Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 339

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impacts of ecosystem fragmentation on plant populations: generalising the idiosyncratic

Hobbs, Richard J., Yates, Colin J.·2003·Australian Journal of Botany

Abstract

Fragmentation of natural vegetation is one of the most pervasive changes in terrestrial ecosystems across the Earth. Developing a general understanding of how fragmentation affects plant and animal populations is essential to meet the pressing need for guidelines for the management of fragmented systems. Nevertheless, this general understanding has to take account of differences in ecosystem types and different biogeographic, evolutionary and ecological backgrounds against which fragmentation impacts are played out in different parts of the world. Here, we examine fragmentation impacts on plant populations by considering the processes underlying fragmentation. We suggest that it is critical to focus on the key processes that are important in particular situations, rather than assuming that the same factors are likely to be important everywhere. In other words, there are inevitable limits to generalisation because of the idiosyncratic nature of the geography, history and biota of different regions. Studies on the effects of fragmentation on plant populations have focused on a limited subset of plant types and have concentrated heavily on reproductive output rather than actual regeneration success. These studies have indicated a clear impact of fragmentation on fecundity, but there is no clear signal in terms of the actual importance of this in relation to population viability. Other factors including local habitat conditions, disturbance and competition from weeds may be just as important as the classical biogeographical impacts of fragmentation. Generalisations based on a clear assessment of key life-history processes may be valuable tools in developing management responses to ecosystem fragmentation, but this requires considerably more emphasis on factors affecting successful recruitment as well as factors affecting fecundity.

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 · 10.1071/bt03037

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Hobbs, R. J., & Yates, C. J.
Venue
Australian Journal of Botany
Published
2003-09-26
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
471-488
ISSN
  • 0067-1924 (ISSN-L)
  • 1444-9862
OpenAlex
W1963405395
Cited by
339
References
4
FWCI
8.04
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: Impacts of ecosystem fragmentation on plant populations: generalising the idiosyncratic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/bt03037
The paper
Hobbs, R. J., & Yates, C. J. (2003). Impacts of ecosystem fragmentation on plant populations: generalising the idiosyncratic. Australian Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1071/bt03037

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.