The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Indices of Habitat-wide Fruit Abundance in Tropical Forest
Abstract
The assessment of fruit abundance is critical for studies of frugivore ecology. A variety of methods have been used to estimate habitat-wide fruit abundance. However, since the methods have not been calibrated with each other, it is difficult to compare results of different studies. Here we compare three methods used simultaneously to collect fruit abundance data in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Estimates of fruit abundance derived from fruit traps were not correlated with estimates derived from either systematic transect sampling or estimates obtained from observing fruiting phenology of key species on a fruit trail. However, estimates based on fruit trail data and transect data were correlated. We review the advantages and disadvantages of methods that have been used to assess habitat-wide fruit abundance.
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
Cited by
Ecological Partitioning of Cercopithecus campbelli, C. petaurista, and C. diana in the Taï Forest
Buzzard, P. J. (2006) · International Journal of Primatology · doi:10.1007/s10764-006-9022-7 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Chapman, C. A., Wrangham, R., & Chapman, L. J.
- Venue
- Biotropica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1994-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 160
- ISSN
- 0006-3606 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009065508
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.39
- 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: Indices of Habitat-wide Fruit Abundance in Tropical Forest. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2388805
- The paper
- Chapman, C. A., Wrangham, R., & Chapman, L. J. (1994). Indices of Habitat-wide Fruit Abundance in Tropical Forest. Biotropica. https://doi.org/10.2307/2388805
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.