Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta‐Analysis of Susceptibility of Woody Plants to Loss of Genetic Diversity through Habitat Fragmentation

VRANCKX, GUY, JACQUEMYN, HANS, MUYS, BART, HONNAY, OLIVIER·2012·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Shrubs and trees are assumed less likely to lose genetic variation in response to habitat fragmentation because they have certain life‐history characteristics such as long lifespans and extensive pollen flow. To test this assumption, we conducted a meta‐analysis with data on 97 woody plant species derived from 98 studies of habitat fragmentation. We measured the weighted response of four different measures of population‐level genetic diversity to habitat fragmentation with Hedge's d and Spearman rank correlation. We tested whether the genetic response to habitat fragmentation was mediated by life‐history traits (longevity, pollination mode, and seed dispersal vector) and study characteristics (genetic marker and plant material used). For both tests of effect size habitat fragmentation was associated with a substantial decrease in expected heterozygosity, number of alleles, and percentage of polymorphic loci, whereas the population inbreeding coefficient was not associated with these measures. The largest proportion of variation among effect sizes was explained by pollination mechanism and by the age of the tissue (progeny or adult) that was genotyped. Our primary finding was that wind‐pollinated trees and shrubs appeared to be as likely to lose genetic variation as insect‐pollinated species, indicating that severe habitat fragmentation may lead to pollen limitation and limited gene flow. In comparison with results of previous meta‐analyses on mainly herbaceous species, we found trees and shrubs were as likely to have negative genetic responses to habitat fragmentation as herbaceous species. We also found that the genetic variation in offspring was generally less than that of adult trees, which is evidence of a genetic extinction debt and probably reflects the genetic diversity of the historical, less‐fragmented landscape.

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.1523-1739.2011.01778.x

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
VRANCKX, G., JACQUEMYN, H., MUYS, B., & HONNAY, O.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-11
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
228-237
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W1905487223
Cited by
302
References
57
FWCI
10.23
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: Meta‐Analysis of Susceptibility of Woody Plants to Loss of Genetic Diversity through Habitat Fragmentation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01778.x
The paper
VRANCKX, G., JACQUEMYN, H., MUYS, B., & HONNAY, O. (2012). Meta‐Analysis of Susceptibility of Woody Plants to Loss of Genetic Diversity through Habitat Fragmentation. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01778.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.