Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration
Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. We sampled arthropods in four 7‐...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology and evolution 2016-08, Vol.6 (15), p.5158-5168 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5168 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 15 |
| container_start_page | 5158 |
| container_title | Ecology and evolution |
| container_volume | 6 |
| creator | Cole, Rebecca J. Holl, Karen D. Zahawi, Rakan A. Wickey, Philipp Townsend, Alan R. |
| description | Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. We sampled arthropods in four 7‐ to 8‐year‐old restoration treatments and in nearby reference forests. Sampling was conducted during the wet and dry seasons using extractions from litter and pitfall samples. Restoration treatments were replicated in 50 × 50‐m plots in four former pasture sites in southern Costa Rica: plantation – trees planted throughout the plot; applied nucleation/islands – trees planted in patches of different sizes; and natural regeneration – no tree planting. Arthropod abundance, measures of richness and diversity, and a number of functional groups were greater in the island treatment than in natural regeneration or plantation treatments and, in many cases, were similar to reference forest. Litter and pitfall morphospecies and functional group composition in all three restoration treatments were significantly different than reference sites, but island and plantation treatments showed more recovery than natural regeneration. Abundance and functional group diversity showed a much greater degree of recovery than community composition. Synthesis and applications: The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness, and functional diversity. None of the restoration strategies, however, resulted in similar community composition as reference forest after 8 years of recovery, highlighting the slow rate of recovery of arthropod communities after disturbance, and underscoring the importance of conservation of remnant forests in fragmented landscapes.
Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. Arthropod abundance, richness, and functional groups were measured in three, 8‐year‐old restoration treatments (natural regeneration, plantations, and tree islands) and reference forest. The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness and functional diversity a |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ece3.2220 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4984494</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1811889542</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-91c92b0e746a51201d3efb91f4fd929de671e3db4ca285669b85b4a3ad28af573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkctKAzEUhoMoWrQLX0AG3Oiibe6ZbApS6gUKbnQdMjNndGQ6qUmq-PZmrBYVxGwSzvn4kpMfoWOCxwRjOoES2JhSinfQgGIuRkqJfPfb-QANQ3jCaUlMOVb76IAqIQhTbICmC7B11jYxgs-sj4_erVyVeQgr1wUIWXRZTLWmtG1Wu1SPfTM6b2PjuiO0V9s2wPBzP0T3l_O72fVocXt1M7tYjEquJB5pUmpaYFBcWkEoJhWDutCk5nWlqa5AKgKsKnhpaS6k1EUuCm6ZrWhua6HYIZpuvKt1sYSqhC5625qVb5bWvxlnG_Oz0zWP5sG9GK5zzjVPgrNPgXfP6zSAWTahhLa1Hbh1MCQnTGOqP-76FyV5rgWnCT39hT65te_STxhKNZZCEtlT5xuq9C4ED_X23QSbPkPTZ2j6DBN78n3QLfmVWAImG-C1aeHtb5OZz-bsQ_kOPoilMQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2290656162</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Cole, Rebecca J. ; Holl, Karen D. ; Zahawi, Rakan A. ; Wickey, Philipp ; Townsend, Alan R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cole, Rebecca J. ; Holl, Karen D. ; Zahawi, Rakan A. ; Wickey, Philipp ; Townsend, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><description>Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. We sampled arthropods in four 7‐ to 8‐year‐old restoration treatments and in nearby reference forests. Sampling was conducted during the wet and dry seasons using extractions from litter and pitfall samples. Restoration treatments were replicated in 50 × 50‐m plots in four former pasture sites in southern Costa Rica: plantation – trees planted throughout the plot; applied nucleation/islands – trees planted in patches of different sizes; and natural regeneration – no tree planting. Arthropod abundance, measures of richness and diversity, and a number of functional groups were greater in the island treatment than in natural regeneration or plantation treatments and, in many cases, were similar to reference forest. Litter and pitfall morphospecies and functional group composition in all three restoration treatments were significantly different than reference sites, but island and plantation treatments showed more recovery than natural regeneration. Abundance and functional group diversity showed a much greater degree of recovery than community composition. Synthesis and applications: The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness, and functional diversity. None of the restoration strategies, however, resulted in similar community composition as reference forest after 8 years of recovery, highlighting the slow rate of recovery of arthropod communities after disturbance, and underscoring the importance of conservation of remnant forests in fragmented landscapes.
Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. Arthropod abundance, richness, and functional groups were measured in three, 8‐year‐old restoration treatments (natural regeneration, plantations, and tree islands) and reference forest. The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness and functional diversity although none of the restoration strategies resulted in similar composition as the reference forest.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2220</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27551373</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Abundance ; Applied nucleation ; Arthropoda ; Arthropods ; Biodiversity ; Communities ; Community composition ; Composition ; Ecosystems ; Forest conservation ; Forest management ; forest succession ; Forests ; Functional groups ; Habitat fragmentation ; Habitats ; Islands ; Leaf litter ; litter fauna ; macro‐arthropods ; Nucleation ; Original Research ; Pasture ; Plantations ; Planting ; Recovery ; Regeneration ; Restoration strategies ; soil fauna ; Tree planting ; Trees ; tropical forest restoration ; Tropical forests</subject><ispartof>Ecology and evolution, 2016-08, Vol.6 (15), p.5158-5168</ispartof><rights>2016 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-91c92b0e746a51201d3efb91f4fd929de671e3db4ca285669b85b4a3ad28af573</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-91c92b0e746a51201d3efb91f4fd929de671e3db4ca285669b85b4a3ad28af573</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984494/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984494/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1416,11561,27923,27924,45573,45574,46051,46475,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27551373$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cole, Rebecca J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holl, Karen D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahawi, Rakan A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wickey, Philipp</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Townsend, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><title>Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration</title><title>Ecology and evolution</title><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><description>Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. We sampled arthropods in four 7‐ to 8‐year‐old restoration treatments and in nearby reference forests. Sampling was conducted during the wet and dry seasons using extractions from litter and pitfall samples. Restoration treatments were replicated in 50 × 50‐m plots in four former pasture sites in southern Costa Rica: plantation – trees planted throughout the plot; applied nucleation/islands – trees planted in patches of different sizes; and natural regeneration – no tree planting. Arthropod abundance, measures of richness and diversity, and a number of functional groups were greater in the island treatment than in natural regeneration or plantation treatments and, in many cases, were similar to reference forest. Litter and pitfall morphospecies and functional group composition in all three restoration treatments were significantly different than reference sites, but island and plantation treatments showed more recovery than natural regeneration. Abundance and functional group diversity showed a much greater degree of recovery than community composition. Synthesis and applications: The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness, and functional diversity. None of the restoration strategies, however, resulted in similar community composition as reference forest after 8 years of recovery, highlighting the slow rate of recovery of arthropod communities after disturbance, and underscoring the importance of conservation of remnant forests in fragmented landscapes.
Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. Arthropod abundance, richness, and functional groups were measured in three, 8‐year‐old restoration treatments (natural regeneration, plantations, and tree islands) and reference forest. The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness and functional diversity although none of the restoration strategies resulted in similar composition as the reference forest.</description><subject>Abundance</subject><subject>Applied nucleation</subject><subject>Arthropoda</subject><subject>Arthropods</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Communities</subject><subject>Community composition</subject><subject>Composition</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Forest conservation</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>forest succession</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Functional groups</subject><subject>Habitat fragmentation</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Islands</subject><subject>Leaf litter</subject><subject>litter fauna</subject><subject>macro‐arthropods</subject><subject>Nucleation</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Pasture</subject><subject>Plantations</subject><subject>Planting</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Regeneration</subject><subject>Restoration strategies</subject><subject>soil fauna</subject><subject>Tree planting</subject><subject>Trees</subject><subject>tropical forest restoration</subject><subject>Tropical forests</subject><issn>2045-7758</issn><issn>2045-7758</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkctKAzEUhoMoWrQLX0AG3Oiibe6ZbApS6gUKbnQdMjNndGQ6qUmq-PZmrBYVxGwSzvn4kpMfoWOCxwRjOoES2JhSinfQgGIuRkqJfPfb-QANQ3jCaUlMOVb76IAqIQhTbICmC7B11jYxgs-sj4_erVyVeQgr1wUIWXRZTLWmtG1Wu1SPfTM6b2PjuiO0V9s2wPBzP0T3l_O72fVocXt1M7tYjEquJB5pUmpaYFBcWkEoJhWDutCk5nWlqa5AKgKsKnhpaS6k1EUuCm6ZrWhua6HYIZpuvKt1sYSqhC5625qVb5bWvxlnG_Oz0zWP5sG9GK5zzjVPgrNPgXfP6zSAWTahhLa1Hbh1MCQnTGOqP-76FyV5rgWnCT39hT65te_STxhKNZZCEtlT5xuq9C4ED_X23QSbPkPTZ2j6DBN78n3QLfmVWAImG-C1aeHtb5OZz-bsQ_kOPoilMQ</recordid><startdate>201608</startdate><enddate>201608</enddate><creator>Cole, Rebecca J.</creator><creator>Holl, Karen D.</creator><creator>Zahawi, Rakan A.</creator><creator>Wickey, Philipp</creator><creator>Townsend, Alan R.