The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Amazon
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.021 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0006-3207(94)00023-J · DOI
- 10.1007/s10841-005-8564-x · DOI
- 10.2307/2845121 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00141.x · DOI
- Brown K.S., 1996, Biodiversity in Brazil: a First Approach, 221
- Brown C., 2000, The global outlook for present and future wood supply from forest plantation
- 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2000.tb00631.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S000748530003738X · doi:10.1017/s000748530003738x
- Clarke K.R., 2001, Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation
- 10.1017/S0266467404001312 · doi:10.1017/s0266467404001312
- 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00256.x · DOI
- 10.2307/1942495 · DOI · Paper page
- Colwell R.K., 2004, Estimates: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared Species from Samples
- 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01429.x · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2005.01429.x
- D’Abrera B.L., 1987, Butterflies of the Neotropical Region, Part III. Brassolidae, Acraeidaea & Nymphalidae
- D’Abrera B.L., 1988, Butterflies of the Neotropical Region, Part V. Nymphalidae (conc) & Satyridae
- 10.1038/35077178 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00115313 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01630.x · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1997.tb01630.x · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01372.x · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2001.tb01372.x · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01175.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0345:SAAIST]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.02.016 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00151.x · DOI · Paper page
- Evans J., 2004, Plantation Forestry in the Tropics, 10.1093/oso/9780198529941.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- FAO, 2001, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000
- 10.1007/s10531-004-5354-9 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00228.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1023/A:1014812701423 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2001.00230.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0623:AETOCE]2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99417.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0266467405002361 · doi:10.1017/s0266467405002361
- 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00549-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Hawes J.(2005)Impacts of landscape level disturbance on Amazonian moth assemblages.MSc Thesis University of East Anglia Norwich UK.
- 10.1007/s004420100651 · doi:10.1007/s004420100651
- 10.1098/rstb.1992.0034 · doi:10.1098/rstb.1992.0034
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01310.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02125.x · DOI · Paper page
- Hughes J.B., 1998, Use of fruit bait traps for monitoring of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), Revista de Biologia Tropical, 46, 697
- 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.018 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00465.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00468.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01324.x · DOI
- 10.2307/1941776 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/5677 · DOI · Paper page
- Lamas G., 2004, Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea–Papilionoidea
- 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
- 10.1038/34166 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002389.x · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.015002389.x
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.10.028 · DOI · Paper page
- Magurran A.E., 2004, Measuring Biological Diversity
- Malcolm J.R., 1995, Forest Canopies, 179
- McCune B., 1999, Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data
- 10.1007/s10531-004-3955-y · doi:10.1007/s10531-004-3955-y
- Neild A.F.E., 1996, The Butterflies of Venezuala
- 10.1080/08941920390178856 · doi:10.1080/08941920390178856 · Paper page
- 10.2307/2845769 · doi:10.2307/2845769
- 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
- 10.5962/p.266570 · doi:10.5962/p.266570
- Rydon A., 1964, Notes on the use of butterfly traps in East Africa, Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 18, 51
- 10.1890/02-5409 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0266467499001121 · doi:10.1017/s0266467499001121
- 10.1023/A:1026049507421 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030800.x · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030800.x
- 10.2307/2845744 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2000.00175.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00337.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10531-004-0829-2 · DOI
- 10.1086/283344 · doi:10.1086/283344
- 10.1023/A:1008800317279 · doi:10.1023/a:1008800317279
- 10.1016/j.tree.2005.07.009 · DOI · Paper page
- Wright S.J.&Muller‐Landau H.C.(2006)The future of tropical forest species.Biotropica 38 287–301. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00215-1 · doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(98)00215-1
Cited by
Defaunation in the Anthropocene
Dirzo, R., Young, H. S., Galetti, M., Ceballos, G., Isaac, N. J. B., & Collen, B. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1251817 · Cited by 4,474
Is oil palm agriculture really destroying tropical biodiversity?
Koh, L. P., & Wilcove, D. S. (2008) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2008.00011.x · Cited by 1,120
The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches
Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abl4649 · Cited by 831
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.