Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Amazon

BARLOW, JOS, OVERAL, WILLIAM L., ARAUJO, IVANEI S., GARDNER, TOBY A., PERES, CARLOS A.·2007·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Secondary forests growing on cleared lands and tree plantations are becoming increasingly widespread land‐uses in the tropics. Previous studies are divided on the conservation importance of these habitats for tropical forest butterflies. We use a robust sampling design, accounting for both seasonality and vertical stratification, to examine fruit‐feeding butterflies (Nymphalidae) in patches of secondary forest and Eucalyptus plantation 2–3 orders of magnitude larger than those previously sampled. We recorded 10 587 butterflies and 128 species in 3200 trap‐days. Species richness was highest in primary forest and lowest in plantations, while butterfly abundance showed the opposite response. All habitats were distinct in terms of community structure. There was a significant interaction between habitat and season based on richness and abundance metrics, although not based on community structure. Secondary forest exhibited higher observed richness than primary forest in the peak of the dry‐season, but not at other times of the year. This observation could explain the lack of consensus in previous studies, as those reporting higher richness in secondary forest only sampled during the dry‐season. In general, habitat quality appeared to be more important than the surrounding landscape in determining butterfly community structure. However, the community structure of the strong‐flying Charaxinae was related to the amount of primary forest in surrounding landscape. There was very poor congruence between the response patterns of richness and abundance among different butterfly subfamilies. Linear regressions between resource availability and butterfly abundance showed a strong influence of leaf phenology in both primary and secondary forest, but no influence of fruit phenology. Synthesis and applications: A lack of seasonal replication and small sampling sizes may have led previous studies to over‐emphasize the conservation importance of secondary forest and plantations for butterflies. We show that these habitats are significantly poorer than primary forest in terms of number of species, and hold distinct butterfly communities. Although quantifying the number of species restricted to primary forest remains difficult, these results cast doubt on the presumption that secondary habitats will provide refuge for many of the species being lost through deforestation. We therefore strongly urge measures that prioritize the conservation of remaining primary forests where they still exist.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01347.x

Cites

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.021 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/0006-3207(94)00023-J · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s10841-005-8564-x · DOI
  4. 10.2307/2845121 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00141.x · DOI
  6. Brown K.S., 1996, Biodiversity in Brazil: a First Approach, 221
  7. Brown C., 2000, The global outlook for present and future wood supply from forest plantation
  8. 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2000.tb00631.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1017/S000748530003738X · doi:10.1017/s000748530003738x
  10. Clarke K.R., 2001, Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation
  11. 10.1017/S0266467404001312 · doi:10.1017/s0266467404001312
  12. 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00256.x · DOI
  13. 10.2307/1942495 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Colwell R.K., 2004, Estimates: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples
  15. 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01429.x · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01429.x
  16. D’Abrera B.L., 1987, Butterflies of the Neotropical Region, Part III. Brassolidae, Acraeidaea & Nymphalidae
  17. D’Abrera B.L., 1988, Butterflies of the Neotropical Region, Part V. Nymphalidae (conc) & Satyridae
  18. 10.1038/35077178 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/BF00115313 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01630.x · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01630.x · Paper page
  21. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01372.x · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01372.x · Paper page
  22. 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01175.x · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0345:SAAIST]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.02.016 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00151.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. Evans J., 2004, Plantation Forestry in the Tropics, 10.1093/oso/9780198529941.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  27. FAO, 2001, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000
  28. 10.1007/s10531-004-5354-9 · DOI
  29. Frazer G.W., 1999, Gap Light Analyzer (GLA), Version 2·0. Imaging Software to Extract Canopy Structure and Gap Light Transmission Indices from True‐Colour Fisheye Photographs
  30. 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00228.x · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1023/A:1014812701423 · DOI
  32. 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0623:AETOCE]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99417.x · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1017/S0266467405002361 · doi:10.1017/s0266467405002361
  36. 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00549-7 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Hawes J.(2005)Impacts of landscape level disturbance on Amazonian moth assemblages.MSc Thesis University of East Anglia Norwich UK.
  38. 10.1007/s004420100651 · doi:10.1007/s004420100651
  39. 10.1098/rstb.1992.0034 · doi:10.1098/rstb.1992.0034
  40. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01310.x · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02125.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. Hughes J.B., 1998, Use of fruit bait traps for monitoring of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), Revista de Biologia Tropical, 46, 697
  43. 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.018 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00465.x · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00468.x · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01324.x · DOI
  47. 10.2307/1941776 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.2307/5677 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Lamas G., 2004, Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea–Papilionoidea
  50. Larsen T.B., 1979, The butterfly fauna of a secondary bush locality in Nigeria, Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 18, 4, 10.5962/p.266875 · doi:10.5962/p.266875
  51. 10.1038/34166 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002389.x · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002389.x
  53. 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.028 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Magurran A.E., 2004, Measuring Biological Diversity
  55. Malcolm J.R., 1995, Forest Canopies, 179
  56. McCune B., 1999, Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data
  57. 10.1007/s10531-004-3955-y · doi:10.1007/s10531-004-3955-y
  58. Neild A.F.E., 1996, The Butterflies of Venezuala
  59. 10.1080/08941920390178856 · doi:10.1080/08941920390178856 · Paper page
  60. 10.2307/2845769 · doi:10.2307/2845769
  61. Raguso R.A., 1990, The butterflies (Lepidoptera) of the Tuxtlas Mts, Veracruz, Mexico, revisited: species‐richness and habitat disturbance, Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 29, 105, 10.5962/p.266622 · doi:10.5962/p.266622
  62. 10.5962/p.266570 · doi:10.5962/p.266570
  63. Rydon A., 1964, Notes on the use of butterfly traps in East Africa, Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 18, 51
  64. 10.1890/02-5409 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1017/S0266467499001121 · doi:10.1017/s0266467499001121
  66. 10.1023/A:1026049507421 · DOI
  67. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030800.x · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030800.x
  68. 10.2307/2845744 · DOI
  69. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2000.00175.x · DOI · Paper page
  70. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00337.x · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1007/s10531-004-0829-2 · DOI
  72. 10.1086/283344 · doi:10.1086/283344
  73. 10.1023/A:1008800317279 · doi:10.1023/a:1008800317279
  74. 10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.009 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Wright S.J.&Muller‐Landau H.C.(2006)The future of tropical forest species.Biotropica 38 287–301. · DOI · Paper page
  76. 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00215-1 · doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(98)00215-1

Cited by

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
BARLOW, J., OVERAL, W. L., ARAUJO, I. S., GARDNER, T. A., & PERES, C. A.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-07-23
Volume
44
Issue
5
Pages
1001-1012
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W1970589065
Cited by
203
References
0
FWCI
8.34
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: The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Amazon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01347.x
The paper
BARLOW, J., OVERAL, W. L., ARAUJO, I. S., GARDNER, T. A., & PERES, C. A. (2007). The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01347.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.