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201608</creationdate><title>Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration</title><author>Cole, Rebecca J. ; Holl, Karen D. ; Zahawi, Rakan A. ; Wickey, Philipp ; Townsend, Alan R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-91c92b0e746a51201d3efb91f4fd929de671e3db4ca285669b85b4a3ad28af573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Abundance</topic><topic>Applied nucleation</topic><topic>Arthropoda</topic><topic>Arthropods</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Communities</topic><topic>Community composition</topic><topic>Composition</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Forest conservation</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>forest succession</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Functional groups</topic><topic>Habitat fragmentation</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Islands</topic><topic>Leaf litter</topic><topic>litter fauna</topic><topic>macro‐arthropods</topic><topic>Nucleation</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Pasture</topic><topic>Plantations</topic><topic>Planting</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Regeneration</topic><topic>Restoration strategies</topic><topic>soil fauna</topic><topic>Tree planting</topic><topic>Trees</topic><topic>tropical forest restoration</topic><topic>Tropical forests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cole, Rebecca J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holl, Karen D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zahawi, Rakan A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wickey, Philipp</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Townsend, Alan R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</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>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</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>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cole, Rebecca J.</au><au>Holl, Karen D.</au><au>Zahawi, Rakan A.</au><au>Wickey, Philipp</au><au>Townsend, Alan R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration</atitle><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><date>2016-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>15</issue><spage>5158</spage><epage>5168</epage><pages>5158-5168</pages><issn>2045-7758</issn><eissn>2045-7758</eissn><abstract>Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. We sampled arthropods in four 7‐ to 8‐year‐old restoration treatments and in nearby reference forests. Sampling was conducted during the wet and dry seasons using extractions from litter and pitfall samples. Restoration treatments were replicated in 50 × 50‐m plots in four former pasture sites in southern Costa Rica: plantation – trees planted throughout the plot; applied nucleation/islands – trees planted in patches of different sizes; and natural regeneration – no tree planting. Arthropod abundance, measures of richness and diversity, and a number of functional groups were greater in the island treatment than in natural regeneration or plantation treatments and, in many cases, were similar to reference forest. Litter and pitfall morphospecies and functional group composition in all three restoration treatments were significantly different than reference sites, but island and plantation treatments showed more recovery than natural regeneration. Abundance and functional group diversity showed a much greater degree of recovery than community composition. Synthesis and applications: The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness, and functional diversity. None of the restoration strategies, however, resulted in similar community composition as reference forest after 8 years of recovery, highlighting the slow rate of recovery of arthropod communities after disturbance, and underscoring the importance of conservation of remnant forests in fragmented landscapes.
Soil and litter arthropods represent a large proportion of tropical biodiversity and perform important ecosystem functions, but little is known about the efficacy of different tropical forest restoration strategies in facilitating their recovery in degraded habitats. Arthropod abundance, richness, and functional groups were measured in three, 8‐year‐old restoration treatments (natural regeneration, plantations, and tree islands) and reference forest. The less resource‐intensive restoration strategy of planting tree islands was more effective than tree plantations in restoring arthropod abundance, richness and functional diversity although none of the restoration strategies resulted in similar composition as the reference forest.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>27551373</pmid><doi>10.1002/ece3.2220</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2045-7758 |
| ispartof | Ecology and evolution, 2016-08, Vol.6 (15), p.5158-5168 |
| issn | 2045-7758 2045-7758 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4984494 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library All Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Abundance Applied nucleation Arthropoda Arthropods Biodiversity Communities Community composition Composition Ecosystems Forest conservation Forest management forest succession Forests Functional groups Habitat fragmentation Habitats Islands Leaf litter litter fauna macro‐arthropods Nucleation Original Research Pasture Plantations Planting Recovery Regeneration Restoration strategies soil fauna Tree planting Trees tropical forest restoration Tropical forests |
| title | Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T09%3A28%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Leaf%20litter%20arthropod%20responses%20to%20tropical%20forest%20restoration&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20and%20evolution&rft.au=Cole,%20Rebecca%20J.&rft.date=2016-08&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=15&rft.spage=5158&rft.epage=5168&rft.pages=5158-5168&rft.issn=2045-7758&rft.eissn=2045-7758&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ece3.2220&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1811889542%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2290656162&rft_id=info:pmid/27551373&rfr_iscdi=true |