Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests
The tropical flora remains chronically understudied and the lack of floristic understanding hampers ecological research and its application for large-scale conservation planning. Given scarce resources and the scale of the challenge there is a need to maximize the efficiency of both sampling strateg...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of tropical ecology 2003-11, Vol.19 (6), p.629-645 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 645 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 629 |
container_title | Journal of tropical ecology |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Phillips, Oliver L. Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo Núñez Vargas, Percy Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena Galiano Sánchez, Washington Peña Cruz, Antonio Timaná, Martin Yli-Halla, Markku Rose, Sam |
description | The tropical flora remains chronically understudied and the lack of floristic understanding hampers ecological research and its application for large-scale conservation planning. Given scarce resources and the scale of the challenge there is a need to maximize the efficiency of both sampling strategies and sampling units, yet there is little information on the relative efficiency of different approaches to floristic assessment in tropical forests. This paper is the first attempt to address this gap. We repeatedly sampled forests in two regions of Amazonia using the two most widely used plot-based protocols of floristic sampling, and compared their performance in terms of the quantity of floristic knowledge and ecological insight gained scaled to the field effort required. Specifically, the methods are assessed first in terms of the number of person-days required to complete each sample (‘effort’), secondly by the total gain in the quantity of floristic information that each unit of effort provides (‘crude inventory efficiency’), and thirdly in terms of the floristic information gained as a proportion of the target species pool (‘proportional inventory efficiency’). Finally, we compare the methods in terms of their efficiency in identifying different ecological patterns within the data (‘ecological efficiency’) while controlling for effort. There are large and consistent differences in the performance of the two methods. The disparity is maintained even after accounting for regional and site-level variation in forest species richness, tree density and the number of field assistants. We interpret our results in the context of selecting the appropriate method for particular research purposes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266467403006035 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19210341</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266467403006035</cupid><jstor_id>4091837</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4091837</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-4bb9bc535cfe9c55755e7a5d1ece367db20dee4b1212cdf69770ea553ac4db9f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LJDEQhoO44Oj6AwQPjeDe2k06X5ODB5HRFQQZdvcc0umKZOyZjKke0H9vmhkUFE85PE9V3noJOWH0glGmf_-ljVJCaUE5pYpyuUcmTChT6yln-2Qy4nrkB-QQcUEpNVLyCbmchRB9hNVQrfs01K1D6KrQpxxxiL5yiIC4HHkK1ZDTOnrXVyFlwAF_kh_B9QjHu_eI_L-Z_bv-U98_3N5dX93XXgo-1KJtTesllz6A8VJqKUE72THwwJXu2oZ2AKJlDWt8F5TRmoIr-ZwXXWsCPyK_tnvXOT1vys92GdFD37sVpA1aZhpGuWBFPPskLtImr0o22zBleMOmpkhsK_mcEDMEu85x6fKrZdSObdovbZaZ891ih6WAkN3KR_wYlE3ZLUbvdOstcEj5nQtq2JTrgustLu3Cyzt2-ckqzbW06nZuuZ7faKWV5cXnu6hu2ebYPcLHQd-HfQPD4puD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216932189</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>Phillips, Oliver L. ; Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo ; Núñez Vargas, Percy ; Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel ; Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena ; Galiano Sánchez, Washington ; Peña Cruz, Antonio ; Timaná, Martin ; Yli-Halla, Markku ; Rose, Sam</creator><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Oliver L. ; Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo ; Núñez Vargas, Percy ; Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel ; Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena ; Galiano Sánchez, Washington ; Peña Cruz, Antonio ; Timaná, Martin ; Yli-Halla, Markku ; Rose, Sam</creatorcontrib><description>The tropical flora remains chronically understudied and the lack of floristic understanding hampers ecological research and its application for large-scale conservation planning. Given scarce resources and the scale of the challenge there is a need to maximize the efficiency of both sampling strategies and sampling units, yet there is little information on the relative efficiency of different approaches to floristic assessment in tropical forests. This paper is the first attempt to address this gap. We repeatedly sampled forests in two regions of Amazonia using the two most widely used plot-based protocols of floristic sampling, and compared their performance in terms of the quantity of floristic knowledge and ecological insight gained scaled to the field effort required. Specifically, the methods are assessed first in terms of the number of person-days required to complete each sample (‘effort’), secondly by the total gain in the quantity of floristic information that each unit of effort provides (‘crude inventory efficiency’), and thirdly in terms of the floristic information gained as a proportion of the target species pool (‘proportional inventory efficiency’). Finally, we compare the methods in terms of their efficiency in identifying different ecological patterns within the data (‘ecological efficiency’) while controlling for effort. There are large and consistent differences in the performance of the two methods. The disparity is maintained even after accounting for regional and site-level variation in forest