Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence

Open access
DAVIES, KENDI F., MARGULES, CHRIS R.·1998·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

1. We tested for effects of habitat fragmentation in a controlled, replicated, field experiment, in south‐eastern Australia. Our experimental subjects were eight carabid beetle species, and the carabid assemblage (45 species). Monitoring was by pitfall trapping in forest remnants and in adjacent continuous‐forest controls. Remnants were of three sizes (0·25, 0·875, 3·062 ha.). Monitoring commenced 2 years prior to habitat fragmentation. Here we present results for 6 years after habitat fragmentation (4 years for species richness). 2. We tested four hypotheses. Hypothesis one: habitat fragmentation reduces species richness in the remaining remnants. Carabid species richness was not different in habitat remnants compared to continuous forest, neither was carabid richness different for remnants of different sizes, or at monitoring sites close to remnant edges compared to sites in remnant interiors. 3. Hypothesis two: populations decline as a result of habitat fragmentation. Two species of eight were completely isolated on remnants and both declined in abundance on remnants compared to control plots in continuous forest. The other six species responded in various ways, which included relative increases and decreases in abundance and no change, but as they were not completely isolated on remnants, their responses could not be explained by isolation. 4. Hypothesis three: remaining subpopulations decline further on smaller habitat remnants than on larger remnants. Three species responded to remnant size; one was most abundant in small remnants, the second was most abundant in large remnants, and the third was equally abundant in small and large remnants and less abundant in medium‐sized remnants. 5. Hypothesis four: populations near to remnant edges decline further than populations in remnant interiors. Two species were more likely to occur in remnant interiors than at edges, whereas three species were equally likely to occur in remnant interiors and at edges. 6. The effects of habitat fragmentation may be the consequence of: (i) isolation; and (ii) habitat modification. In this study, we were able to consider effects of isolation for two carabid species. We tested only one aspect of the habitat modification hypothesis, edge effects. We discuss the possibility that other aspects of habitat modification in remnants may explain some of our results and suggest that this is where future research be directed.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00210.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
DAVIES, K. F., & MARGULES, C. R.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-05
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
460-471
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W2032766783
Cited by
276
References
2
FWCI
11.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00210.x
The paper
DAVIES, K. F., & MARGULES, C. R. (1998). Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: experimental evidence. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00210.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.