CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 368

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combining paleo-data and modern exclosure experiments to assess the impact of megafauna extinctions on woody vegetation

Bakker, Elisabeth S., Gill, Jacquelyn L., Johnson, Christopher N., Vera, Frans W. M., Sandom, Christopher J., Asner, Gregory P., Svenning, Jens-Christian·2016·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1502545112
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Until recently in Earth history, very large herbivores (mammoths, ground sloths, diprotodons, and many others) occurred in most of the World’s terrestrial ecosystems, but the majority have gone extinct as part of the late-Quaternary extinctions. How has this large-scale removal of large herbivores affected landscape structure and ecosystem functioning? In this review, we combine paleo-data with information from modern exclosure experiments to assess the impact of large herbivores (and their disappearance) on woody species, landscape structure, and ecosystem functions. In modern landscapes characterized by intense herbivory, woody plants can persist by defending themselves or by association with defended species, can persist by growing in places that are physically inaccessible to herbivores, or can persist where high predator activity limits foraging by herbivores. At the landscape scale, different herbivore densities and assemblages may result in dynamic gradients in woody cover. The late-Quaternary extinctions were natural experiments in large-herbivore removal; the paleoecological record shows evidence of widespread changes in community composition and ecosystem structure and function, consistent with modern exclosure experiments. We propose a conceptual framework that describes the impact of large herbivores on woody plant abundance mediated by herbivore diversity and density, predicting that herbivore suppression of woody plants is strongest where herbivore diversity is high. We conclude that the decline of large herbivores induces major alterations in landscape structure and ecosystem functions.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1502545112

Cites

12 of 12 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If megafauna were important to ecosystem structure and function, their extinction probably initiated ecological cascades (legacy effects) that persist until modern times.

    “If megafauna were important to ecosystem structure and function, their extinction probably initiated ecological cascades (legacy effects) that persist until modern times [81,82].”

    From Potential distributions of pre-columbian people in tropical andean landscapes (2022) · cites this paper as [82]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 111

