The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why we love bees and hate wasps
Open accessAbstract
1. Bees and wasps are important facets of natural capital to be valued by human societies: bees pollinate wild flowers and agricultural crops; wasps regulate arthropod populations, including insect vectors of human diseases and crop pests. Despite the importance of both taxa, bees are universally loved whilst wasps are universally despised. This study explores some of the reasons behind this. 2. Here data are presented from almost 750 members of the public on their perceptions of insects, including bees and wasps. In addition, an analysis is conducted of researcher effort on bees and wasps, using publication numbers of peer‐reviewed papers over the last 37 years, and unpublished conference proceedings at specialist international conferences over the last 16 years. 3. The results show that wasps are indeed universally disliked by the public and moreover are unpopular research taxa among researchers. Words used to describe wasps are emotive and negative, whilst those describing bees are functional and positive. A low level of interest in nature and a lack of knowledge (among the public) and research effort (among scientists) regarding the ecosystem services of wasps are likely to be at the root of the negative perception. Whilst the ecosystem services of bees are well understood by the public, those provided by wasps are poorly understood. 4. Positive action to promote research on wasps and to overhaul the public image of wasps via outreach and the media could help to reset the imbalance in appreciation of two of the world's most ecologically important taxa. Cultural shifts to a more positive attitude towards wasps could be pivotal in working with these facets of natural capital, rather than against them.
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
More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
Hallmann, C. A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Müller, A., Sumser, H., Hörren, T., et al. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 · Cited by 3,499
The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects
LOSEY, J. E., & VAUGHAN, M. (2006) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:tevoes]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,942
Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature interactions
Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1225 · Cited by 1,802
Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England
Woodcock, B. A., Isaac, N. J. B., Bullock, J. M., Roy, D. B., Garthwaite, D. G., Crowe, A., & Pywell, R. F. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12459 · Cited by 550
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 · cited 1×
“…Entomology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Entomological Society Ecological Entomology, 43, 836–845 (Prather et al., 2013; Ollerton et al., 2014; Hallmann et al., 2017); such declines are likely to be affecting the associated ecosystem services (Prather et al., 2013;…”
Background
Cited by
Large language models debunk fake and sensational wildlife news
Santangeli, A., Mammola, S., Nanni, V., & Lambertucci, S. A. (2024) · Integrative Conservation · doi:10.1002/inc3.55 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Sumner, S., Law, G., & Cini, A.
- Venue
- Ecological Entomology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-09-19
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 836-845
- ISSN
- 0307-6946 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2311
- OpenAlex
- W2892375314
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 19.66
- 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: Why we love bees and hate wasps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/een.12676
- The paper
- Sumner, S., Law, G., & Cini, A. (2018). Why we love bees and hate wasps. Ecological Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12676
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.