Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

IMPORTANCE OF RESERVES, FRAGMENTS, AND PARKS FOR BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION IN A TROPICAL URBAN LANDSCAPE

Koh, Lian Pin, Sodhi, Navjot S.·2004·Ecological Applications

Abstract

We assessed the effectiveness of forest reserves (i.e., protected old secondary and primary forests), fragments (i.e., scattered ruderal vegetation), and urban parks (i.e., artificially revegetated habitats) in conserving butterfly diversity in a highly urbanized tropical landscape (i.e., Singapore), by testing the hypothesis that forest reserves have the highest butterfly species richness among these habitats. We investigated which environ- mental factors (e.g., canopy cover) affect the distribution of butterflies across the habitats; and also tested the hypothesis that butterfly communities of different habitats have distinct ecological traits. Further, we examined the important determinants (e.g., area) of butterfly richness in urban parks, by testing the hypothesis that the number of potential larval host plant species occurring in the park is the best predictor of butterfly species richness. Rar- efaction analyses showed that forest reserves had the highest number of species, number of unique species, density of species, and community evenness among the habitats, implying that, in urban landscapes, the least human-disturbed habitats should be given the highest conservation priority. Forest reserves and urban parks adjoining forests collectively ac- counted for 91% of all butterfly species recorded in this study, suggesting that their pres- ervation will likely achieve maximum complementarity for effective butterfly conservation. Ordination analyses revealed that different butterfly species responded differently to en- vironmental factors (e.g., canopy cover), highlighting the importance of maintaining en- vironmental heterogeneity for the conservation of different butterfly species. Classification tree analysis indicated that butterfly communities of different habitats (e.g., forests, urban parks) have distinct ecological traits (e.g., host plant specificity), whereby urban avoiders were 89% likely to be forest dependent and 63% likely to be monophagous, while urban adapters were 87% likely to be cosmopolitan and 67% likely to be oligo- or polyphagous. Regression analyses showed that the number of potential larval host plant species and isolation from forests were important determinants of butterfly species richness in urban parks, indicating that urban parks should be revegetated with a diversity of potential larval host plants and should be situated as near as possible to a forest, in order to maximize their conservation value.

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 · 10.1890/03-5269

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 239

Metadata

Authors
Koh, L. P., & Sodhi, N. S.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-12
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
1695-1708
ISSN
1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062790750
Cited by
239
References
2
FWCI
5.04
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: IMPORTANCE OF RESERVES, FRAGMENTS, AND PARKS FOR BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION IN A TROPICAL URBAN LANDSCAPE. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/03-5269
The paper
Koh, L. P., & Sodhi, N. S. (2004). IMPORTANCE OF RESERVES, FRAGMENTS, AND PARKS FOR BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION IN A TROPICAL URBAN LANDSCAPE. Ecological Applications. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5269

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.