The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evidence for the Successional Status of Liana Forest (Xingu River Basin, Amazonian Brazil)
Abstract
Our first objective was to describe species richness, relative density, relative frequency, relative dominance, species importance, and family importance in the two study sites for all individuals ≥10 cm dbh. Our second objective was to show how the adaptations of some of the ecologically most important species in these study sites offer support to the hypothesis that liana forest is not a primary forest type, but rather anthropogenic
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Terra pretas are often associated with increased frequencies of lianas.
“Previous field reports have documented that terra pretas are often associated with lower canopy height [28], denser understory [28], increased frequencies of lianas [67] and are often identified by locals as secondary forests with a predictable suite of species, many of which are domesticated (e.g. [68,69]).”
From Predicting pre-columbian anthropogenic soils in amazonia (2014) · cites this paper as [67]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predicting pre-columbian anthropogenic soils in amazonia
McMichael, C. H., Palace, M. W., Bush, M. B., Braswell, B., Hagen, S., Neves, E. G., Silman, M. R., Tamanaha, E. K., & Czarnecki, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2475 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Balee, W., & Campbell, D. G.
- Venue
- Biotropica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 36
- ISSN
- 0006-3606
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 0
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
