Cited by 113Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies

Recovery of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal diversity during secondary forest succession in the tropics

Acevedo‐Charry, Orlando, Aide, T. Mitchell·2019·Oikos

Abstract

In tropical regions, many studies have focused on how vegetation and ecosystem processes recover following the abandonment of anthropogenic activities, but less attention has been given to the recovery patterns of vertebrates. Here we conduct a meta‐analysis (n = 147 studies) of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal recovery during tropical secondary forest succession (i.e. natural regeneration). For each taxonomic group, we compared changes in species richness and compositional similarity during natural secondary succession to reference forests (mature or old growth forest). In addition, we evaluated the response of forest specialists and the change in bird and mammal functional groups during natural secondary succession in the tropical moist forest biome. Overall, species richness of all groups reached levels of the reference forests during natural secondary succession, but this was not the case for species compositional similarity. The delay in recovery of forest specialists may be the reason for the delay in recovery of species compositional similarity. Overall, vertebrate recovery increased with successional stage, but other potential predictors of diversity recovery, such as, the geographical setting (amphibian and reptile species compositional similarity recovered more rapidly on islands), rainfall (mammal species richness and compositional similarity recovered faster in regions of low rainfall), and the landscape context (amphibian, reptile and mammal species compositional similarity recovered faster in regions with more forest patches) influenced vertebrate recovery. These results demonstrate the important role of secondary forests in providing habitat for many vertebrates, but the slow recovery of species compositional similarity, forest specialists and some functional groups (e.g. insectivorous birds) highlighted the challenge of secondary forest persistence, and strongly argues for the continued protection of old growth/mature forest as habitat for forest specialists and as sources for secondary forest sites.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/oik.06252

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Acevedo‐Charry, O., & Aide, T. M.
Affiliations
  • Dept of Biology, Univ. of Puerto Rico‐Río Piedras PO Box 23360 San Juan PR OO931‐3360 USA
  • University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras (PR)
Venue
Oikos
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-04-29
Volume
128
Issue
8
Pages
1065-1078
ISSN
  • 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0706
OpenAlex
W2939129286
Cited by
113
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oikos (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Keywords
secondary forest succession, natural regeneration, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, species richness, compositional similarity, forest specialists, functional groups, tropical humid forest, old-growth forest, island effect, rainfall, forest patch size, landscape context, habitat conservation

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