Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EDITOR'S CHOICE: Enhancing gardens as habitats for flower‐visiting aerial insects (pollinators): should we plant native or exotic species?

Open access
Salisbury, Andrew, Armitage, James, Bostock, Helen, Perry, Joe, Tatchell, Mark, Thompson, Ken·2015·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Domestic gardens typically consist of a mixture of native and non‐native plants which support biodiversity and provide valuable ecosystem services, particularly in urban environments. Many gardeners wish to encourage biodiversity by choosing appropriate plant taxa. The value of native and non‐native plants in supporting animal biodiversity is, however, largely unknown. The relative value of native and non‐native garden plants to invertebrates was investigated in a replicated field experiment. Plots (deliberately akin to garden borders) were planted with one of three treatments, representing assemblages of plants based on origin (native, near‐native and exotic). Invertebrates and resource measurements were recorded over four years. This paper reports the abundance of flower‐visiting aerial insects (‘pollinators’) associated with the three plant assemblages. For all pollinator groups on all treatments, greater floral resource resulted in an increase in visits. There was, however, a greater abundance of total pollinators recorded on native and near‐native treatments compared with the exotic plots. Short‐tongued bumblebees followed the same pattern whilst more hoverflies were recorded on the native treatment than the other treatments, and more honeybees on the near‐native treatment. There was no difference between treatments in abundance of long‐tongued bumblebees or solitary bees. The lack of difference in solitary bee abundance between treatments was probably due to a third of individuals from this group being recorded on one exotic plant species. The number of flower visitors corresponded to the peak flowering period of the treatments, that is there were fewer flower visitors to the exotic treatment compared with the other treatments in early summer but relatively more later in the season. Synthesis and applications. This experiment has demonstrated that utilizing plants from only a single region of origin (i.e. nativeness) may not be an optimal strategy for resource provision for pollinating insects in gardens. Gardens can be enhanced as a habitat by planting a variety of flowering plants, biased towards native and near‐native species but with a selection of exotics to extend the flowering season and potentially provide resources for specialist groups.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2664.12499

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 41 references

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Salisbury, A., Armitage, J., Bostock, H., Perry, J., Tatchell, M., & Thompson, K.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-11
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
1156-1164
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W1694297514
Cited by
275
References
41
FWCI
17.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: EDITOR'S CHOICE: Enhancing gardens as habitats for flower‐visiting aerial insects (pollinators): should we plant native or exotic species? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2664.12499
The paper
Salisbury, A., Armitage, J., Bostock, H., Perry, J., Tatchell, M., & Thompson, K. (2015). EDITOR'S CHOICE: Enhancing gardens as habitats for flower‐visiting aerial insects (pollinators): should we plant native or exotic species? Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12499

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.