Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

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

How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies?

Open access
Krauss, Jochen, Steffan‐Dewenter, Ingolf, Tscharntke, Teja·2003·Journal of Biogeography

Abstract

Aim Studies on habitat fragmentation of insect communities mostly ignore the impact of the surrounding landscape matrix and treat all species equally. In our study, on habitat fragmentation and the importance of landscape context, we expected that habitat specialists are more affected by area and isolation, and habitat generalists more by landscape context. Location and methods The study was conducted in the vicinity of the city of Göttingen in Germany in the year 2000. We analysed butterfly communities by transect counts on thirty‐two calcareous grasslands differing in size (0.03–5.14 ha), isolation index (2100–86,000/edge‐to‐edge distance 55–1894 m), and landscape diversity (Shannon–Wiener: 0.09–1.56), which is correlated to percentage grassland in the landscape. Results A total of 15,185 butterfly specimens belonging to fifty‐four species are recorded. In multiple regression analysis, the number of habitat specialist (n = 20) and habitat generalist (n = 34) butterfly species increased with habitat area, but z‐values (slopes) of the species–area relationships for specialists (z = 0.399) were significantly steeper compared with generalists (z = 0.096). Generalists, but not specialists, showed a marginally significant increase with landscape diversity. Effects of landscape diversity were scale‐dependent and significant only at the smallest scale (landscape context within a 250 m radius around the habitat). Habitat isolation was not related to specialist and generalist species numbers. In multiple regression analysis the density of specialists increased significantly with habitat area, whereas generalist density increased only marginally. Habitat isolation and landscape diversity did not show any effects. Main conclusions Habitat area was the most important predictor of butterfly community structure and influenced habitat specialists more than habitat generalists. In contrast to our expectations, habitat isolation had no effect as most butterflies could cope with the degree of isolation in our study region. Landscape diversity appeared to be important for generalist butterflies only.

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.1365-2699.2003.00878.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 356

Metadata

Authors
Krauss, J., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Tscharntke, T.
Venue
Journal of Biogeography
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05-29
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
889-900
ISSN
  • 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2699
OpenAlex
W2107762454
Cited by
356
References
2
FWCI
13.20
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: How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00878.x
The paper
Krauss, J., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Tscharntke, T. (2003). How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? Journal of Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00878.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.