species richness, tree density and the number of field assistants. We interpret our results in the context of selecting the appropriate method for particular research purposes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4674</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-7831</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266467403006035</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JTECEQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Amazonia ; America ; biodiversity ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chorology ; diversity ; Ecological research ; efficiency ; Flora ; forest ; Forest conservation ; Forest ecology ; Forest soils ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; inventory ; Neotropics ; Peru ; Plant cytology, morphology, systematics, chorology and evolution ; Plants ; Soil samples ; Species ; Species richness ; survey ; Trees ; tropical ; Tropical forests ; Tropical rain forests</subject><ispartof>Journal of tropical ecology, 2003-11, Vol.19 (6), p.629-645</ispartof><rights>2003 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>Copyright 2003 Cambridge University Press</rights><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-4bb9bc535cfe9c55755e7a5d1ece367db20dee4b1212cdf69770ea553ac4db9f3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4091837$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266467403006035/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,799,27901,27902,55603,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15232145$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Oliver L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Núñez Vargas, Percy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galiano Sánchez, Washington</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peña Cruz, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timaná, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yli-Halla, Markku</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rose, Sam</creatorcontrib><title>Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests</title><title>Journal of tropical ecology</title><addtitle>J. Trop. Ecol</addtitle><description>The tropical flora remains chronically understudied and the lack of floristic understanding hampers ecological research and its application for large-scale conservation planning. Given scarce resources and the scale of the challenge there is a need to maximize the efficiency of both sampling strategies and sampling units, yet there is little information on the relative efficiency of different approaches to floristic assessment in tropical forests. This paper is the first attempt to address this gap. We repeatedly sampled forests in two regions of Amazonia using the two most widely used plot-based protocols of floristic sampling, and compared their performance in terms of the quantity of floristic knowledge and ecological insight gained scaled to the field effort required. Specifically, the methods are assessed first in terms of the number of person-days required to complete each sample (‘effort’), secondly by the total gain in the quantity of floristic information that each unit of effort provides (‘crude inventory efficiency’), and thirdly in terms of the floristic information gained as a proportion of the target species pool (‘proportional inventory efficiency’). Finally, we compare the methods in terms of their efficiency in identifying different ecological patterns within the data (‘ecological efficiency’) while controlling for effort. There are large and consistent differences in the performance of the two methods. The disparity is maintained even after accounting for regional and site-level variation in forest species richness, tree density and the number of field assistants. We interpret our results in the context of selecting the appropriate method for particular research purposes.</description><subject>Amazonia</subject><subject>America</subject><subject>biodiversity</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chorology</subject><subject>diversity</subject><subject>Ecological research</subject><subject>efficiency</subject><subject>Flora</subject><subject>forest</subject><subject>Forest conservation</subject><subject>Forest ecology</subject><subject>Forest soils</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>inventory</subject><subject>Neotropics</subject><subject>Peru</subject><subject>Plant cytology, morphology, systematics, chorology and evolution</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Soil samples</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Species richness</subject><subject>survey</subject><subject>Trees</subject><subject>tropical</subject><subject>Tropical forests</subject><subject>Tropical rain forests</subject><issn>0266-4674</issn><issn>1469-7831</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LJDEQhoO44Oj6AwQPjeDe2k06X5ODB5HRFQQZdvcc0umKZOyZjKke0H9vmhkUFE85PE9V3noJOWH0glGmf_-ljVJCaUE5pYpyuUcmTChT6yln-2Qy4nrkB-QQcUEpNVLyCbmchRB9hNVQrfs01K1D6KrQpxxxiL5yiIC4HHkK1ZDTOnrXVyFlwAF_kh_B9QjHu_eI_L-Z_bv-U98_3N5dX93XXgo-1KJtTesllz6A8VJqKUE72THwwJXu2oZ2AKJlDWt8F5TRmoIr-ZwXXWsCPyK_tnvXOT1vys92GdFD37sVpA1aZhpGuWBFPPskLtImr0o22zBleMOmpkhsK_mcEDMEu85x6fKrZdSObdovbZaZ891ih6WAkN3KR_wYlE3ZLUbvdOstcEj5nQtq2JTrgustLu3Cyzt2-ckqzbW06nZuuZ7faKWV5cXnu6hu2ebYPcLHQd-HfQPD4puD</recordid><startdate>20031101</startdate><enddate>20031101</enddate><creator>Phillips, Oliver L.