The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insect pollinated plants benefit from organic farming
Open accessAbstract
Organic farming is predicted to enhance diversity in agroecosystems. This study addresses the question of whether the often observed positive effect of organic farming on arable weed and pollinator diversity results in a significant shift in arable weed community structure towards a higher proportion of insect pollinated species in organic crop fields. To examine whether plant community patterns were consistent with this hypothesis, arable weed communities were compared with respect to the type of pollination (i.e. insect pollination versus non-insect pollination) in the edges and centres of 20 organic and 20 conventional wheat fields. Plant species numbers of both pollination types were much higher in organic than in conventional fields and higher in the field edge than in the field centre. A comparison of the proportions of both pollination types to all plant species revealed that the relative number of insect pollinated species was higher in organic than in conventional fields and higher at the field edge than in the field centre, whereas the relative number of non-insect pollinated species was higher in conventional fields and in the field centre. Our results show that insect pollinated plants benefit disproportionately from organic farming, which appeared to be related to higher pollinator densities in organic fields, whereas in the centres of conventional fields non-insect pollinated plants dominate presumably due to a limitation of pollinators. Hence, disruption of plant-pollinator interactions due to agricultural intensification may cause important shifts in plant community structure.
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
Cited by
Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 · Cited by 6,458
Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being
Potts, S. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H. T., Aizen, M. A., Biesmeijer, J. C., Breeze, T. D., Dicks, L. V., Garibaldi, L. A., Hill, R., Settele, J., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature20588 · Cited by 2,138
Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?
Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G., & Tscharntke, T. (2011) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009 · Cited by 671
Self-citationScheper, J., Holzschuh, A., Kuussaari, M., Potts, S. G., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H. G., & Kleijn, D. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12128 · Cited by 502
A review of the ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, using forests as a reference system
Dislich, C., Keyel, A. C., Salecker, J., Kisel, Y., Meyer, K. M., Auliya, M., Barnes, A. D., Corre, M. D., Darras, K., Faust, H., et al. (2017) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12295 · Cited by 373
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gabriel, D., & Tscharntke, T.
- Venue
- Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 1-4
- Pages
- 43-48
- ISSN
- 0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141499443
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.45
- 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
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.