The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale
Open accessAbstract
We assessed national scale changes in the forage plants of bumblebees in Britain, as a means of providing quantitative evidence for the likely principal cause of declines in bumblebee species. We quantified the relative value of native and long-established plant species as forage (nectar and pollen) resources for bumblebees by collating visitation data from 14 field sites across Britain. Twentieth Century changes in range and frequency of these forage plants were assessed using data from the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (1930–1969 to 1987–1999) and the Countryside Surveys of Britain (1978–1998). Forage plants declined in both large-scale range and local-scale frequency between the two survey periods. These changes were of greater magnitude than changes in other native plant species, reflecting serious reductions in quality of foraging habitats for bees as well as a general decline in insect-pollinated plants. Seventy-six percent of forage plants declined in frequency within 1-km squares, including those (e.g. Trifolium pratense) of particular value for threatened bumblebee species. We consider how our findings relate to other recorded changes in the British flora, how they may help to explain declines in bumblebees and how they could contribute to a conservation strategy.
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
Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis
Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., & Lawton, J. H. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1095046 · Cited by 955
Self-citation
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
Decline and conservation of bumble bees
Goulson, D., Lye, G. C., & Darvill, B. (2008) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454 · Cited by 1,183
Self-citationBlaauw, B. R., & Isaacs, R. (2014) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12257 · Cited by 631
Extinctions of aculeate pollinators in Britain and the role of large-scale agricultural changes
Ollerton, J., Erenler, H., Edwards, M., & Crockett, R. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257259 · Cited by 431
Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest
Grixti, J. C., Wong, L. T., Cameron, S. A., & Favret, C. (2009) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.027 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Carvell, C., Roy, D. B., Smart, S. M., Pywell, R. F., Preston, C. D., & Goulson, D.
- Venue
- Biological Conservation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 481-489
- ISSN
- 0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006510809
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.26
- 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: Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.008
- The paper
- Carvell, C., Roy, D. B., Smart, S. M., Pywell, R. F., Preston, C. D., & Goulson, D. (2006). Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.008
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.