  1. 10.1098/rspb.2013.3254 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132415 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1126/science.1255641 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1111/1365-2745.12096 · DOI
  5. 10.1017/CBO9780511617461 · DOI
  6. 10.1098/rspb.2008.1921 · DOI
  7. 10.1111/nph.12576 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/1365-2745.12147 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00864.x · DOI
  10. 10.1093/biosci/biu059 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1098/rspb.2014.0390 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/1365-2745.12230 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1989.tb00246.x · DOI
  14. 10.2193/2007-072 · DOI
  15. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3587 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01842.x · DOI
  17. 10.1890/13-1135.1 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.09.019 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/2261500 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.actao.2011.05.005 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01595.x · DOI
  22. 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0205:CCATEO]2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1365-2028.1990.tb01136.x · DOI
  24. 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01644.x · DOI
  25. 10.1890/10-2097.1 · DOI
  26. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00292.x · DOI
  27. 10.1017/CBO9780511617461.008 · DOI
  28. 10.1126/science.1252753 · DOI
  29. 10.1017/CBO9780511617461.009 · DOI
  30. 10.2307/1939308 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1890/12-2015.1 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.015 · DOI
  33. 10.4102/koedoe.v56i1.1165 · DOI
  34. 10.2307/3237122 · DOI
  35. 10.1079/9780851994420.0000 · DOI
  36. 10.4098/AT.arch.97-39 · DOI
  37. 10.1017/CBO9781139033275 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00266.x · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1999.tb00236.x · DOI
  40. 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00908.x · DOI
  41. 10.1007/s00442-006-0650-6 · DOI
  42. 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990112.x · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.07.052 · DOI
  44. 10.1139/z90-092 · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1890/07-1250.1 · DOI
  46. 10.1139/z01-094 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1111/1365-2745.12095 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.07.004 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.yqres.2012.04.002 · DOI
  50. 10.1017/S0094837300008927 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.palaeo.2005.03.026 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.03.015 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.10.006 · DOI
  54. 10.1038/nature12921 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.10.001 · DOI
  56. 10.1002/ece3.1136 · DOI
  57. A Lister, P Bahn Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age (Univ of California Press, Oakland, CA, 2009).
  58. 10.1126/science.215.4528.19 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.actao.2011.01.014 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.045 · DOI
  61. 10.1086/285824 · DOI
  62. 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.02046.x · DOI
  63. 10.1073/pnas.0408315102 · DOI
  64. 10.1073/pnas.1534700100 · DOI
  65. 10.1890/03-4064 · DOI
  66. 10.1126/science.1214261 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.12.011 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.12.008 · DOI
  69. 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[2537:EHOISN]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  70. 10.1111/brv.12063 · DOI
  71. 10.1073/pnas.1311014111 · DOI
  72. 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00162-8 · DOI
  73. K Alexander, Wood decay, insects, palaeoecology, and woodland conservation policy and practice: Breaking the halter. Antenna 29, 171–178 (2005).
  74. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.10.010 · DOI
  75. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.10.005 · DOI
  76. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.11.024 · DOI
  77. 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01935.x · DOI
  78. 10.1073/pnas.0802421105 · DOI · Paper page
  79. C Barlow The Ghosts of Evolution: Nonsensical Fruit, Missing Partners, and Other Ecological Anachronisms (Basic Books, New York, 2002).
  80. 10.1007/s00442-009-1372-3 · DOI
  81. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.09.025 · DOI
  82. 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12720.x · DOI
  83. 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00202.x · DOI
  84. WJ Bond, JA Silander, Springs and wire plants: Anachronistic defences against Madagascar’s extinct elephant birds. Proc Biol Sci 274, 1985–1992 (2007).
  85. WG Lee, JR Wood, GM Rogers, Legacy of avian-dominated plant–herbivore systems in New Zealand. New Zeal Ecol 34, 28–47 (2010).
  86. 10.5194/bg-9-1809-2012 · DOI
  87. 10.1016/j.quaint.2011.06.048 · DOI
  88. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.03.020 · DOI
  89. 10.1098/rspb.1994.0052 · DOI
  90. 10.1038/415901a · DOI
  91. 10.1016/j.ppees.2011.04.004 · DOI
  92. 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01656.x · DOI
  93. 10.1073/pnas.1502554112 · DOI
  94. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.04.025 · DOI
  95. O Rackham Ancient Woodland: Its History, Vegetation and Uses in England (Edward Arnold, London, 1980).
  96. 10.1007/978-94-011-6081-0 · DOI
  97. 10.1126/science.1210465 · DOI · Paper page
  98. 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2012.01994.x · DOI
  99. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1996.tb01251.x · DOI
  100. 10.1073/pnas.1502556112 · DOI
  101. 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00323.x · DOI
  102. 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07146.x · DOI
  103. 10.1111/1365-2745.12218 · DOI
  104. 10.1126/science.346.6211.802 · DOI
  105. 10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025 · DOI · Paper page
  106. 10.1111/1365-2745.12130 · DOI
  107. 10.1016/j.quaint.2013.11.032 · DOI
  108. 10.1016/j.yqres.2015.01.008 · DOI
  109. 10.1038/nature10306 · DOI
  110. 10.1117/1.2794018 · DOI
  111. 10.1016/j.jnc.2013.09.004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bakker, E. S., Gill, J. L., Johnson, C. N., Vera, F. W. M., Sandom, C. J., Asner, G. P., & Svenning, J.-C.
Affiliations
  • Department of Aquatic Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands;
  • School of Biology and Ecology, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469;
  • School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia;
  • Community and Conservation Ecology, Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, 9700 CC Groningen, The Netherlands;
  • The Recanati–Kaplan Centre, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Tubney OX13 5QL, United Kingdom;
  • Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA 94305;
  • Section for Ecoinformatics & Biodiversity, Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-10-26
Volume
113
Issue
4
Pages
847-855
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1502545112
Cited by
368
References
12
Language
en
Licence
www.pnas.org/preview_site/misc/userlicense.xhtml (vor, 183 d)
Funders
EC | European Research Council (ERC-2012-StG-310886-HISTFUNC)

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