The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta‐analysis
Abstract
The loss and fragmentation of natural habitats by human activities are pervasive phenomena in terrestrial ecosystems across the Earth and the main driving forces behind current biodiversity loss. Animal‐mediated pollination is a key process for the sexual reproduction of most extant flowering plants, and the one most consistently studied in the context of habitat fragmentation. By means of a meta‐analysis we quantitatively reviewed the results from independent fragmentation studies throughout the last two decades, with the aim of testing whether pollination and reproduction of plant species may be differentially susceptible to habitat fragmentation depending on certain reproductive traits that typify the relationship with and the degree of dependence on their pollinators. We found an overall large and negative effect of fragmentation on pollination and on plant reproduction. The compatibility system of plants, which reflects the degree of dependence on pollinator mutualism, was the only reproductive trait that explained the differences among the species’ effect sizes. Furthermore, a highly significant correlation between the effect sizes of fragmentation on pollination and reproductive success suggests that the most proximate cause of reproductive impairment in fragmented habitats may be pollination limitation. We discuss the conservation implications of these findings and give some suggestions for future research into this area.
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
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Metcalfe, A., & Rosenthal, R. (1994) · The Statistician · doi:10.2307/2348600 · Cited by 4,249
The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melián, C. J., & Olesen, J. M. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1633576100 · Cited by 2,497
Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters
Waser, N. M., Chittka, L., Price, M. V., Williams, N. M., & Ollerton, J. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265575 · Cited by 1,934
Richards, A. J. (1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3043-9 · Cited by 1,847
ENDANGERED MUTUALISMS: The Conservation of Plant-Pollinator Interactions
Kearns, C. A., Inouye, D. W., & Waser, N. M. (1998) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.83 · Cited by 1,845
QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1
GREENLAND, S. (1987) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298 · Cited by 1,644 · cited 1×
“If the distribution of a weighted histogram (where the weight is 1/ variance of the effect size in each study) is depressed around zero, it suggests that there may be publication bias against publishing non-significant results (Greenland 1987).”
Result
Cited by
Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 · Cited by 6,458
A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance
Winfree, R., Aguilar, R., Vázquez, D. P., LeBuhn, G., & Aizen, M. A. (2009) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/08-1245.1 · Cited by 1,050
Self-citationGaribaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J. M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chacoff, N. P., Dudenhöffer, J. H., Greenleaf, S. S., et al. (2011) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x · Cited by 962
Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology
Koricheva, J., & Gurevitch, J. (2014) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12224 · Cited by 460
Metadata
- Authors
- Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L., & Aizen, M. A.
- Venue
- Ecology Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-05-30
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 968-980
- ISSN
- 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
- 1461-0248
- OpenAlex
- W2149427681
- Cited by
- 1,079
- References
- 68
- FWCI
- 42.93
- 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: Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00927.x
- The paper
- Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L., & Aizen, M. A. (2006). Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta‐analysis. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00927.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.