</creator><creator>Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo</creator><creator>Núñez Vargas, Percy</creator><creator>Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel</creator><creator>Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena</creator><creator>Galiano Sánchez, Washington</creator><creator>Peña Cruz, Antonio</creator><creator>Timaná, Martin</creator><creator>Yli-Halla, Markku</creator><creator>Rose, Sam</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20031101</creationdate><title>Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests</title><author>Phillips, Oliver L. ; Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo ; Núñez Vargas, Percy ; Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel ; Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena ; Galiano Sánchez, Washington ; Peña Cruz, Antonio ; Timaná, Martin ; Yli-Halla, Markku ; Rose, Sam</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-4bb9bc535cfe9c55755e7a5d1ece367db20dee4b1212cdf69770ea553ac4db9f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Amazonia</topic><topic>America</topic><topic>biodiversity</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chorology</topic><topic>diversity</topic><topic>Ecological research</topic><topic>efficiency</topic><topic>Flora</topic><topic>forest</topic><topic>Forest conservation</topic><topic>Forest ecology</topic><topic>Forest soils</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>inventory</topic><topic>Neotropics</topic><topic>Peru</topic><topic>Plant cytology, morphology, systematics, chorology and evolution</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Soil samples</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Species richness</topic><topic>survey</topic><topic>Trees</topic><topic>tropical</topic><topic>Tropical forests</topic><topic>Tropical rain forests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Oliver L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Núñez Vargas, Percy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galiano Sánchez, Washington</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peña Cruz, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timaná, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yli-Halla, Markku</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rose, Sam</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of tropical ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Phillips, Oliver L.</au><au>Vásquez Martínez, Rodolfo</au><au>Núñez Vargas, Percy</au><au>Lorenzo Monteagudo, Abel</au><au>Chuspe Zans, Maria-Elena</au><au>Galiano Sánchez, Washington</au><au>Peña Cruz, Antonio</au><au>Timaná, Martin</au><au>Yli-Halla, Markku</au><au>Rose, Sam</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests</atitle><jtitle>Journal of tropical ecology</jtitle><addtitle>J. Trop. Ecol</addtitle><date>2003-11-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>629</spage><epage>645</epage><pages>629-645</pages><issn>0266-4674</issn><eissn>1469-7831</eissn><coden>JTECEQ</coden><abstract>The tropical flora remains chronically understudied and the lack of floristic understanding hampers ecological research and its application for large-scale conservation planning. Given scarce resources and the scale of the challenge there is a need to maximize the efficiency of both sampling strategies and sampling units, yet there is little information on the relative efficiency of different approaches to floristic assessment in tropical forests. This paper is the first attempt to address this gap. We repeatedly sampled forests in two regions of Amazonia using the two most widely used plot-based protocols of floristic sampling, and compared their performance in terms of the quantity of floristic knowledge and ecological insight gained scaled to the field effort required. Specifically, the methods are assessed first in terms of the number of person-days required to complete each sample (‘effort’), secondly by the total gain in the quantity of floristic information that each unit of effort provides (‘crude inventory efficiency’), and thirdly in terms of the floristic information gained as a proportion of the target species pool (‘proportional inventory efficiency’). Finally, we compare the methods in terms of their efficiency in identifying different ecological patterns within the data (‘ecological efficiency’) while controlling for effort. There are large and consistent differences in the performance of the two methods. The disparity is maintained even after accounting for regional and site-level variation in forest species richness, tree density and the number of field assistants. We interpret our results in the context of selecting the appropriate method for particular research purposes.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266467403006035</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4674 |
ispartof | Journal of tropical ecology, 2003-11, Vol.19 (6), p.629-645 |
issn | 0266-4674 1469-7831 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19210341 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge Journals |
subjects | Amazonia America biodiversity Biological and medical sciences Chorology diversity Ecological research efficiency Flora forest Forest conservation Forest ecology Forest soils Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology inventory Neotropics Peru Plant cytology, morphology, systematics, chorology and evolution Plants Soil samples Species Species richness survey Trees tropical Tropical forests Tropical rain forests |
title | Efficient plot-based floristic assessment of tropical forests |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T21%3A37%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficient%20plot-based%20floristic%20assessment%20of%20tropical%20forests&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20tropical%20ecology&rft.au=Phillips,%20Oliver%20L.&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=629&rft.epage=645&rft.pages=629-645&rft.issn=0266-4674&rft.eissn=1469-7831&rft.coden=JTECEQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266467403006035&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4091837%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216932189&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266467403006035&rft_jstor_id=4091837&rfr_iscdi=true |