Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Amphibian Distributions in a Landscape of Forests and Agriculture: an Examination of Landscape Composition and Conf iguration

Guerry, Anne D., Hunter, Malcolm L.·2002·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Landscapes can be described by two essential features: the composition and spatial arrangement of patches. We considered the roles of these basic landscape descriptors by examining how the occurrence of nine amphibian species in breeding ponds was associated with the area of forested habitat and the proximity of ponds to forested habitat. We used visual and call surveys to compare the composition of amphibian assemblages in 116 ponds adjacent to or separated from forest and surrounded by different amounts of forested land. The area of forest and pond adjacency to forest were not associated ( t = −0.13, n isolated = 64, n connected = 52, p = 0.21), which means these factors can manifest their effects separately. We used logistic regression to test predictions about associations between each species and forest area and to test for associations with pond‐forest adjacency. Seven of nine species were associated with forest area. Wood frogs ( Rana sylvatica ), green frogs ( Rana clamitans ), eastern newts ( Notopthalmus viridescens ), spotted salamanders ( Ambystoma maculatum ), and salamanders of the blue‐spotted/Jefferson's complex ( Ambystoma laterale/A. jeffersonianum ) were more likely to occupy ponds in more forested areas, whereas leopard frogs ( Rana pipiens ) and American toads ( Bufo americanus ) were negatively associated with forest area. Three species were associated with pond‐forest adjacency. Spotted salamanders and salamanders of the blue‐spotted/Jefferson's complex were more likely to occupy ponds that were adjacent to forest. In areas with little forest, leopard frogs were more likely to occur in adjacent ponds, but the reverse was true for areas with extensive forests. Our results suggest that the composition of the landscape surrounding breeding ponds is associated with the likelihood of occurrence of most of the species examined and that landscape configuration is also important for a smaller subset of species.

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.1523-1739.2002.00557.x

Cites

52 of 52 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 52 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Guerry, A. D., & Hunter, M. L.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-05-28
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
745-754
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2118356058
Cited by
323
References
52
FWCI
12.61
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: Amphibian Distributions in a Landscape of Forests and Agriculture: an Examination of Landscape Composition and Conf iguration. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00557.x
The paper
Guerry, A. D., & Hunter, M. L. (2002). Amphibian Distributions in a Landscape of Forests and Agriculture: an Examination of Landscape Composition and Conf iguration. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00557.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.