The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques
Open accessAbstract
The decline of bees has raised concerns regarding their conservation and the maintenance of ecosystem services they provide to bee‐pollinated wild flowers and crops. Although the Mediterranean region is a hotspot for bee species richness, their status remains poorly studied. There is an urgent need for cost‐effective, reliable, and unbiased sampling methods that give good bee species richness estimates. This study aims: (a) to assess bee species richness in two common Mediterranean habitat types: semi‐natural scrub (phrygana) and managed olive groves; (b) to compare species richness in those systems to that of other biogeographic regions, and (c) to assess whether six different sampling methods (pan traps, variable and standardized transect walks, observation plots and trap nests), previously tested in other European biogeographic regions, are suitable in Mediterranean communities. Eight study sites, four per habitat type, were selected on the island of Lesvos, Greece. The species richness observed was high compared to other habitat types worldwide for which comparable data exist. Pan traps collected the highest proportion of the total bee species richness across all methods at the scale of a study site. Variable and standardized transect walks detected the highest total richness over all eight study sites. Trap nests and observation plots detected only a limited fraction of the bee species richness. To assess the total bee species richness in bee diversity hotspots, such as the studied habitats, we suggest a combination of transect walks conducted by trained bee collectors and pan trap sampling.
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
Cites
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2001) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2001.s574 · Cited by 9,278
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/b98882 · Cited by 930
Cited by
Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14324 · Cited by 4,352
Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., Hill, S. L. L., Hoskins, A. J., Lysenko, I., Phillips, H. R. P., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2201 · Cited by 1,119
Metadata
- Authors
- Nielsen, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., Westphal, C., Messinger, O., Potts, S. G., Roberts, S. P. M., Settele, J., Szentgyörgyi, H., Vaissière, B. E., Vaitis, M., Woyciechowski, M., Bazos, I., Biesmeijer, J. C., Bommarco, R., Kunin, W. E., Tscheulin, T., Lamborn, E., & Petanidou, T.
- Venue
- Ecological Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-06-18
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 969-983
- ISSN
- 0912-3814 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-1703
- OpenAlex
- W2016579990
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11284-011-0852-1
- The paper
- Nielsen, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., Westphal, C., Messinger, O., Potts, S. G., Roberts, S. P. M., Settele, J., Szentgyörgyi, H., Vaissière, B. E., Vaitis, M., Woyciechowski, M., Bazos, I., Biesmeijer, J. C., Bommarco, R., Kunin, W. E., Tscheulin, T., Lamborn, E., & Petanidou, T. (2011). Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques. Ecological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-011-0852-1
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.