Cited by 1,255Plant and animal studiesInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorInsect and Pesticide Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems

Open access

Abstract

Bees provide essential pollination services that are potentially affected both by local farm management and the surrounding landscape. To better understand these different factors, we modelled the relative effects of landscape composition (nesting and floral resources within foraging distances), landscape configuration (patch shape, interpatch connectivity and habitat aggregation) and farm management (organic vs. conventional and local‐scale field diversity), and their interactions, on wild bee abundance and richness for 39 crop systems globally. Bee abundance and richness were higher in diversified and organic fields and in landscapes comprising more high‐quality habitats; bee richness on conventional fields with low diversity benefited most from high‐quality surrounding land cover. Landscape configuration effects were weak. Bee responses varied slightly by biome. Our synthesis reveals that pollinator persistence will depend on both the maintenance of high‐quality habitats around farms and on local management practices that may offset impacts of intensive monoculture agriculture.

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/ele.12082

Cites

46 of 46 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 48 references

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bates D., 2011, R Package Version 0.999375‐39
  2. McGarigal K., 2002, FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps
  3. 10.1023/A:1008107902848 · DOI
  4. Tallis H.T., 2011, InVEST 2.1 beta User's Guide: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs, 260
  5. Westrich P., 1996, The Conservation of Bees, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Kennedy, C. M., Lonsdorf, E., Neel, M. C., Williams, N. M., Ricketts, T. H., Winfree, R., Bommarco, R., Brittain, C., Burley, A. L., Cariveau, D., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chacoff, N. P., Cunningham, S. A., Danforth, B. N., Dudenhöffer, J., Elle, E., Gaines, H. R., Garibaldi, L. A., Gratton, C., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Javorek, S. K., Jha, S., Klein, A. M., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M. M., Morandin, L., Neame, L. A., Otieno, M., Park, M., Potts, S. G., Rundlöf, M., Saez, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., Taki, H., Viana, B. F., Westphal, C., Wilson, J. K., Greenleaf, S. S., & Kremen, C.
Affiliations
  • Lincoln Park Zoo (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Naturalis Biodiversity Center (NL)
  • National University of Tucumán (AR)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • Department of Entomology University of Wisconsin 1630 Linden Drive Madison WI 53706 USA
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Laboratorio Ecotono‐CRUB Universidad Nacional del Comahue ‐ INIBIOMA (8400) San Carlos de Bariloche Río Negro Argentina
  • Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology Biocenter University of Würzburg Am Hubland 97074 Würzburg Germany
  • Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (JP)
  • Universidade Federal da Bahia (BR)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Kennedy, Christina M.
Venue
Ecology Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-11
Volume
16
Issue
5
Pages
584-599
ISSN
  • 1461-023X (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-0248
OpenAlex
W2151300021
Cited by
1,255
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 83 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 119 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 126 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 94 · 2016: 89 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 20
FWCI
84.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (publishedVersion)
  • Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0072909, 0919128)
  • World Wildlife Fund
  • Harvard University
  • New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station
  • Nature Conservancy
  • European Commission (244090)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KL 1849/4-1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect and Pesticide Research
Keywords
wild bees, pollinators, agroecosystems, landscape composition, landscape configuration, farm management, organic farming, conventional farming, nesting habitat, floral resources, patch connectivity, pollinator abundance, pollinator species richness, pollination services, monoculture agriculture, land cover
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Bees, Climate, Models, Theoretical, Population Density, Ecosystem, Crops, Agricultural, Flowers, Pollination

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