The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Species richness, composition and abundance of fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: comparison between a fragmented and a continuous landscape
Abstract
Aim To evaluate frugivorous butterflies as indicators of forest disturbance in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Location The study area is located in the municipality of Cotia, São Paulo State, south‐eastern Brazil (23°35′−23°50′ S, 46°45′−47°15′ W). Methods Sampling was done at four sites inside a large forest block, the Morro Grande State Reserve, and in five forest fragments in an adjacent fragmented landscape. Butterflies were sampled with portable traps, baited with a fermented mixture of banana and sugar cane juice. Sampling was carried out during the period most favourable for the capture of frugivorous butterflies in south‐eastern Brazil. Results All richness‐related results indicated no effect of forest fragmentation on the frugivorous butterfly guild, concurring with the suggestion of appreciable resistance of Atlantic Forest butterflies to habitat modification. However, species composition discriminated between the two landscapes, indicating that fragmentation may have effects beyond simple species richness. When species were analysed individually, clear patterns of distribution emerged, with some species that were very abundant in the fragmented landscape being practically absent in the continuous landscape, and vice versa. This pattern seems consistent even for some subfamilies. Main conclusion Our findings support the usefulness of the frugivorous butterfly guild as a biological indicator of forest disturbance effects in one of the world's most threatened ecosystems.
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
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35002501 · Cited by 31,710
Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity
Fahrig, L. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419 · Cited by 7,879
Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data
Legendre, P., & Gallagher, E. D. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100716 · Cited by 5,556
Cited by
Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., Hill, S. L. L., Hoskins, A. J., Lysenko, I., Phillips, H. R. P., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2201 · Cited by 1,119
Tabarelli, M., Aguiar, A. V., Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., & Peres, C. A. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.005 · Cited by 512
More than just indicators: A review of tropical butterfly ecology and conservation
Bonebrake, T. C., Ponisio, L. C., Boggs, C. L., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.044 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Uehara‐Prado, M., Brown, K. S., & Freitas, A. V. L.
- Venue
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-15
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-54
- ISSN
- 1466-822X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-8238
- OpenAlex
- W2028754520
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.88
- 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: Species richness, composition and abundance of fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: comparison between a fragmented and a continuous landscape. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00267.x
- The paper
- Uehara‐Prado, M., Brown, K. S., & Freitas, A. V. L. (2007). Species richness, composition and abundance of fruit‐feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: comparison between a fragmented and a continuous landscape. Global Ecology and Biogeography. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00267.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.