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
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.
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
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends
Hassan, R., Scholes, R. J., & Ash, N. (2005) · Cited by 2,582
Correlation between Fitness and Genetic Diversity
Reed, D. H., & Frankham, R. (2003) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01236.x · Cited by 2,428
Genetics and Demography in Biological Conservation
Lande, R. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3420403 · Cited by 2,426
Grafen, A. (1989) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1989.0106 · Cited by 2,142
The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants
Young, A., Boyle, T., & Brown, T. (1996) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10045-8 · Cited by 2,113
Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change
Jump, A. S., & Peñuelas, J. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00796.x · Cited by 1,583
Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation
Kuussaari, M., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Krauss, J., Lindborg, R., Öckinger, E., Pärtel, M., Pino, J., Rodà, F., et al. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.011 · Cited by 1,486
Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research
Wilkinson, I., Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1987) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164691 · Cited by 1,471
Cited by
O'Dea, R. E., Lagisz, M., Jennions, M. D., Koricheva, J., Noble, D. W. A., Parker, T. H., Gurevitch, J., Page, M. J., Stewart, G., Moher, D., et al. (2021) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12721 · Cited by 697
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
Genetic considerations in ecosystem restoration using native tree species
Thomas, E., Jalonen, R., Loo, J., Boshier, D., Gallo, L., Cavers, S., Bordács, S., Smith, P., & Bozzano, M. (2014) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.015 · Cited by 353
Hoban, S., Archer, F. I., Bertola, L. D., Bragg, J. G., Breed, M. F., Bruford, M. W., Coleman, M. A., Ekblom, R., Funk, W. C., Grueber, C. E., et al. (2022) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12852 · Cited by 282
Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A review
Pautasso, M., Aistara, G., Barnaud, A., Caillon, S., Clouvel, P., Coomes, O. T., Delêtre, M., Demeulenaere, E., De Santis, P., Döring, T., et al. (2013) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0089-6 · Cited by 259
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.