The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Treefalls and the Distribution of Understory Birds in a Tropical Forest
Abstract
Monthly mist—net censuses were conducted in central Panama to contrast the species richness and composition of the understory avifauna in treefall gaps to that of adjacent, intact forest. We compiled 826 captures of 73 species over a 9—mo period. Species richness was greater in gaps than forest (66 vs. 53 species), but capture rates were nearly identical (gap, 409; forest, 417). Of the 31 species with adequate sample sizes, 5 displayed significant habitat preference (P ° .05): 3 in gaps and 2 in forest. Ordination of all nets by Bray—Curtis analysis indicates that gap and forest bird assemblages are quite distinct. We suggest that treefall gaps contribute to the structural heterogeneity of the forest and influence the composition and richness of the bird community.
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
A General Hypothesis of Species Diversity
Huston, M. (1979) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283366 · Cited by 3,390
Metadata
- Authors
- Schemske, D. W., & Brokaw, N.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1981-08
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 938-945
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2025204597
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.89
- 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: Treefalls and the Distribution of Understory Birds in a Tropical Forest. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1936992
- The paper
- Schemske, D. W., & Brokaw, N. (1981). Treefalls and the Distribution of Understory Birds in a Tropical Forest. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936992
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.
