Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36073314›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2023

Global effects of forest modification on herpetofauna communities.

Maider Iglesias-Carrasco, Iliana Medina, Terry J Ord

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of obscured data on species distribution models.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Global impacts of exotic eucalypt plantations on wildlife.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Global effects of forest modification on herpetofauna communities.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maider Iglesias-CarrascoEvolution and Ecology of Sexual Interactions Group, Doñana Biological Station-CSIC, Sevilla, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0349-7967
Iliana MedinaSchool of BioSciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
Terry J OrdEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the area covered by human-modified environments grows, it is increasingly important to understand the responses of communities to the novel habitats created, especially for sensitive and threatened taxa. We aimed to improve understanding of the major evolutionary and ecological processes that shape the assemblage of amphibian and reptile communities to forest modifications. To this end, we compiled a global data set of amphibian and reptile surveys in natural, disturbed (burned, logged), and transformed (monocultures, polyspecific plantations) forest communities to assess the richness, phylogenetic diversity, and composition of those communities, as well as the morphological disparity among taxa between natural and modified forest habitats. Forest transformations led to a diversity reduction of 15.46% relative to the statistically nonsignificant effect of disturbances. Transformations also led to a community composition that was 39.4% dissimilar to that on natural forests, compared with 16.1% difference in disturbances. Modifications did not affect the morphological disparity of communities (p = 0.167 and 0.744), and we found little evidence of taxon-specific responses to anthropic impacts. Monocultures and polyspecific plantations detrimentally affected the conservation and ecological value of both amphibian and reptile communities and altered the evolutionary processes shaping these communities, whereas forests with lower impact disturbances might, to some extent, serve as reservoirs of species. Although different mechanisms might buffer the collapse of herpetological communities, preserving remaining natural forests is necessary for conserving communities in the face of future anthropic pressures.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesAmphibiansAnimalsEcosystemForestryForestsPhylogenyReptilesanthropic habitatsconversión del suelofireforestryhábitats antrópicosincendiosland conversionloggingsilviculturasilviculturetala伐木土地转换林业火灾造林

Identifiers

PMID36073314
PMCPMC10099509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.