The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Forest Fragmentation, Pollination, and Plant Reproduction in a Chaco Dry Forest, Argentina
Abstract
In a fragmented, dry subtropical forest in northwestern Argentina, we compared pollination levels, fruit set, and seed set among small (<1 ha) forest fragments, large (>2 ha) fragments, and continuous forest in 16 plant species representing a wide range of pollination systems, breeding systems, and growth forms. For three species, Prosopis nigra (Mimosoideae), Cercidium australe (Caesalpinoideae), and Atamisquea emarginata (Capparaceae), the three treatments were replicated across four sites; we achieved less replication for other species. Because comparisons between forest and fragment populations for different species took place in different sites, however, by treating all 6 species as a unit we lessened the potential bias of confounding site effects and could evaluate the overall impact of fragmentation. Significant or marginal (P < .10) fragmentation—related declines in number of pollen tubes per style, fruit set, and seed set occurred in 9 of 16, 5 of 15, and 3 of 14 species, respectively. Overall, significant or nonsignificant declines occurred in 81% (pollen tubes), 73% (fruit set), and 79% (seed set) of the species. In all cases these proportions were greater (P < .06) than the null binomial expectation of a 1:1 ratio of increases to decreases. Breeding system did not explain sensitivity to fragmentation: the magnitudes of declines in pollen tubes, fruit set, and seed set were virtually indistinguishable between self—compatible and self—incompatible species. At least 4 of the 10 self—incompatible species, however, were heavily visited in small fragments by Africanized honey bees, which may have compensated for a decline in visits by native pollinators. The exact nature of responses varied among plant species. In some, the absolute quantity of pollen grains transferred to stigmas decreased with fragmentation, and sometimes this was reflected in reduced fruit or seed set. In Cercidium, Prosopis, and Atamisquea, the quality of the grains transferred apparently changed: number of pollen tubes produced per pollen grain on the stigma declined with increasing fragmentation, and at least in the latter two species seed production declined as well. Overall, levels of pollination and seed production undoubtedly integrated many idiosyncratic effects of fragmentation on particular plant and animal populations, and indicated that “community health” of fragments suffered in comparison with that of continuous forest. Median decreases in pollination levels and seed output from forest to fragments approached 20%. The impact of these declines on plant recruitment is less clear, however, because cattle grazing and trampling of seedlings and saplings in fragments may constitute a much more serious short—term conservation problem.
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
Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments
Hurlbert, S. H. (1984) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942661 · Cited by 8,377
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review
SAUNDERS, D. A., HOBBS, R. J., & MARGULES, C. R. (1991) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x · Cited by 4,110
Redford, K. H. (1992) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1311860 · Cited by 1,219
Cited by
Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Thies, C., & Tscharntke, T. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1421:sdeolc]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,187
INDEPENDENT EFFECTS OF FOREST COVER AND FRAGMENTATION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST BREEDING BIRDS
Trzcinski, M. K., Fahrig, L., & Merriam, G. (1999) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0586:ieofca]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 478
Loss of Self‐Incompatibility and Its Evolutionary Consequences
Igic, B., Lande, R., & Kohn, J. R. (2008) · International Journal of Plant Sciences · doi:10.1086/523362 · Cited by 466
Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments?
Davies, K. F., Margules, C. R., & Lawrence, J. F. (2000) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1450:wtospp]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 444
Depressed pollination in habitat fragments causes low fruit set
Cunningham, S. A. (2000) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1121 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Aizen, M. A., & Feinsinger, P.
- Venue
- Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-03
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 330-351
- ISSN
- 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9170
- OpenAlex
- W2099188420
- Cited by
- 785
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.23
- 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: Forest Fragmentation, Pollination, and Plant Reproduction in a Chaco Dry Forest, Argentina. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1939538
- The paper
- Aizen, M. A., & Feinsinger, P. (1994). Forest Fragmentation, Pollination, and Plant Reproduction in a Chaco Dry Forest, Argentina. Ecology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939538
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.