Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo

Open access
Davis, Andrew J., Holloway, Jeremy D., Huijbregts, Hans, Krikken, Jan, Kirk‐Spriggs, Ashley H., Sutton, Stephen L.·2001·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: We reviewed the use of dung beetles as indicators of environmental change, highlighting the influence of natural forest dynamics on species distributions in primary forest and suggesting new ways in which this can be used to understand and interpret the effects of disturbance such as logging. These ideas were applied to rainforest dung beetle communities in Sabah, Malaysia. Dung beetle samples, using baited pitfall and flight intercept traps, were examined from primary, logged and plantation forests. Cluster analysis on dung beetle assemblages from primary forest samples showed clear species associations that had a high degree of fidelity to a particular biotope or vegetation type. Beetles were grouped into riverine‐edge, riverine, interior‐primary and ‘even’ (equitable distribution between biotopes) associations. Although biotope‐specific associations were spatially separate in primary forest, these associations overlapped at forest margins (riverine forest) and in logged forest (to form ‘composite assemblages’). Species associations showed different responses to disturbance: the riverine association included many species that showed a positive response to at least some types of disturbance, whereas others were neutral or negative in response; the even association species were mostly neutral; the primary forest associations were almost entirely negative in response. The greatest faunal similarities were found between logged forest and riverine assemblages. Diversity was lower in logged compared with primary forest, and the lowest species richness and diversity were recorded in plantation forest. Small‐scale species richness in logged forest was generally higher than in individual transects from primary forest due to the presence of overlapping species ranges (composite assemblages) that were usually spatially separate in primary forest. Data suggested that increased species richness at a fine scale does not necessarily mean that species richness is greater at a larger scale, and that species mixing in derived ecosystems is dependent on the type of disturbance. Forest management should aim to minimize the mixing of the components of different biotopes, by implementing low impact (i.e. reduced‐impact logging) harvesting techniques.

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.1365-2664.2001.00619.x

Cites

79 of 79 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 79 references

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Davis, A. J., Holloway, J. D., Huijbregts, H., Krikken, J., Kirk‐Spriggs, A. H., & Sutton, S. L.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-06
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
593-616
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W1979073388
Cited by
342
References
79
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00619.x
The paper
Davis, A. J., Holloway, J. D., Huijbregts, H., Krikken, J., Kirk‐Spriggs, A. H., & Sutton, S. L. (2001). Dung beetles as indicators of change in the forests of northern Borneo. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00619.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.