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams
Lenat, D. R., & Crawford, J. K. (1994) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/bf00021291 · Cited by 586
Species‐Area Relationship for Stream Fishes
Angermeier, P. L., & Schlosser, I. J. (1989) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1938204 · Cited by 412
Species Diversity in Space and Time
Maurer, B. A., & Rosenzweig, M. L. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265609 · Cited by 366
Fish communities along environmental gradients in a system of tropical streams
Angermeier, P. L., & Karr, J. R. (1984) · Developments in environmental biology of fishes · doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7682-6_3 · Cited by 297
Effects of Riparian Forest Removal on Fish Assemblages in Southern Appalachian Streams
Jones, E. B. D., Helfman, G. S., Harper, J. O., & Bolstad, P. V. (1999) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98172.x · Cited by 295
Fish communities along environmental gradients in a system of tropical streams
Angermeier, P. L., & Karr, J. R. (1983) · Environmental Biology of Fishes · doi:10.1007/bf00690857 · Cited by 279
Habitat Quality and the Distribution of Algae-Grazing Catfish in a Panamanian Stream
Power, M. E. (1984) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/4521 · Cited by 236
Covich, A. P. (1988) · Journal of the North American Benthological Society · doi:10.2307/1467297 · Cited by 210
Lyons, J., Navarro‐Pérez, S., Cochran, P. A., Santana, E. C., & Guzmán‐Arroyo, M. (1995) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09030569.x · Cited by 207
The Influence of Habitat Structure on Fish Assemblage Composition in Southeastern Blackwater Streams
Meffe, G. K., & Sheldon, A. L. (1988) · The American Midland Naturalist · doi:10.2307/2425994 · Cited by 162
Baattrup‐Pedersen, A., & Riis, T. (1999) · Freshwater Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.444487.x · Cited by 161
Wildfire and Native Fish: Issues of Forest Health and Conservation of Sensitive Species
Rieman, B. E., & Clayton, J. C. (1997) · Fisheries · doi:10.1577/1548-8446(1997)022 · Cited by 135
Marsh‐Matthews, E., & Matthews, W. J. (2000) · Ecology Of Freshwater Fish · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0633.2000.90103.x · Cited by 131
Pusey, B. J., Arthington, A. H., & Read, M. G. (1993) · Environmental Biology of Fishes · doi:10.1007/bf00005204 · Cited by 112
Kamdem Toham, A., & Teugels, G. G. (1999) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1023/a:1003605801875 · Cited by 109
Fish species‐environment and abundance relationships in a Great Plains river system
Taylor, C. M., Winston, M. R., & Matthews, W. J. (1993) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.1993.tb00054.x · Cited by 107
A Sampling Technique for Littoral Stone Dwelling Organisms
Dall, P. C. (1979) · Oikos · doi:10.2307/3544518 · Cited by 77
Fish communities and environmental characteristics of two lowland streams in Costa Rica
Burchman, J. (2016) · Americanae (AECID Library) · Cited by 64
Kamdem Toham, A., & Teugels, G. G. (1998) · Fundamental and Applied Limnology · doi:10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/141/1998/421 · Cited by 62
Mérigoux, S., Ponton, D., & de Mérona, B. (1998) · Environmental Biology of Fishes · doi:10.1023/a:1007422100976 · Cited by 61
A Large-scale Comparative Analysis of Riffle and Pool Fish Communities in an Upland Stream System
Taylor, C. M. (2000) · Environmental Biology of Fishes · doi:10.1023/a:1007677718275 · Cited by 53
Fish communities and environmental characteristics of two lowland streams in Costa Rica
Burcham, J. K. (1985) · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries) · Cited by 37
Populations and production of fish in two small tributaries of the Paran� River, Paran�, Brazil
Agostinho, A. A., & Penczak, T. (1995) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/bf00015508 · Cited by 34
Riparian ecotones and spatial variation of fish assemblages in Portuguese lowland streams
Collares‐Pereira, M. J., Magalhães, M. F., Geraldes, A. M., & Coelho, M. M. (1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3360-1_9 · Cited by 32
Riparian ecotones and spatial variation of fish assemblages in Portuguese lowland streams
Collares‐Pereira, M. J., Magalhães, M. F., Geraldes, A. M., & Coelho, M. M. (1995) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/bf00034047 · Cited by 25
FOX-WILLIAMS, J. (1964) · Nature · doi:10.1038/204816b0
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Castro R.M.C., 1997, The fish fauna from a small forest stream of the upper Paraná River basin, southeastern Brazil, Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters, 7, 337
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Landscapes and Riverscapes: The Influence of Land Use on Stream Ecosystems
Allan, J. D. (2004) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.120202.110122 · Cited by 3,626
Large‐scale degradation of Amazonian freshwater ecosystems
Castello, L., & Macedo, M. N. (2015) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13173 · Cited by 568
FISH DISTRIBUTIONS AND NUTRIENT CYCLING IN STREAMS: CAN FISH CREATE BIOGEOCHEMICAL HOTSPOTS
McIntyre, P. B., Flecker, A. S., Vanni, M. J., Hood, J. M., Taylor, B. W., & Thomas, S. A. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-1552.1 · Cited by 313
Biodiversity conservation in human-modified Amazonian forest landscapes
Peres, C. A., Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., Zuanon, J. A. S., Michalski, F., Lees, A. C., Vieira, I. C. G., Moreira, F. M. D. S., & Feeley, K. J. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.021 · Cited by 308
Leitão, R. P., Zuanon, J. A. S., Mouillot, D., Leal, C. G., Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Villéger, S., Pompeu, P. D. S., Kasper, D., de Paula, F. R., et al. (2017) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/ecog.02845 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Bojsen, B. H., & Barriga, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- National Polytechnic School (EC)
- Corresponding author
- Bojsen, B. H.
- ORCID
- Barriga, R.
- Venue
- Freshwater Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-10-25
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2246-2260
- ISSN
- 0046-5070 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2427
- OpenAlex
- W2109533734
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Freshwater Biology (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Udenrigsministeriet
- Rådet for Udviklingsforskning
- Danish International Development Agency
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish biology, ecology, and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
- Keywords
- deforestation, fish community structure, Amazonian streams, canopy cover, beta diversity, species richness, fish density, Characiformes, Loricariidae, leaf cover, stream pools, habitat heterogeneity, forest fragmentation, Neotropical streams
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
