The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using historical ecology to understand patterns of biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes
Abstract
Aim To enhance current attempts to understand biodiversity patterns by using an historical ecology approach to highlight the over‐riding influence of land‐use history in creating past, current and future patterns of biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Methods We develop an integrative conceptual framework for understanding spatial and temporal variations in landscape patterns in fragmented agricultural landscapes by presenting five postulates (hypotheses) which highlight the important role of historical, anthropogenic disturbance regimes. We then illustrate each of these postulates with examples drawn from fragmented woodlands in agricultural areas of south‐eastern Australia, and discuss these findings in an international context. Location examples are drawn from agricultural areas in south‐eastern Australia. Results We conclude that there is limited potential to refine our understanding of patterns of biodiversity in human‐modified landscapes based on traditional concepts of island biogeography, or simple assumptions of ongoing destruction and degradation. Instead, we propose that in agricultural landscapes that were largely cleared over a century ago: (1) present‐day remnant vegetation patterns are not accidental, but are logically arrayed due to historic land‐use decisions, (2) historic anthropogenic disturbances have a major influence on current ecosystem conditions and diversity patterns, and (3) the condition of remnant ecosystems is not necessarily deteriorating rapidly. Main conclusions An historical ecology approach can enhance our understanding of why different species and ecosystem states occur where they do, and can explain internal variations in ecological conditions within remnant ecosystems, too often casually attributed to the ‘mess of history’. This framework emphasizes temporal changes (both past and future) in biotic patterns and processes in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Integration of spatially and temporally explicit historical land‐use information into ecological studies can prove extremely useful to test hypotheses of the effects of changes in landscape processes, and to enhance future research, restoration and conservation management activities.
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
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review
SAUNDERS, D. A., HOBBS, R. J., & MARGULES, C. R. (1991) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x · Cited by 4,110
Foster, D. R., Motzkin, G., & Slater, B. (1998) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s100219900008 · Cited by 662
Cited by
Thomas, C. D. (2011) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.02.006 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Lunt, I. D., & Spooner, P. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1859-1873
- ISSN
- 0305-0270 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2699
- OpenAlex
- W1992061543
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.08
- 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: Using historical ecology to understand patterns of biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01296.x
- The paper
- Lunt, I. D., & Spooner, P. G. (2005). Using historical ecology to understand patterns of biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes. Journal of Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2005.01296.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.